D&D 5E Jeremy Crawford Discusses Details on Custom Origins

[Warpiglet-7]

Orcs are evil by default in the MM. Does that make everyone who uses the default alignment for that past several decades racist?

Omg! Here it goes!

give an inch to this puritanical nonsense and there won’t be a game left.

all people..:ALL humans in the game are equal.

so black or brown character, heroes are the heroes and can do anything as well as any other.

but because a monster has dark skin it’s racist. Sweet lord.

don’t almost all cultures have dark skinned monsters in myth? And forget we are talking about GREEN for sh*t’s sake while black and brown characters are the heroes.

so yep racist all the way. Smh

 

[Chaosmancer]

Did you read? Did you even tried to understand?

No merits for playing against type while only RP reasons. Without mechanics, role playing against type is just... well, simply has no merits. No risks, no rewards.

So, I only need mechanical merits if I'm playing against type? I only need risks and rewards if I'm playing against type? What makes playing against type so special that I need mechanical risks and penalties to make it... what interesting to you?

I mean, if RP reasons aren't enough to support a character... what are we even doing here? That is basically what you are saying, right? If I want to not play a Dwarf Fighter, then I need more than just Role-playing, if all I have is role-playing then being a dwarf who isn't a fighter isn't worth it, it is meaningless.... but then what is a Dwarf Fighter? What meaning is there in that? No RP, No mechanics, no penalties...

You are accusing me of twisting words and arguments and making weak arguments, but you are literally saying that a character concept that goes against these sacred archetypes is somehow meaningless without penalties, yet the archetypes don't need anything. I don't need an RP reason to be a dwarf fighter, I don't need mechanical penalties to be a dwarf fighter... Dwarf Fighters just have meaning and merit because they exist?

I'm sorry, but no. You can't say that one type of build requires mechanical penalties to be meaningful, and the other build is meaningful simply for existing. That isn't how these things work.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Holy crap, you people have me agreeing with @Maxperson , what is the world coming to


Wait... conversation has moved from playing against type to racial alignments, the world is right again

(Not wanting to argue about alignment, because I have a much more fundamental problem with it, but I still agree with where you are going with the idea Max)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Omg! Here it goes!

give an inch to this puritanical nonsense and there won’t be a game left.

all people..:ALL humans in the game are equal.

so black or brown character, heroes are the heroes and can do anything as well as any other.

but because a monster has dark skin it’s racist. Sweet lord.

don’t almost all cultures have dark skinned monsters in myth? And forget we are talking about GREEN for sh*t’s sake while black and brown characters are the heroes.

so yep racist all the way. Smh

Well, before this thread gets closed, let me try and once more explain this to people, since they dont' seem to understand.


A few years ago, I finally learned what "cracker" meant in the context of white people. It was meant as a stand-in for cracking the whip. I had to finally ask a friend what it meant, because I had heard it constantly, but had no idea why people said that.

And... it doesn't bother me. I have no connection to that term, it doesn't really effect me at all.

I have a visceral, gut reaction of anger and bile in my throat to Yoda quotes (specifically "Do or Do not, there is no try") and "Run, Forrest Run."

I have those reactions because I was mocked in school with the "Run, Forrest Run" quote for... nearly four years. The Yoda quote was something my Father whom I have a terrible relationship with said constantly.

Every time I told him I would try something, he'd quote that. I'm trying something new, "Do or Do not, there is no try". Constantly, every day of my life, for easily a decade. He was making my life binary. I was either a failure or a success, attempting wasn't enough, putting forth effort wasn't enough. I was either succeeding or failing.

To this day, I cannot hear that quote without seeing that man's face and it driving me up the wall.


Yoda isn't real. Yoda is a fictional construct. Star Wars is just a story, and one that I mostly enjoy. But it also represents something that I don't want to deal with. It represents this binary world of success or failure that my father shoved down my throat constantly.



Now, I probably bored a couple of you, you probably don't care, but this is the point. That phrase gets to me, seeing that phrase hurts me. And I don't expect everyone to stop quoting Yoda just because my Father was a singular piece of crap. But if you can acknowledge that that can happen to me, with a popular piece of fictional media, can you acknowledge that nearly a hundred years of racism might seep into someone's psyche? That to them, seeing the way orcs are described, cutting so close to how their grandfather and great-grandfather were described and physically attacked for, might lead to a visceral response?


