Players are the exception.

[Sunseeker]

With all this talk about races, I thought I'd throw my two cents into the mix.

When it comes to racial stereotypes, while annoying, they are going to exist to some degree. Some players may love playing the tree-happy elf, the beer-loving dwarf, the emo and misunderstood tiefling. But there should be in DDN, as there has been in most editions, a big, bold note that says "PLAYERS ARE THE EXCEPTION.".

One of my favorite characters was a 4e tiefling paladin I made, she wasn't misunderstood, she wasn't trying to repent for her race, she wasn't constantly trying to control the darkness within her lest it lash out and deal 1d4 to the nearest person. She was raised by a church, in a small town fairly isolated from the big city, from tieflings in general, and was trained as a paladin. She has self control, she doesn't regard herself as misunderstood, she has slight anger issues, mostly arising from the obvious racism she seens coming from nearly everyone towards nearly everything. She wasn't out there using her chest and tail to get what she wanted. I could go on for days about this character.

But suffice to say, she was not a stereotypical tiefling.

A player should always have the choice to be the character they want to be. To act in the way they feel befits that character. To be a chaotic evil dwarf, to be a lawful good drow, to be a cruel and merciless dragonborn with no sense of honor. The player's character, especially the way they act, is up to them.

Regardless of what races make it into the core books, regardless of what they usually are X or Y, the player should always have the final say in IF they are actually like that, or if they are their own deal.

 

[Mattachine]

Player characters are supposed to be exceptional.

In fact, the PCs that are everyday blokes that bumble through adventures through luck are normal among their in-game communities, but rare by PC standards.

 

[ExploderWizard]

This really is true without needing to be said and always has been. No matter what mechanics or stats you are using, players have always had complete control of their character's personality.

AD&D featured racial preferences which provided a baseline for social inroads and barriers. By default an elf dealing with other elves will have a social advantage. The player can always characterize his/her elf as atypical and more prone to get along better with humans & dwarves than other elves.

Its funny that all non-human races get the monocultural treatment and how easily that is accepted.

 

[delericho]

When it comes to racial stereotypes, while annoying, they are going to exist to some degree. Some players may love playing the tree-happy elf, the beer-loving dwarf, the emo and misunderstood tiefling. But there should be in DDN, as there has been in most editions, a big, bold note that says "PLAYERS ARE THE EXCEPTION.".

Yes, absolutely.

But...

Regardless of what races make it into the core books, regardless of what they usually are X or Y, the player should always have the final say in IF they are actually like that, or if they are their own deal.

Eh, almost.

Certainly, the player should have a huge amount of leeway about how they portray their character, and they certainly shouldn't find themselves bound by what the book says, just because the book says it.

However, there remains the possibility that the DM may set his world up a particular way, and that this precludes some character choices. If, for example, the DM has determined that all dwarves without exception labour under an ancient ban that prevents them from learning arcane magic, then that would reasonably preclude the possibility of a player bringing in a dwarf wizard character. (And extend the same for any other arrangement you desire...)

Of course, I would expect any such restrictions to be rather rare, and to be decided on fairly well in advance. (And, yeah, they're a matter for the particular table, the particular DM, and the particular player, not something for the rulebooks.) And it's worth noting that the 4e advice to "say yes" by default actually was a generally good idea.

 

[Sunseeker]

However, there remains the possibility that the DM may set his world up a particular way, and that this precludes some character choices. If, for example, the DM has determined that all dwarves without exception labour under an ancient ban that prevents them from learning arcane magic, then that would reasonably preclude the possibility of a player bringing in a dwarf wizard character. (And extend the same for any other arrangement you desire...)

Of course, I would expect any such restrictions to be rather rare, and to be decided on fairly well in advance. (And, yeah, they're a matter for the particular table, the particular DM, and the particular player, not something for the rulebooks.) And it's worth noting that the 4e advice to "say yes" by default actually was a generally good idea.

But that's a little different than what I meant. Players can still be restricted from specific classes, races or combinations thereof, but the dwarf fighter can still daydream about what it is like to use magic. Perhaps one day when he is thousands of miles from home, the player can reasonably argue that a legal ban in the dwarf's homeland, where the dwarf player never intends to return, should have no such burden on him.

In any case, I was largely talking about personality portrayal. Elves may generally be haughty and elistist, unconcerned with the problems of other races, but YOUR elf doesn't have to be.

