D&D 5E Greyhawk: Player Options for a Campaign Setting

[Luz]

I do not think the scarlet brotherhood should ever have a playable option as they are honestly completely evil.

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.

 

[Mind of tempest]

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.

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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I do not think the scarlet brotherhood should ever have a playable option as they are honestly completely evil.

Evil PCs are a thing. Just because you don't care for the concept doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

 

[Yaarel]

Evil PCs are a thing. Just because you don't care for the concept doesn't mean it 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?

 

[Parmandur]

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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

Of course not. I just object to the idea that they shouldn't exist.

 

[Parmandur]

Of course not. I just object to the idea that they shouldn't exist.

In brand terms, they should not.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In brand terms, they should not.

Not a good business move, no. But also not my personal priority.

 

[Voadam]

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.

There seems to be mechanical support in core 5e D&D for evil PC concepts.

The PH has an assassin subclass.
You can have a PC concept of selling your soul to devils for power. Or be a Cthulhu/Old Ones/Mythos cultist.

I found this quote in the DMG, page 92:

"Class Options. In addition to the class options in the Player's Handbook, two additional class options are available for evil player characters and NPCs: the Death domain for clerics and the oathbreaker for paladins. Both options are detailed at the end of this chapter."

Paladins no longer need to be good the way they were in older editions. They can be any alignment.

I have not gone through the Ravenloft book player options in depth yet but I would not be surprised to see something that could support an evil PC concept.

As for the future and what they will or will not put in the books compared to what they have been putting in, we will see.

For a Greyhawk setting book it would not surprise me to see evil cleric or fiend warlock suggestions for Horned Society and Iuz followers or the Great Old One pact for Tharizdun cultists.

I don't particularly think new options are all that needed to do Greyhawk though, the Scarlet Brotherhood monks are core evil monks, not close to monk mystical martial artists that require different rules to capture unique aspects of the SB. Would you give them political adviser things like a focus on intimidation and persuasion? The monster breeder stuff from the 2e sourcebook? More 1e style powers? Make up completely new stuff for them?

 

[Parmandur]

Not a good business move, no. But also not my personal priority.

As a parent, I am extremely supportive of this priority for WotC.