Do you use PC races as monsters?

[JohnRL]

Every edition's monster manual as far as I can tell has entries for dwarves, halflings, elves, etc., that have a similar listing as monsters. These usually include tactics for attacking the party, etc.

Does anyone ever use these? Do you ever use a warparty of neutral elves attacking the party as unprovoked as a clan of gnolls or a pack of wolves?

I think that my group would have major issues if I started using PC races as monsters. A specific named NPC as a villain, sure. Maybe even members of an evil cult. But just "these are generic dwarves attacking your group" - I don't see that flying.

If my view is typical, then why do game designers keep adding PC races as monsters? Beyond "this is what a typical warrior of this race looks like for comparison purposes" what good does it do to stat up a bunch of things that most players will never fight?

Ditto for good-aligned dragons, angels, etc.

Retreater

I wouldn't use randomly encountered demihumans in an unprovoked attack, but I would happily use them in a conflict of interests that might lead to combat. The stats are also useful for communities or patrols of demihumans who might fight along side rather than against the PCs.
The idea of evil/aggressive humans and demihumans is one I have used before, but not as random encounters. Humans can certainly be the villains and have lots of human henchmen and footsoldiers - why not demihumans? I think it was Keraptis of White Plume Mountain fame who had an army of evil gnomes. Guess what stats I would use for the rank and file of Keraptis' forces?
I think one problem is the presence of drow, duergar, derro and spriggans make some folks think that because those are the evil sub-races of demihumans, any normal-look demihumans are good or neutral. Big assumption that....

 

[Jacob Marley]

Good-races or communities may still find themselves in conflict. Frex, I used the conflict between factions of the same community, the followers of a lawful good cleric of the goddess of agriculture who wanted to clear a forest for more farmland and the followers of a neutral good druid dedicated to stopping them. The conflict manifested itself in monkeywrenching and similar non-lethal direct action by each faction in the village.

One of my favorite conflicts is the long-standing rivalry between the generally LN & LG followers of St. Cuthbert and the generally LN & LG followers of Pholtus in the World of Greyhawk. This rivalry is known to become so intense and lead to fighting between the two churches. Often, the LG followers of Rao and Heironeous are forced to mediate disputes between the rival churches.

For me, the relationships (and the conflicts which arise) between these four LG churches is far more interesting than the traditional Good versus Evil battles that are often seen in D&D.

 

[pawsplay]

There's no reason chaotic good beings can't, or won't, take prisoners.

And there's no reason Good beings can't, or won't, take lives. An aligned being has reasons for its actions.

The difference between lawful and chaotic in this instance is where the authority to imprison comes from. In a lawful society, it comes from duly-constituted institutions, such as king's magistrates; in a chaotic society, it's vested in the judgement of a respected individual like an elder or a chief.
/quote]

That's a terrible example. An elder or chief is a duly-whatever authority.

I'm not going to interpret the rules of a game in terms of real-world moral and ethical considerations. That way lies madness.

So no easy to understand analogies? Ok, moving on...

All else being equal, a good-aligned watchman shouts, "Who goes there?" and attempts to take a miscreant prisoner if possible.

But things aren't always equal. Again, a group of elves may be extremely hostile to what is obviously a scouting party, and they may have no inclination to keep prisoners-for-life. And they may justifiably claim that the trespassers brought it upon themselves.

That's a social more which can be found in any alignment on the law-chaos axis; it has nothing to do with good or evil.If the good-aligned ruler of a kingdom felt that gaining control over another largely good-aligned kingdom would improve the quality of life for the latter, he has a number of other means at his disposal, such as politicking the dynastic succession, like backing a rival claimant or marrying into the dynasty.

Since Good beings value "dignity of sentient beings," simply marrying into ruleship could itself be problematic. And what happens if the populace revolts against the new order? What if politicking takes too long?

Good-aligned beings act with restraint because of their respect for life. Evil beings do not show this same restraint.

I don't see any indications that Good beings act with restraint. Most Paladins certainly don't.

 

[TerraDave]

Thats what 4Es designers said...

Yes, of course I have used PC races.

Some other things to consider:

-non-lethal combat aka brawling
-the creature being a potential ally of the PCs