You keep saying "Fiction can't hurt people, fiction isn't real, these aren't people." Well, the hobbits weren't literally British boys fighting in the Trenches of WW1. Frodo isn't literally a man burdended by war and Post-Traumatic stress, fighting to reconnect to a world that is alien to him after what he has experienced.

If fiction can't hurt, it can't heal. If fantasy races can't be people, then Beowulf's Dragon can't represent Greed and the fight for Glory. Hundreds of tales from the YA section can't be about growing up, or depression, or relationships.

If Fiction can't hurt, it can't represent anything. And then it is pointless, meaningless. We use symbols, allusions, metaphors and dozens of other tools all the time to talk about things good, bad, simple and complex. Saying that this thing can't possibly be a symbol because it isn't literally that thing... it misses the point of fantasy entirely

 

[Scott Christian]

Why do I need a new setting to represent the lore from the current setting? That makes no sense.

Read below to understand.

You really are stuck on this "BEST" attribute thing, aren't you? You do remember they get two, right? So, even the designers were looking at the BEST TWO attributes.

And, with this focus on the setting, you are really setting yourself back up for 2e elves. We will have twenty different variants of every race, to cover every combination of stats we can justify... or, we could just take the ASIs, make them float, and then focus on actual abilities if we decide that there is a significant need for them.

I mean, I'm glad you are agreeing with me, but you seem to want to just make more versions of them, instead of letting them be more flexible.

I am stuck on the best. Because it's what balances a game, and also creates against type and also helps create archetypes and also creates conflict when making a character. Making choices matter.

As for 2e elves. Yes. Perfect idea. Let's go through the races, make different books (like Eberron), add some races or subraces. I am 100% in agreement. here is why. Because that would be expanding the game without modifying the rules in the PHB. Also, it would take time. By the time they covered everything, they would be on to the next edition. And guess what, maybe some of those new creations would stick, much like dragonborne did. They would carry over. Some might even go away.

All that is perfectly okay. Lore changes. And even better, it would change at a pace that is tested and help the new edition be its own creation.

So, really you don't think that anything outside of the PHB counts?

Because most of my evidence was coming from Volo's, which focused on the orcs. And, it is also strange to keep referring to the Half-Orc for the Orc lore. Orcs aren't in the PHB at all. Half-Orcs are, and they mention the Monster Manual orcs, but even those don't tell us as much about Orcs as we find in Volo's.

Heck, just a single example. Volo's highlights how important the Gods are to the Orcs. Everything in Orc culture revolves around them.

How many Orc gods are mention in the PHB and MM? One. Gruumsh.

How many Orc Gods exist? At least six. Gruumsh, Luthic (his wife), Ilneval, Bahgtru, Yurtrus and Shargraas

I'm sorry. Are they changing a rule in Volo's or the PHB?

Again, it does go back to them having to choose what best represents the orc. The PHB is cannon. How many copies have sold compared to Volo's? You are comparing the Bible to a book from the Pope. Sure they may discuss many of the same things, but people reference and draw from the source much more. The more esoteric draw from the other. And the erudite use one as a base, and the other as a building block.

As far as gods (you might not like this), but why did they only mention one in the PHB? I think I know the answer - because it BEST represents the race the author's were creating. They didn't have room to detail all six, so go with the best representation.

Or, since that won't convince you that you should look beyond the PHB, what ethnicities of humans exist? According to the PHB, the only human ethnicities are Calishites, Chondathans, Damarans, Illuskans, Mulans, Rashemis, Shous, Tethyrians, and Turamis. They are the Forgotten Realms ethnicities, and the only ones in the PHB. Are they the default human ethnicities for all of DnD? Or should we look beyond what the PHB lays out.

You should look for more. They are called setting books.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Read below to understand.

I'll be interested to see if you address my point then.

Edit: It does not seem that you do. So, I'll ask again. When speaking about the lore for this setting, the default setting, the core setting, why do I need to reference the lore of a different setting?

I am stuck on the best. Because it's what balances a game, and also creates against type and also helps create archetypes and also creates conflict when making a character. Making choices matter.

No on multiple levels.

First of all, like I have said repeatedly, the game has best two.

Secondly, the designers themselves have said that the Tasha's rules are balanced, so you would need to prove them wrong to prove that the game is balanced around each race having a "best" stat. And, to date, no one has really proved that in any meaningful way.

