D&D General I finally like non-Tolkien species for PCs

[RealAlHazred]

For those who are on the fence about Tieflings, let me recommend you check out a game/setting called Midnight Realm, by Stephen Michael Sechi, the creator of Talislanta. The book has been released for free online, and is a setting with only "dark" races -- but they are all eminently playable as written. I've used the details on the Tarterans (the diabolic descendants of the setting) as inspiration for a lot of tiefling characters.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So people who allow dragonborn no matter what are cool whilst those who don't are jerks. Also people with who create settings with traditional elements are just mindlessly copying whilst those who do not do that have proper reason even though they might be just copying Greek myth or something else already established.

Mmm. Did I say that? It seems to me I did not say that. Look back at the thing I wrote before. You'll notice there are two examples that don't include dragonborn. I wonder why that is?

 

[CreamCloud0]

Given the response a mere ten minutes before yours, it sure doesn't look like a caricature.

i can't say i felt like that response was meant to be taken in an entirely serious light, but that's just IMO.

To me this is 99.99% the second thing, with the teeniest, tiniest drop of the first, and adding some more options. Bit surprised you'd have playable harpies, given their nature as...well, something pretty purely monstrous, which is so often the claimed line in the sand here.

i feel there's less difference between them than you think, while i won't deny it doesn't happen GMs don't all go around banning species for the sake of it, but they have a premise and cut away the things they feel don't fit the vibe, GMs aren't usually trying to quash options they're just trying to shape an idea into more tangibility and to that purpose what you don't include is often just as important to that effect as what you do.

as for the harpies well, i feel like nowadays players quite often are walking around as monstrous species without expecting anyone in-universe batting an eye so seeing as i felt that they fit the aesthetic yeah i'd probably include them as an option.

also the fact this is happening in session 0 is a factor, if charlie had wanted to introduce dragonborn halfway through the campaign then IMO the GM may have had more grounds to reject their addition even if there is potential appropriate myths to justify them being on-theme, i don't really believe that 'over the horizon' is a space of infinite potential to continuously dripfeed untethered people and ideas into the campaign.

so dragonborn will be rare, but playable; I'd appreciate it if no more than one other player besides Charlie picked them, as their place in the world is...complicated."

i forgot to comment on this previously but i'd rather not include an option at all than say 'only one of you can play this' that just feels like favouritism and, i think it's @Lanefan who says it, if they die then you're faced with the dilemma of making this supposedly very rare species weirdly frequent or putting your foot down and saying 'no you can't play another we established they were rare'.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But what about my Kabeiroi? He's similar to a aasimar, as he's a dwarf descended from the dwarvish sons of Hehaestus...

In fairness, the Kabeiroi are explicitly only two, and it's well-known that descendants of gods (or other entities e.g. titans) have a complex relationship with their divine parent(s) in terms of physical similarity--and other myths (such as those of Aeschylus), the Kabeiroi are explicitly gods themselves, not mortal descendants of a god. The Spartoi are repeatedly cited as being the result of what happens when you sow a dragon's teeth, and some of them went on to explicitly be the ancestors of existing groups (e.g. I believe one group of Spartoi--possibly Cadmus' group?--were held to be the ancestors of Thebes.) You also have myths like the drakaina, "dragonesses", who were apparently part-human, part-serpent, and capable of producing viable offspring with humans; one myth posits that the Scythians are the descendants of Hercules and a drakaina, for example. Finally, you have characters like Erichthonios, who was frequently depicted in late-Antiquity and Medieval art as having a half-reptilian body. Not a far leap from there to a "half-man, half-dragon" form.

But I take your point: it is worth noting that oftentimes, things we think are so utterly alien to a mythology are not quite as alien as we thought. Post-Christianization Welsh mythology, for example--which contributed to the Arthurian cycle--includes the idea that a person can be sired by a demon, specifically an incubus. Some legends about Merlin claim that's where he got his powers from, but because his mother was devout, she had the baby baptized in the very hour of his birth, and thus he got all the rad demon-powers with none of the corruption.

I used the example of Greek myth specifically because I've dug into this one rather a lot over the years, and found not just one or two, but several myths that speak of dragon-human offspring, or children who were "born" (sometimes from the Earth, autochthones) with reptilian/draconic characteristics, or a people specifically linked to reptiles/serpents (e.g. the Ophiogenes, the "serpent-born", which yes, that literally is the term used for an alleged tribe of people in ancient Greek myth.)

 

[NN]

a player with one fixed idea of a character who then demands the dm warp their creation to accomodate it - is a jerk.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

i can't say i felt like that response was meant to be taken in an entirely serious light, but that's just IMO.

We just got another. Are you still of this opinion?

i feel there's less difference between them than you think, while i won't deny it doesn't happen GMs don't all go around banning species for the sake of it, but they have a premise and cut away the things they feel don't fit the vibe, GMs aren't usually trying to quash options they're just trying to shape an idea into more tangibility and to that purpose what you don't include is often just as important to that effect as what you do.

