D&D Race You Hate the Most
- Thread starter Mattachine
- Start date
That's probably part of it as well.
Dragonborn showed up at the end of 3.5, they were actually other races turned into dragon men via Bahamut, and nobody knows this or anything else about pre-4E Dragonborn. They're just brand new monstrous PCs that virtually nobody has pre-4E history with.
Too bad Eladrin were not on the list, but people like Eladrin because the teleport is just so potent.
FireLance
Legend
You know what I mean. There's a segment of the gamer population who take dolorous umbrage at any "new" class or race in the "core".4E wasn't the first PHB.
Holy Bovine
First Post
4E wasn't the first PHB.
Unless you started playing D&D with 4E...
About the only 2 races I have never gotten behind are gnomes and tieflings. Gnomes just bore me (and I love taking the piss out of gnome lovers) and tieflings are, to me, the only races that screams "I'm evil!" to me. I don't do or allow evil PCs and a good (or even neutral) tiefling seems a big contradiction to me. Demons and Devils (and Angels) are the only beings that have 100% fixed alignments in my games. You will never run into a LG Demon (or a NG or CN or anything other than CE!) in my games but you can certainly encounter a tribe of NG goblins...
Mithreinmaethor
First Post
There was not a choice for All Monster races.
Oh, you mean like Tieflings?
I don't think your theory holds too well since Tieflings didn't get the short shift that Dragonborn got here.
I think Shemeska's theory that Dragonborn are basically brand new across the board is more on the mark.
I agree about devils and angels, but I expand that a lot more.
I actually like the concept of standard racial alignment and behaviors. Racial, not cultural.
It allows players to understand the world system easier without a lot of extra unknown baggage.
When every race can be any alignment (more or less human personality where anything goes), it brings up a lot of moral conundrums that don't belong in an FRPG. I'm playing the game to have fun, not to constantly second guess my PC's actions. Having NG goblins is like meeting a tribe of creatures and getting attacked because the PCs didn't bow when they approached. There's no way that the players can know in either case shy of the DM throwing out a bunch of clues, so the players make cultural mistakes. Meh. That level of campaign world detail isn't necessary to make the game fun, in fact it often does the opposite.
I have no problem with an occasional NPC of a given race being atypical, but I don't like the concept that racial stereotyping in a game system is not allowed (and I think that NPCs should resort to racial stereotyping as well, Changlings are sneaky and baby stealers, hence, don't allow them in your town). I can be a human rights advocate in the real world, I don't want to do that in a game. In a game, I want to kill evil things, help good folk, and not have the DM throw me an NPC alignment curve ball based on his mindset du jour half of the time.
DM: "That was actually a good tiefling you killed."
Player: "Of course. You know the saying, the only good tiefling is a dead tiefling. He's now good."
Lwaxy
Cute but dangerous
Then you need to make all races fixed, like all humans are true neutral, all elves are CG and all halflings are NG... or whatever you think fits them best. Why should they be different?
Racial stereotyping is so silly and boring to me. And given that I have seen players equal certain races with RL cultures before I do think it is somewhat essential to abandon it.
Racial stereotyping is so silly and boring to me. And given that I have seen players equal certain races with RL cultures before I do think it is somewhat essential to abandon it.
SensoryThought
First Post
And to clarify, I prefer earlier Tieflings to the look of the 4e uber demonic versions. I find the best pc races tend to look the most 'human'.