Third, if I focus on the "best stat" for Dwarves, that is Con. Which class needs a good con? EVERYONE. Which would make dwarves a good choice for every single class, which is what is being touted as the problem people don't want to happen. Similiar things with Elves, Tabaxi, Halflings, Genasi, Aarcrockra, Goblin, Hobgoblin, Kenku, Kobold, Lizardfolk and Warforged.

All of those either have Con or Dex, and Dex gets called the "God Stat" for a reason, it is highly important for pretty much everyone, and a key stat for at least 4 classes.

Fourthly, I still do not accept this idea that mechanical differences in stats alone create archetypes and counter-types. Taking the example from Helldritch a few pages ago, I could play a happy-go-lucky dwarf who drinks flowery wines and prefers the company of elven sages. And he could be a fighter. But I think many people would say I'm playing against type, even thought I'm a dwarven fighter which is supposedly the archetype.

There is nuance here.

And, finally, there is still conflict and choices even with the change to Tasha's. The choice to make a Dwarven Artificer is different than making an Elven Artificer or a Gnomish Artificer, even if all three of them can start with a 16 INT. It matters, even if I get the same numbers, because those numbers are going to fade into the background. Who my character is is going to shine through, as soon as the mechanics get out of the way.

As for 2e elves. Yes. Perfect idea. Let's go through the races, make different books (like Eberron), add some races or subraces. I am 100% in agreement. here is why. Because that would be expanding the game without modifying the rules in the PHB. Also, it would take time. By the time they covered everything, they would be on to the next edition. And guess what, maybe some of those new creations would stick, much like dragonborne did. They would carry over. Some might even go away.

All that is perfectly okay. Lore changes. And even better, it would change at a pace that is tested and help the new edition be its own creation.

No, please gods no. Do you not understand how terrible that would be?

"I'd like to play an elf."

"Okay, will that be

a High Elf
a Wood Elf
a Drow
an Aereni High Elf
an Aereni Wood Elf
a Valenar High Elf
a Valenar Wood elf
a Xendrik Drow
an Eladrin (Summer, Winter, Spring or Fall)
a Mark of Shadow Elf
a Pallid Elf
a Sea Elf
a Gray Elf
a Grugach (Wild Elf)
a Valley Elf
a Shadow Elf
A Snow Elf
An Avariel (Winged Elf)
a Dark Elf
A Lythari (Wolf elf)
An Athasian Elf
A Ghost Elf
A Deep Elf
Or a Painted Elf

No, that is insanity. Most of these are types of elves no one has heard of, I probably missed a few... just no. Because you are suggesting we do that for every. single. race.

Look, I get that you want to delay Tasha's give it more time, but with the number of books this would take to release? It is not feasible to make this a solution in any way shape or form.

I'm sorry. Are they changing a rule in Volo's or the PHB?

Again, it does go back to them having to choose what best represents the orc. The PHB is cannon. How many copies have sold compared to Volo's? You are comparing the Bible to a book from the Pope. Sure they may discuss many of the same things, but people reference and draw from the source much more. The more esoteric draw from the other. And the erudite use one as a base, and the other as a building block.

As far as gods (you might not like this), but why did they only mention one in the PHB? I think I know the answer - because it BEST represents the race the author's were creating. They didn't have room to detail all six, so go with the best representation.

They are changing the rules in both. See, Volo's also has races. In fact, if you want to talk about the Orcs? There is no Orc race in the PHB. It does not exist. Orc is not in the PHB as a playable option.

The Orc race, the playable option, that comes from Volos. Volos is the source for those rules.

To take your horrible analogy, you are telling me that to discuss the rules for the canonization of Saints I should look to the Bible, even though the Bible is not the source material for the rules around the canonization of Saints.

So, again, they are changing the rules in Volos, Volos is the source of the racial statblock of orcs that we are talking about, so why do I need to reference the PHB for the orc archetype? It shouldn't even be there, and if it is, shouldn't it be superseded by the information presented in the book that actually gave us rules for it?

I mean, Tasha's is changing the rules for the racial statblocks. So, for Orcs, they are changing the rules in Volo's. For the Shadar-Kai, they are changing the rules in Mordenkainen's, for Loxodon, they are changing the rules to Ravnica, for the Warforged they are changing the rules for Eberron. Those are where the rules for those races live. Not in the PHB.

You should look for more. They are called setting books.