My experience debating it with others, here and elsewhere, has made it exceptionally clear that there are LOTS of GMs out there who do exactly that, for no other reason than because they can. Quashing options purely because one can is like, step one for such folks. It's why, even when I was actively looking for new games to join, I kept an eye out for various red-flag things in any given game proposal. I'd say I avoided expressing interest (meaning, I just didn't say anything, not that someone had come to me and offered something) about half the time, because I'd see two or three red flags, among them extensive lists of banned options.

It's one of the most irritating things about the hobby, the whole ban-this, ban-that, "ban until you're blue in the face" thing. I blame the horrific imbalance of 3rd edition content teaching GMs that they absolutely had to preemptively ban everything under the sun or it would ruin their games.

as for the harpies well, i feel like nowadays players quite often are walking around as monstrous species without expecting anyone in-universe batting an eye so seeing as i felt that they fit the aesthetic yeah i'd probably include them as an option.

I think that's a somewhat jaundiced take, but whatever.

also the fact this is happening in session 0 is a factor, if charlie had wanted to introduce dragonborn halfway through the campaign then IMO the GM may have had more grounds to reject their addition even if there is potential appropriate myths to justify them being on-theme, i don't really believe that 'over the horizon' is a space of infinite potential to continuously dripfeed untethered people and ideas into the campaign.

Sure. Midway changes are usually more difficult. I think it behooves GMs to leave themselves a little wiggle room, but some choose not to do that and must live with the consequences.

i forgot to comment on this previously but i'd rather not include an option at all than say 'only one of you can play this' that just feels like favouritism and, i think it's @Lanefan who says it, if they die then you're faced with the dilemma of making this supposedly very rare species weirdly frequent or putting your foot down and saying 'no you can't play another we established they were rare'.

Okay, but that basically just means the GM can never ever allow anyone to play anything rare ever--everyone has to play only things that are extremely common, period, end of discussion. That seems just as extreme as saying no race is ever rare, period, end of discussion. Surely there has to be a middle ground?

Besides, I thought it was extremely traditionalist to have players instantaneously pick up Bob IV, cousin to Bob III who was the son of Bob II who was the brother of Bob I. Don't see why we couldn't do that exact same thing here. All your characters are just trying to avenge their <brother/uncle/cousin/etc.>

 

[RealAlHazred]

In fairness, the Kabeiroi are explicitly only two

throws the character binder over shoulder, pulls another character folder out from under the table

Okay, that's fine, dwarf artificers are old hat. Hear me out, this Dwarf is a Pygmy from the Southern Ocean, with ranger levels, who is devoted to Hera...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Mmm. Did I say that? It seems to me I did not say that. Look back at the thing I wrote before. You'll notice there are two examples that don't include dragonborn. I wonder why that is?

Yes, some of your original sets did not include dragonborn. However, in the later example a GM has chosen a set, and the difference between jerk and non-jerk GM to you is which of them is willing to alter their initial set to include dragonborn.

And ultimately the question is whether the GM is allowed to have a curated palette or not. Because if the answer is "yes" then it logically follows that the GM is allowed to say "no" to some player request. Though of course in my experience it is unlikely to come up, as most people are courteous enough to accept the premise GM has presented, and do not ask for any significant alterations.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

throws the character binder over shoulder, pulls another character folder out from under the table

Okay, that's fine, dwarf artificers are old hat. Hear me out, this Dwarf is a Pygmy from the Southern Ocean, with ranger levels, who is devoted to Hera...

A pygmy, you say? Well congratulations, you've convinced me! Those are objectively present in Greek myth, some of the most important Greek myths we know even.

Pygmies would be halflings though, as they're explicitly described as never exceeding "three spans" tall in the Illiad, which is equivalent to 27 inches. That's definitely a halfling, rather than a dwarf (who have always been medium-size, despite their shorter stature than humans). Devotion to Hera is fine, though for a Ranger I would generally have expected Artemis. (She did, after all, have both female and male Hunters of Artemis, so that's fine.) Any specific reason why you would be devoted to Hera?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, some of your original sets did not include dragonborn. However, in the later example a GM has chosen a set, and the difference between jerk and non-jerk GM to you is which of them is willing to alter their initial set to include dragonborn.

And ultimately the question is whether the GM is allowed to have a curated palette or not. Because if the answer is "yes" then it logically follows that the GM is allowed to say "no" to some player request. Though of course in my experience it is unlikely to come up, as most people are courteous enough to accept the premise GM has presented, and do not ask for any significant alterations.

The answer is "too complicated to summarize with a single word". Mu, one might say.

It must--always--be a give-and-take, for everyone. Receptivity and respect from everyone. Not unilateral absolute power on one side and a forced choice between absolute obedience or bridge-burning on the other. GMs have more latitude; that means they are held to higher standards as a result. GMs restrict more things than players--and should; that means they must genuinely sell their players on those restrictions, and part of doing so is being receptive to reasonably-limited, but also reasonably generous, flexibility.

But of course, as always, it becomes exactly what it always does in these ridiculous "debates". The GM must have absolute, unmitigated, unrestricted power to do anything they want, no matter what, eternally, and players get the choice of "meekly submit to every restriction no matter how much they might bother you" or "almost guaranteed upset people by refusing to participate". I reject this ridiculous extreme. People who respect one another don't do that.