 

[delericho]

But that's a little different than what I meant. Players can still be restricted from specific classes, races or combinations thereof, but the dwarf fighter can still daydream about what it is like to use magic.

Actually, what I was getting at goes even further than that.

"Due to an ancient compact of the gods, dwarves are incapable of using arcane magic. In fact, as part of the ancient magic, dwarves cannot even consider using arcane magic. They may see it at work, they may even understand how it might work for others, but the thought will never cross their minds that they might use arcane magic. In fact, if a dwarf is asked if he has ever considered becoming a wizard, or to imagine how that might be, he will simply respond with a blank look - dwarves are literally incapable of grasping the notion."

(And yeah, that's a bizarre and extreme corner case, I know. If something like that applied, I would expect it to be a pretty significant thing in the campaign, and certainly something that the DM would talk with the player about. Still, something like that is within the purview of the DM to determine for his campain. (Of course, the players in turn then get to choose whether they would be willing to play in such a campaign. ))

 

[Sunseeker]

Actually, what I was getting at goes even further than that.

"Due to an ancient compact of the gods, dwarves are incapable of using arcane magic. In fact, as part of the ancient magic, dwarves cannot even consider using arcane magic. They may see it at work, they may even understand how it might work for others, but the thought will never cross their minds that they might use arcane magic. In fact, if a dwarf is asked if he has ever considered becoming a wizard, or to imagine how that might be, he will simply respond with a blank look - dwarves are literally incapable of grasping the notion."

(And yeah, that's a bizarre and extreme corner case, I know. If something like that applied, I would expect it to be a pretty significant thing in the campaign, and certainly something that the DM would talk with the player about. Still, something like that is within the purview of the DM to determine for his campain. (Of course, the players in turn then get to choose whether they would be willing to play in such a campaign. ))

Sure, though I think fluffing to that degree pushes rather deep into the DM/Book telling the player how to run their character. It's rather metagamey. Even in rather comprehensive situations like that, a player should have at least a little leeway to argue that their character does not fall under that cloud. But it should be a good reason. Perhaps your Dwarf comes from a line of Warlocks, whose ancient ancestors were exiled precisely because their rampant use of dark magic was the reason the rest of the dwarves made a pact with *insert good god here* that wiped all conception of magic from their minds.

 

[delericho]

Sure, though I think fluffing to that degree pushes rather deep into the DM/Book telling the player how to run their character. It's rather metagamey.

Sure. As I said, it was an extreme case.

Even in rather comprehensive situations like that, a player should have at least a little leeway to argue that their character does not fall under that cloud. But it should be a good reason.

Aye. I would actually go one further - as I said before, the 4e advice to "say yes" by default is generally a good idea, so I would argue that it's not that the player has to have a good reason for wanting the 'exception', but rather that the DM should seek to have a good reason for refusing it.

(Incidentally, I notice that the XP system has been turned off again. Otherwise, well, you know.)

 

[Animal]

If everyone is special.. then no one is special.
That said, you don't need outlandish race/class combinations to make a unique character. On the contrary, Drizzts are a dime a dozen, while i find much more enticing "stereotypical" characters like Conan, Legolas or Sparrowhawk.

 

[Sunseeker]

If everyone is special.. then no one is special.

I think quoting a villain from Incredibles who was a jaded little psycho who couldn't play Silver Age comic's "little timmy" who always seemed to accompany the hero, probably isn't very accurate.

Besides, that's not what I was saying anyway. First off, only player characters would have the option to be "special", and perhaps a few NPCs of serious importance that the DM has made up. Plus, it's an option, giving your players the ability to make a LG Drow Paladin doesn't mean they'll actually make one.

That said, you don't need outlandish race/class combinations to make a unique character. On the contrary, Drizzts are a dime a dozen, while i find much more enticing "stereotypical" characters like Conan, Legolas or Sparrowhawk.

Drizzt really isn't that outlandish of a character(a gestalt MC fighter/ranger isn't that far out there) though except in personality. Which is the realm of the player no matter what anyway. And that was mostly the point. Players should not be forced to be bound to stereotypical definitions of what their race usually is. There are always exceptions, especially in populations large enough to produce adventurers, and those exceptions are mostly likely the people who become adventurers.