But, according to your previous argument, these FR cultures BEST represent all humanity across all the mutliverse as the default options, right? That is why they are in the PHB, because they BEST represent the default of humanity.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:

This argument has happened before. Some of you may recall it didn't end well.

And someone has already gotten booted from this thread ...

By all means, do push your luck. Fight the fight you've already fought, and not resolved. And have the mods come in with red text and warning points and bans from the site. We'll oblige you. Perhaps not happily, but we will do it.

Or, maybe you can show a bit of thoughtfulness and wisdom, and not beat the dead horse. The choice is yours.

 

[Argyle King]

Secondly, the designers themselves have said that the Tasha's rules are balanced, so you would need to prove them wrong to prove that the game is balanced around each race having a "best" stat. And, to date, no one has really proved that in any meaningful way.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time that I disagree with what is claimed to be balanced.

Though, I do not believe it pushes significantly beyond issues which already exist in how the edition is designed.

I think a better way to change races -if ASIs are considered a problem- is to design the game around not having ASIs. Then take another look at racial abilities and how they are implemented.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

So, I only need mechanical merits if I'm playing against type? I only need risks and rewards if I'm playing against type? What makes playing against type so special that I need mechanical risks and penalties to make it... what interesting to you?

I mean, if RP reasons aren't enough to support a character... what are we even doing here? That is basically what you are saying, right? If I want to not play a Dwarf Fighter, then I need more than just Role-playing, if all I have is role-playing then being a dwarf who isn't a fighter isn't worth it, it is meaningless.... but then what is a Dwarf Fighter? What meaning is there in that? No RP, No mechanics, no penalties...

You are accusing me of twisting words and arguments and making weak arguments, but you are literally saying that a character concept that goes against these sacred archetypes is somehow meaningless without penalties, yet the archetypes don't need anything. I don't need an RP reason to be a dwarf fighter, I don't need mechanical penalties to be a dwarf fighter... Dwarf Fighters just have meaning and merit because they exist?

I'm sorry, but no. You can't say that one type of build requires mechanical penalties to be meaningful, and the other build is meaningful simply for existing. That isn't how these things work.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Holy crap, you people have me agreeing with @Maxperson , what is the world coming to


Wait... conversation has moved from playing against type to racial alignments, the world is right again

(Not wanting to argue about alignment, because I have a much more fundamental problem with it, but I still agree with where you are going with the idea Max)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well, before this thread gets closed, let me try and once more explain this to people, since they dont' seem to understand.


A few years ago, I finally learned what "cracker" meant in the context of white people. It was meant as a stand-in for cracking the whip. I had to finally ask a friend what it meant, because I had heard it constantly, but had no idea why people said that.

And... it doesn't bother me. I have no connection to that term, it doesn't really effect me at all.

I have a visceral, gut reaction of anger and bile in my throat to Yoda quotes (specifically "Do or Do not, there is no try") and "Run, Forrest Run."

I have those reactions because I was mocked in school with the "Run, Forrest Run" quote for... nearly four years. The Yoda quote was something my Father whom I have a terrible relationship with said constantly.

Every time I told him I would try something, he'd quote that. I'm trying something new, "Do or Do not, there is no try". Constantly, every day of my life, for easily a decade. He was making my life binary. I was either a failure or a success, attempting wasn't enough, putting forth effort wasn't enough. I was either succeeding or failing.

To this day, I cannot hear that quote without seeing that man's face and it driving me up the wall.


Yoda isn't real. Yoda is a fictional construct. Star Wars is just a story, and one that I mostly enjoy. But it also represents something that I don't want to deal with. It represents this binary world of success or failure that my father shoved down my throat constantly.



Now, I probably bored a couple of you, you probably don't care, but this is the point. That phrase gets to me, seeing that phrase hurts me. And I don't expect everyone to stop quoting Yoda just because my Father was a singular piece of crap. But if you can acknowledge that that can happen to me, with a popular piece of fictional media, can you acknowledge that nearly a hundred years of racism might seep into someone's psyche? That to them, seeing the way orcs are described, cutting so close to how their grandfather and great-grandfather were described and physically attacked for, might lead to a visceral response?


You keep saying "Fiction can't hurt people, fiction isn't real, these aren't people." Well, the hobbits weren't literally British boys fighting in the Trenches of WW1. Frodo isn't literally a man burdended by war and Post-Traumatic stress, fighting to reconnect to a world that is alien to him after what he has experienced.

