Do you use PC races as monsters?

[the Jester]

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?

Hell yeah!

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 you're looking at wolves and gnolls in too simplistic a manner. The real question should be, "Do you ever use a warparty of neutral elves attacking the party?"

Hell yeah!

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.

Why not? Seriously, this seems like a really strange hangup. Have they never encountered bandits? Brigands? Gold-crazy dwarves defending their claim? Xenophobic elves or gnomes? Cannibal halflings?

If my view is typical, then why do game designers keep adding PC races as monsters?

My guess is that your view is extremely atypical.

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.

First of all, not all campaigns are simplistic good-vs-evil affairs. Anything with moral complexity, shades of gray or an acknowledgement that just because two guys are the same alignment doesn't mean they can't be enemies will offer plenty of opportunities to fight good monsters.

That's without even bringing up evil parties, which are a tradition dating back to the earliest days of D&D, despite the occasional attempts to recast D&D as strictly heroic.

 

[The Human Target]

A) Yep! I find it really weird not to fight PC races. Have you never thrown down with human bandits? Been chased by an eladrin hunting party? Had dragonborn mercenaries guard the entrance to a dark wizards manor?

B) Thats one of the things I love about the 4E monster books. Everything that in there has a reason to be fought by players of any alignment.

 

[steeldragons]

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

Well, maybe not halflings...unless you're playing Darksun.

Have I personally, not normally for "unprovoked attacks". I will reiterate that everything that attacks the PC is doing so for some legitimate reason to them.

In the case of PC races that are thought of as "good" (dwarves and elves, specifically) I, personally, haven't "attacked" a party with them. But interfere, imprison, impede, deny access to places/guard their territory...Yes! Most certainly.

Dwarves are (or were originally) portrayed as greedy...they want their riches to be theirs and will guard them accordingly...and they want YOUR riches to be theirs. Elves are traditionally, at worst, bordering on the xenophobic or, at best, aloof/have a societal belief in their superiority to...well, just about any other race. Gnomes are, well, just gnomes. You're not getting anywhere with them that doesn't give them a laugh or serve their purposes.

I remember...sometimes OFTEN..."back in the day" (1 or 2e) where a "Wandering Monster" encounter could easily be a warband of dwarves or elves or gnomes or halflings (depending on the terrain)...And they were NOT there to "help" the party. (I'm remembering a particularly embarrassing encounter where a fairly sizable mid-level party I was a member of was brought to near TPK and taken prisoner by a group of gnomes.)

On the "using monsters" tip, I have a band of goblin pirates that my current group will be dealing with shortly. While I don't have a player using one, I would not be averse to having a player create a goblin character.

My game world also allows for such "monster" PCs as Centaurs, Satyrs, Lizardmen plus some homebrew races (an avian and a felinoid) that could easily be encountered as "monsters" even if there were a PC of one of those races in the group.

I couldn't/wouldn't (as a DM) open the floodgates of "any monstrous humanoids can be PCs"...but for a chosen few that have a certain flavor (and don't have outrageous abilities) or particular place in the setting, I see no problem with using "monsters as PCs" nor with using "(traditional) PC races as 'monsters'".

--Steel Dragons

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Yup, I use them. I've got no problem using humans as opponents for most any reason (because they're evil, territorial, mistaken, stupid, paranoid, savage, war/guild/church opponents, etc). Likewise I've got no problem with elves or dwarves or any other typically "good' races in those same adversarial roles.

And the reverse is true, too. I'll use good chromatic dragons, orcs, goblins, ghouls, or devils if there's an in-world reason for it.

 

[TheUltramark]

i know there is human rabble, and i think the dwarf one is thug, but you can make minions out of each race, i am sure, I mean The Joker and The Penguin never had a shortage of "bad guys".
Isn't there also ruffians for each race too? like a level 1or2 "monster" ???

 

[WayneLigon]

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?

Not every good being has the same goals and needs as every other good-aligned being. Two Good races can just as easily come into conflict with each other.

Elves are a good one for this. Elves typically dislike humans or dwarves trespassing in their forests. You could easily set up a group of CG elves who are nevertheless slaughtering charcoalers who are venturing into the forest too deeply, and the PCs have to stop them from doing this.

Or a group of dwarves that attacks a human town because the mayor refuses to give up that dwarf-crafted symbol of office that his ancestor stole from the dwarves many years ago.

