D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[Remathilis]

Really? Or is this a snarky reply that has gone to the point where we cannot tell if you are serious?

Serious with a small sprinkle of snark.

Or... do you figure that if the PCs "massacre" an entire village, that should have no repercussions in the narrative?

Let's review where this conversation stemmed.

A poster declared that in his game a tabaxi would be lynched by locals who think he is related to a raksasha. Another poster made a comment that if they went to lynch him, they would burn the village down. Which lead to another poster stating in his game, both that powerful agents of the government would hunt that PCs down for the arson and presumably murder, and that locals would shun them and sent armies to stop them. My retort was that immediately the world somehow instantly knows it's the PCs who did it and the world reacted in concert to punish them. Which is what lead to a series of questions:

1. How did the knowledge get out. Somehow, one or more people witnessed the event and were cognizant enough to gather the PCs names and faces, and then spread the word far and wide faster than the PCs can travel. Do they use magic like sending?
2. When the word comes out, it's automatically believed. By peasants and lords alike. Does the adventurers not have a reputation? Have they not earned and good will saving other villagers or helping the local Lord? (I guess not, considering a village was willing to lynch a member for his species.) Why would they believe it was a group of adventurers and not local raiders (goblins or orcs or gnolls)? We have plenty of examples of someone being accused (creditably) of a crime and people refusing to believe it because they have a good opinion of that person, for good or ill.
3. Once the PCs are declared guilty by the community, all stops are removed to punish them. Armies, powerful NPCs from the government, etc make it their job to hunt them down. Where were these people when the PCs were wandering around doing adventures? Why are the suddenly available to hunt down the PCs when they weren't there to stop goblin raids or fight dragons or whatever the adventures were doing prior to the lynching? If they are powerful and civic minded, why aren't they arresting the BBEG?

My reason for this of course is that the crime had a witness: the DM. The PCs are guilty of disrupting the campaign. First by playing the tabaxi who is hated and feared and second by retaliating against them in a destructive manner. The DM saw. The DM judged. The DM found them guilty and now the world in unified whole will carry out the sentence. And will do so until the DM feels justice is served. The crime cannot go unpunished and space and time will bend to make sure justice is served.

It's a tale as old as time. The more a DM has invested in his world as an extension of himself, the more likely the world is going to act as one to punish the player who dared touch it without consent. And it's my experience that the more not focused the DMs vision is, the more severe the punishment for players who upset the vision.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The answer boiled downto "DM capitulates an allow a new species. Here's how." That's not compromise, that's telling the DM what to do.

But it doesn't actually create a new species in the setting. Sure, maybe species ruels are used to model the features of the character, but - depending on the compromise, he's a one-of-a-kind thing. No worries about putting in a population of tortles on your world map, no long history of tortle civilization. Just a freak accident. That's not adding a new species.
And you have to realize that the player is exactly giving up all that - he can't see the character as part of a tortle nation that has a tortle family and friends from his past life. That's the stuff he compromised on. You only need to integrate the chance for some magic mishap/curse/spell/ritual/occurence in your campaign. Something like that (minus the tortle) could have happened in any other character's background story, too, say, Bob, the Human Fighter that has a distrust for mages after a magical incident killed his father.

 

[Umbran]

Serious with a small sprinkle of snark.

Let's review where this conversation stemmed.

....
It's a tale as old as time. The more a DM has invested in his world as an extension of himself, the more likely the world is going to act as one to punish the player who dared touch it without consent.

Ah. Yeah, fine.
While that's where you may be coming from, that's not where I was, or planning to go.

 

[AlViking]

I want to be a tortle rogue so I can spy on people and be called a tortle tale.

I was going to hit the laugh button for that but ... I just can't do it. We need an "appreciative groan" button.

 

[Mecheon]

2) "well, here's the thing ... we're playing a Middle Eastern theme and Rhakshasha are a thing, and the populace will brand any sentient cat as evil to be killed outright," with the underlying thought that the DM already has ideas of having Rhakshasha as a BBEG at some point.

I mean, if this was the reason I'd be raising some eyebrows because it doesn't make sense? Like, it doesn't even lead into the other one

Firstly, if you have a Middle Eastern theme then why would Rakshasha be coming up in the first place?