If fiction can't hurt, it can't heal. If fantasy races can't be people, then Beowulf's Dragon can't represent Greed and the fight for Glory. Hundreds of tales from the YA section can't be about growing up, or depression, or relationships.

If Fiction can't hurt, it can't represent anything. And then it is pointless, meaningless. We use symbols, allusions, metaphors and dozens of other tools all the time to talk about things good, bad, simple and complex. Saying that this thing can't possibly be a symbol because it isn't literally that thing... it misses the point of fantasy entirely

Well genuinely sorry you had to experiences like that. However, that does not mean people can’t have fun with fiction that happens to be distasteful to you.

I have had some difficult life experiences. Criterion A stressors to be technical and I don’t go around trying to censor other people’s fun to make me feel better. Yeah, I am referring to near death experiences at the hand of others.

If someone cannot stomach green skinned evil orcs because of their life experiences they have my sympathy but not my willingness to trash a game that I love, sorry. They need help

I won’t say more about it. I think this is absurd.

....as absurd as trying to censor rated r movies, art or other things that might have distasteful things. As absurd as saying that movies with killing make people kill levels of absurd.
best wishes

 

[Chaosmancer]

It certainly wouldn't be the first time that I disagree with what is claimed to be balanced.

Though, I do not believe it pushes significantly beyond issues which already exist in how the edition is designed.

I think a better way to change races -if ASIs are considered a problem- is to design the game around not having ASIs. Then take another look at racial abilities and how they are implemented.

I agree that might have been a better way to do it from the start, but since it would require a re-write of every single race directly, I can understand why they didn't do that. It would be a massive undertaking.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well genuinely sorry you had to experiences like that. However, that does not mean people can’t have fun with fiction that happens to be distasteful to you.

I have had some difficult life experiences. Criterion A stressors to be technical and I don’t go around trying to censor other people’s fun to make me feel better. Yeah, I am referring to near death experiences at the hand of others.

If someone cannot stomach green skinned evil orcs because of their life experiences they have my sympathy but not my willingness to trash a game that I love, sorry. They need help

I won’t say more about it. I think this is absurd.

....as absurd as trying to censor rated r movies, art or other things that might have distasteful things. As absurd as saying that movies with killing make people kill levels of absurd.
best wishes

With the mod note I will say only two things.

No one is trashing the game.

No one is censoring the game.

We are just offering a new path for people to take to enjoy the game. That is all.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:

Resist the temptation to get in a last word, folks.

 

[Scott Christian]

I'll be interested to see if you address my point then.

Edit: It does not seem that you do. So, I'll ask again. When speaking about the lore for this setting, the default setting, the core setting, why do I need to reference the lore of a different setting?



No on multiple levels.

First of all, like I have said repeatedly, the game has best two.

Secondly, the designers themselves have said that the Tasha's rules are balanced, so you would need to prove them wrong to prove that the game is balanced around each race having a "best" stat. And, to date, no one has really proved that in any meaningful way.

Third, if I focus on the "best stat" for Dwarves, that is Con. Which class needs a good con? EVERYONE. Which would make dwarves a good choice for every single class, which is what is being touted as the problem people don't want to happen. Similiar things with Elves, Tabaxi, Halflings, Genasi, Aarcrockra, Goblin, Hobgoblin, Kenku, Kobold, Lizardfolk and Warforged.

All of those either have Con or Dex, and Dex gets called the "God Stat" for a reason, it is highly important for pretty much everyone, and a key stat for at least 4 classes.

Fourthly, I still do not accept this idea that mechanical differences in stats alone create archetypes and counter-types. Taking the example from Helldritch a few pages ago, I could play a happy-go-lucky dwarf who drinks flowery wines and prefers the company of elven sages. And he could be a fighter. But I think many people would say I'm playing against type, even thought I'm a dwarven fighter which is supposedly the archetype.

There is nuance here.

And, finally, there is still conflict and choices even with the change to Tasha's. The choice to make a Dwarven Artificer is different than making an Elven Artificer or a Gnomish Artificer, even if all three of them can start with a 16 INT. It matters, even if I get the same numbers, because those numbers are going to fade into the background. Who my character is is going to shine through, as soon as the mechanics get out of the way.



No, please gods no. Do you not understand how terrible that would be?