You need stats for lots of the good-aligned creatures for summoning spells at higher levels when a cleric Gates in a couple of angels to help out the party, or summons a bronze dragon.

And, also, not everyone plays D&D as a bunch of good-aligned heroes. You could as easily have a Neutral or Evil party that needs to hunt down some pixies or angels for spell components.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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?

Yes, but...

Unprovoked? I don't know what you mean. I guess elven bandits could attack the party "unprovoked" (in which case, they're fighting for loot, and more likely to run if defeated).

But as long as the encounter makes sense, then yes.

Incidentally, neutral elves? Feel free to change their alignment.

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.

Those wouldn't be "generic dwarves" exactly. They're an "armed merchant" clan (they rob you, then sell your stuff) or the evil Dark Irons or what have you.

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?

I have to wonder why DMs don't use such "monsters" more often. Not all elves are nice tree huggers. Some are evil. Some can work well with others, too. (For instance, an encounter with a group of bandits might have three human bandits, one dwarf fighter as their "tank" and an elven archer or two, just as examples. An evil cult could recruit members from all races. In some settings, like Dark Sun, mainly evil elf tribes exist and will ambush and rob you for pretty much no reason, unprovoked.)

Sometimes (if you have slightly disruptive players) they can even be used as a "put down the stupid" button. The PCs beat up a bartender in a dwarven town for serving them poor spirits? Well now you're fighting the town watch, consisting of dwarven fighters or what have you, and no surprise, they're dwarves!

Ditto for good-aligned dragons, angels, etc.

There's always room for NPCs, but since there's no 3.x-style Summon Monster/Gate spell anymore, having angels in the books is kind of weird. (Still, there should be some support for evil parties.) IMO the issue of good-aligned dragons is less important (especially as an Eberron fan) compared to the issue of there being too many types of dragons. Sometimes the multitude of 3.x/4e dragon types reminds me of 2e/3e elfitis.

 

[Bold or Stupid]

My parties have fought people of all races (yes even gnolls are people, they can think), and dealt peacefully with many traditional monster races.

In my home setting one party have just finished a war with a dwarven nation and the main barbarian threat is a mix of orcs and elves. One game use almost exclusively normal PC races as bad guys (city campaign).

Even Good creatures can be foes, all it takes is opposing goals, a party killed some angels of Ioun because they were digging up hidden info about a dangerous artifact they needed (for noble reasons).

 

[Michael Silverbane]

What's the difference between an onion and an elf?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

No one cries when you cut up an elf.

 

[The Shaman]

Not every good being has the same goals and needs as every other good-aligned being. Two Good races can just as easily come into conflict with each other.

Elves are a good one for this. Elves typically dislike humans or dwarves trespassing in their forests. You could easily set up a group of CG elves who are nevertheless slaughtering charcoalers who are venturing into the forest too deeply, and the PCs have to stop them from doing this.

Or a group of dwarves that attacks a human town because the mayor refuses to give up that dwarf-crafted symbol of office that his ancestor stole from the dwarves many years ago.

You need stats for lots of the good-aligned creatures for summoning spells at higher levels when a cleric Gates in a couple of angels to help out the party, or summons a bronze dragon.

In any case I prefer games without an excess of monsters - the conflicts between humans, demihumans, and humanoids make

And, also, not everyone plays D&D as a bunch of good-aligned heroes. You could as easily have a Neutral or Evil party that needs to hunt down some pixies or angels for spell components.

Worth repeating. I particularly like the Eagle of the Ninth scenario.

I have one quibble. I take exception to chaotic good elves 'slaughtering' trepassers in the forest - in the games I've run, they're far more likely to use spells like sleep and charm person than a barrage of fireballs, or they will resort to non-lethal traps to ensnare or misdirect the adventurers rather than a hail of arrows.

This goes toward another idea: not all 'hostile' encounters need to involve combat.

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.

The conflict between dwarves and elves over forests can play out similarly - dwarves need wood for support timbers and weapon hafts and charcoal for forges, and wood elves may resist this. I've allowed racial animus to push this into lethal conflicts, but usually these are more like a series of sharp skirmishes than actual wars as the good-aligned leaders of each of the demihuman tribes try to minimize bloodshed while still gaining the advantage.

Good-aligned monsters may be found as guardians in places likes crypts or shrines and will protect these places as readily as their evil-aligned counterparts. This can create an interesting conundrum for the adventurers - raiding a tomb of an evil cleric is one thing, but raiding the tomb of a paladin may test their scruples.