I agree. Remove the g-word and then move ahead with traditional re-Greyhawk-ization.Rhennee would need a serious re-think, or, at minimum, a very careful revision.
Sticking to political and religious organizations is probably better. Still not exactly a controversy free zone there, but much less problematic.I think that leaning on different human ethnicities is something that could go very well or spectacularly badly. People with any number of axes to grind are going to go over the work with a very fine toothed comb. Whether from the Greyhawk canon side making sure that the material is fitting with their interpretation of Greyhawk to folks who are going to be looking for more … let’s say folks with a more political bent on either side of the fence.
I like the idea but WOW is that a tough row to hoe.
One of the benefits of defining a culture as an assemblage of backgrounds is it is easy to add and remove a background, allowing the culture to adapt and evolve. An assemblage is fluid. The book can describe one community while mentioning other communities can have assemblages that differ.Sticking to political and religious organizations is probably better. Still not exactly a controversy free zone there, but much less problematic.
Yeah, agreed. Like I said, it's something that's REALLY easy to screw up - in either direction really. Total minefield. So, I wouldn't blame WotC at all for just saying, "Nope, not going to touch it". Granted, that'll likely annoy everyone at the same time, but, a heck of a lot less than stepping on some political land mine and watching it blow up into a massive Twitter fitshorm that just makes everyone a lot more angry.Sticking to political and religious organizations is probably better. Still not exactly a controversy free zone there, but much less problematic.
Sorry to bang this drum again, but, this is exactly what Primeval Thule did. Character Narratives gave you features at 1st, 6th and 10th. For example, an Atlantean Noble gets:Relating to background, I want some gain of a relevant noncombat feature at each tier: something like levels 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17. For example, at level 9, the character heads an institution, like a wizard school, political office, fortress, or so on.
Skill Training (1st level): You are trained in History and Persuasion. As a noble, you were instructed in the events that shaped your family’s legacy, and learned the arts of diplomacy.
Urgent Command (1st level): On your turn, you can use a bonus action to allow one ally within 30 feet of you to make a single melee or ranged attack as a combat reaction. You can use this ability once, and then you must rest to regain it.
Noble’s Grace (6th level): Your air of nobility and confidence gives you greater influence over other people in positions of power. You have tactical advantage on ability checks or skill checks to interact with nobles and leaders.
Noble Patriarch (10th level): You become the official patriarch of your noble house. You are nominated to a seat of power in your home city, appointed to a ruling body, or awarded some similar great honor. You gain access to the wealth of your house and the authority to command its soldiers; you have a high income, and a company of followers equivalent to legionaries (see the sidebar on Page 79). At 15th level, your followers improve to veterans.
I am fine with a "smidgeon" of combat stuff, within the noncombat "silo", if mostly for flavor, such as a Deer Hunter background gaining proficiency with a longbow, or whatever, as long as the focus is on the vocation itself.Sorry to bang this drum again, but, this is exactly what Primeval Thule did. Character Narratives gave you features at 1st, 6th and 10th. For example, an Atlantean Noble gets:
Note, this was all written before 5e had even released, so the verbiage is a bit rough, but, you get the idea. Smidgeon of combat stuff, but, mostly exactly what you're talking about.
I do not think the scarlet brotherhood should ever have a playable option as they are honestly completely evil.Apologies if this has appeared earlier, but I’m surprised no one has mentioned Greyhawk Grognard’s work on this exact topic.
I don’t totally disagree, but a player could take the Drizz’t route for a SB character idea. Drow are every bit as evil as the SB, maybe worse. Just sayin.I do not think the scarlet brotherhood should ever have a playable option as they are honestly completely evil.
the scarlet brotherhood are a group of basically Neo-Nazise they are not a race, as races are massive no matter how many were the hat of evil one will have it fall off because of different life experience, organisation of purity obsessed nutters are well less likely to have that happen, plus giving them cool exclusive power makes them cool, I would just make them enemy monk stat blocks instead.I don’t totally disagree, but a player could take the Drizz’t route for a SB character idea. Drow are every bit as evil as the SB, maybe worse. Just sayin.
Like most player option material, not all of GG’s hit the mark for me, but there are still some very good ideas that are thematic with the GH setting.
Evil PCs are a thing. Just because you don't care for the concept doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.I do not think the scarlet brotherhood should ever have a playable option as they are honestly completely evil.
Of course, but Evil PCs is something that both players and the DM need to agree on. It is inherently "variant", and noncore.Evil PCs are a thing. Just because you don't care for the concept doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.
They are actively discouraged by WotC, and explicitly not supported. There wonbeany sourcebook un the future, literally ever, thst enables an actively evil PC concept.Evil PCs are a thing. Just because you don't care for the concept doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.
Of course not. I just object to the idea that they shouldn't exist.Of course, but Evil PCs is something that both players and the DM need to agree on. It is inherently "variant", and noncore.
Plus, in todays zeitgeist, do you really think WotC would make N*zis a playable anything?
In brand terms, they should not.Of course not. I just object to the idea that they shouldn't exist.
Not a good business move, no. But also not my personal priority.In brand terms, they should not.
There seems to be mechanical support in core 5e D&D for evil PC concepts.They are actively discouraged by WotC, and explicitly not supported. There wonbeany sourcebook un the future, literally ever, thst enables an actively evil PC concept.
As a parent, I am extremely supportive of this priority for WotC.Not a good business move, no. But also not my personal priority.