"I'd like to play an elf."

"Okay, will that be

a High Elf
a Wood Elf
a Drow
an Aereni High Elf
an Aereni Wood Elf
a Valenar High Elf
a Valenar Wood elf
a Xendrik Drow
an Eladrin (Summer, Winter, Spring or Fall)
a Mark of Shadow Elf
a Pallid Elf
a Sea Elf
a Gray Elf
a Grugach (Wild Elf)
a Valley Elf
a Shadow Elf
A Snow Elf
An Avariel (Winged Elf)
a Dark Elf
A Lythari (Wolf elf)
An Athasian Elf
A Ghost Elf
A Deep Elf
Or a Painted Elf

No, that is insanity. Most of these are types of elves no one has heard of, I probably missed a few... just no. Because you are suggesting we do that for every. single. race.

Look, I get that you want to delay Tasha's give it more time, but with the number of books this would take to release? It is not feasible to make this a solution in any way shape or form.



They are changing the rules in both. See, Volo's also has races. In fact, if you want to talk about the Orcs? There is no Orc race in the PHB. It does not exist. Orc is not in the PHB as a playable option.

The Orc race, the playable option, that comes from Volos. Volos is the source for those rules.

To take your horrible analogy, you are telling me that to discuss the rules for the canonization of Saints I should look to the Bible, even though the Bible is not the source material for the rules around the canonization of Saints.

So, again, they are changing the rules in Volos, Volos is the source of the racial statblock of orcs that we are talking about, so why do I need to reference the PHB for the orc archetype? It shouldn't even be there, and if it is, shouldn't it be superseded by the information presented in the book that actually gave us rules for it?

I mean, Tasha's is changing the rules for the racial statblocks. So, for Orcs, they are changing the rules in Volo's. For the Shadar-Kai, they are changing the rules in Mordenkainen's, for Loxodon, they are changing the rules to Ravnica, for the Warforged they are changing the rules for Eberron. Those are where the rules for those races live. Not in the PHB.



But, according to your previous argument, these FR cultures BEST represent all humanity across all the mutliverse as the default options, right? That is why they are in the PHB, because they BEST represent the default of humanity.

Fair enough Chaos. In the end, one side can speculate that making everyone start with a 16 will not hurt anything. And the other side can argue that making races have different ASI's would keep archetypes, lore, and balance in play.

Both are speculation. I tell you what, since my groups always adopts any official book, we'll try it out and see. I will come back in a year and tell you my experiences.

But all this talk of character archetypes go me thinking about previous characters. In 5e, what have all of you played? Were they against type? How enjoyable were they? My list:

• Pacik - orc wizard - 15 int to start, but also 15 con and 15 strength - pirate/sailor background (CG)- one of my faves, could cast and smack with his mace!
• Welby - lightfoot halfling bard - 16 cha to start and 16 dex - trade background chef (LG)- died at level 3
• Sveld - wood elf babrbarian - started at 4th level because he replaced Welby, but had a 12 strength and 17 dex - hermit of Feywild background - could move at 6th level 120' per turn and still attack - a fun character to play in battle, outside, meh.
• Arex Droozinxerest - drow rogue - 16 dex and 16 cha - diplomat (from his home world, Astral Sea navigation stuff in this campaign, but drow were still backstabbing but not inherently evil) - was probably my strongest character - used cha to expand his family's name and dex in combat
• Frey - half-elf warlock (archfey) - 16 wis and 16 cha - entertainer background - never took a damage spell all the way through 20th level, just anything that would keep him out of harm's way including using his cha - one of my faves
• Hatch - human champion fighter - 16 str and 15 con - frontier type background - dual wields hatchets (was a lumberjack) - campaign we were required to have a person we loved missing, I chose my wife and twin girls - only character in all my years that I retired mid campaign, around level 10 because we found one of his girls (the other ) - so he left, it didn't make sense for him to keep risking his life - roleplaying wise he was one of my faves even though I continually got grief over my mediocre damage
• Tankard Brassballs - dwarf life cleric - min/maxed - masonry background - took over for Hatch - he's a fun typical dwarf and the opposite of silent brooding Hatch

Maybe because I choose to play several characters that are against type (and enjoy it because I know the rest of the tables will never play them), it heightens my need to protect that niche. Maybe. Just a thought. But I am curious to hear other characters (or DM's that had a favorite PC).