Middle East is, y'know. Djinn territory. In our world that's between Egypt up to Turkey. You tell me 'middle east campaign' and I'm expecting something in Al Qadim's playbook, a setting that, as written, absolutely would be fine with Tabaxi given how Al Qadim works, I'm not expecting Rakshasha, given Rakshasha are associated with South Asia

Also like. The Middle East includes Egypt. If you're telling me my main concern in a fantasy Egypt when being a Tabaxi is I'm going to be confused with a South Asian monster then I am going to be very confused. I think the main threat to a Tabaxi in an Egypt-y setting is the local equivilent of Baast's temple finding out I exist and immediately trying to convert me over to cat religion

Secondly, its a dumb thing D&D does but like.... Rakshasha aren't cat people? Pathfinder gets it right by giving them varied forms but, no, they're fiends that wear that as a form, that's not their actual 100% true form. I'm pretty sure 1e confirms that somewhere, but they're shapeshifters that can adopt multiple forms. A random dude on the street is far more likely to be a Rakshasha than the foreign cat-man who also is missing the give away actual tells of a Rakshasha, the backwards hands, which they'd keep if they turned into humans

Thirdly, if we assume you actually meant 'South Asia' rather than 'Middle East', you're calling all cat people in an Indian themed setting Rakshasha then uh. Not accurate in the slightest. Like. That alone is basically pretty good justification for putting Leonin in I'd say. You're already going to have Vanara if you're doing an Indian themed setting so you've got some animal people

If we're in either not-Egypt or not-India and someone attacks my Tabaxi for being a cat person, there's more than enough evidence of "Yeah there's something going on here, thinking I'm a rakshasha shouldn't be the first thought in these circumstances"

So you can't understand a different setting? Or are you just saying you prefer a setting that you are used to, i.e.. Warcraft?

I get the alignment thing, and I don't want to go down that hole. But to be taken aback by a setting not matching the one you grew up with. That seems acceptable. To keep your initial setting as a preference. That seems logical and acceptable. To not understand a setting that contrasts the one you like. That doesn't seem as acceptable.

Note: I am not saying you need to play in that setting. But, it seems to me, at the very least, it should just be a shoulder shrug. Like, "Oh those orcs are evil like in the Lord of the Rings movies. Cool, but not for me."

I can understand a different setting but I think "that player adjacent race (that most incoming people will have expectations to be playable) is always evil and can't be played" is dumb in the year 2026 and an excuse for not wanting actual motivations to fight. Orcs have been playable in supplements longer than I've been alive and hell knows Complete Book of Humanoids had far wilder things than them

The morality of orcs in Lord of the Rings is a complicated long-running topic, but the generally accepted answer is "Orcs could theoretically do good its just the ones we encounter are in the particular force they're in is an enemy force", not that they're always evil no matter the circumstances

....I really shouldn't have brought up tortles in my initial "stuff you might not include in a proposed setting" example. That was clearly more resonant than blood magic.

Folks love tortles, and you got plenty of play with them. Sure there's the TMNT stuff, but there's being an impossibly ancient wizened old turtle guy who's been around forever that'll have completely different flavour to being an impossibly ancient elf, and as it goes with turtles, there's the associations with dragons. Could work for the dragon king out east and you've been sent to this strange land to hunt down some treasure that was taken years ago, and there's no way the shark guys are going to be nearly personible enough to come up on land and ask around for it

 

[AlViking]

But it doesn't actually create a new species in the setting. Sure, maybe species ruels are used to model the features of the character, but - depending on the compromise, he's a one-of-a-kind thing. No worries about putting in a population of tortles on your world map, no long history of tortle civilization. Just a freak accident. That's not adding a new species.
And you have to realize that the player is exactly giving up all that - he can't see the character as part of a tortle nation that has a tortle family and friends from his past life. That's the stuff he compromised on. You only need to integrate the chance for some magic mishap/curse/spell/ritual/occurence in your campaign. Something like that (minus the tortle) could have happened in any other character's background story, too, say, Bob, the Human Fighter that has a distrust for mages after a magical incident killed his father.

If I allow one "special" species I have to allow every "special" species any other player wants to play. All because someone is not willing to give even an inch on their concept or actually just accept the restrictions I have in place that I made them aware of when I told them about my game.

I can always figure out to make an exception that's never been the point. I don't want to because I don't want species that cannot pass as one of the species on my curated list. If that doesn't work for you, if you are unwilling to work on a compromise, find a different DM.

 

[soviet]

If I allow one "special" species I have to allow every "special" species any other player wants to play.

That isn't true.

 

[Epic Meepo]

Honestly, at this point, I'm probably going to bow out of any game that includes tortles because I have PTSD from hearing endless arguments about tortles in this thread.

 

[AlViking]

That isn't true.

nuh-uh it is true.

edit - if I allow one exception and then do not allow another it should, in my mind, be considered favoritism. I don't want to do that.

 

[soviet]

Honestly, at this point, I'm probably going to bow out of any game that includes tortles because I have PTSD from hearing endless arguments about tortles in this thread.

No no, the GM will only allow you to play tortles! Everything else is on the banned list! There is no capitulation, you must play and you must play... forever