D&D 5E Correct way to RP this Situation

[redrick]

The "my character hates all of creature type X" is a fun thing to mess with as a DM. For example, a Lawful Good vengeance paladin in my campaign is driven by a personal hatred for demons. Y'know who else hates demons? Devils! This is how a devil becomes a "quest NPC" and patron for a LG paladin.

Similarly, any character driven by a grudge opens the door to interesting possibilities that come from other characters who share that hatred. Nothing prevents you from giving a similar motivation to any of the creatures in your game. Your paladin hates all dragonborn? Those goblins in tonight's first encounter could become dragonborn-haters, and introduced as they're in the middle of a fight with a dragonborn. The PC can pick a side, there's no wrong answer, and if you as the DM run with it you can turn that into a thread that runs as far as you want it to.

Thank you for these suggestions!

Sorry to derail, OP. Lots of great stuff in this thread that you are hopefully chewing on!

 

[Shasarak]

I feel like you're trying real hard to be obtuse.

Maybe I can clarify for you. What are you having trouble with?

 

[pemerton]

your church would already have accepted doctrine on this.

<snip>

Your religious training was so your character wouldn't have to guess how to act in these types of situations.

Sure, but that doesn't really help the OP. Just assume that s/he is asking for advice on what the PC's church's doctrine is!

personally, as far as character concepts go, I find it weak sauce, and I don't love DM'ing for it.

<snip>

while it's easy to play, I don't think it really adds a lot to the role-play. The game is full of reasons to fight and kill monsters.

For me, it depends a lot on the campaign background and how the players (and therefore their PCs) hook onto that.

In my 4e game, the reflexive hatred of hobgoblins from the one PC I mentioned has been a (mild) source of conflict in the party - another PC, the drow sorcerer, has a habit of taking pledges of good conduct from defeated humanoid opponents and sending them on their way.

And in my BW game, it's pretty much taken for granted that an instinct like "Attack orcs and goblins on sight" will get you into trouble - that's the way the game is meant to work.

On the other hand, I think a game that was based around GDQ would run completely fine with PCs playing elves who have no qualms about killing drow, and generalise about all of them in a hostile way.

I am also, personally, pretty uncomfortable with players declaring "my character is racist!" and having that mean nothing more than, "so I fight orcs a lot." That's a very flippant approach to something that is pretty dark.

For me, this is another thing where campaign tone and approach makes a huge difference. On these boards, in past conversations where I've suggested that Tolkien's treatment of orcs and Easterlings in his fictions is deeply racist, I've had replies that, because orcs are fictional, literary treatment of them can't be racist, nor relate to real political concerns in the real world. I don't think that reply shows great insight into Tolkien and his literary aspirations, but I can imagine very light-hearted/thematically fairly shallow D&D campaigns where that sort of reply would make sense.

That's why, when I say to the OP that there's no correct answer, I really mean it. It depends so much on the tone and aspirations of the campaign, the views and expectations of the other participants, etc.

I have a ton of respect for you and your approach to D&D based on what you've written on these boards.

Thanks. It's mutual.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Mechanics - what's INT and WIS scores? May affect ability to see two sides to an argument.

Flavour - your Pal continued in service to Bahamut despite the kidnap and trauma which indicates a LG/NG aspect of forgiveness baked in.

Could be a Vengeance vow to bring revenge against those specific dragonborn, exemplifying as they do all that is worst in dragonborn. Much like the tale of the judge, who, upon hearing that the accused was a fellow mason, punished him more severely than he would have a non mason as, being a mason, the fellow should've shown more moral rectitude. Which sounds kind of LNish.

Being distrustful of draconic creatures whilst worshipping their God - interesting situation. Over compensation? They're not all as bad - they were the exception that proved the rule - give em a second chance - but if they cross you, twice as merciless in your revenge.