What Races Do You Allow?

I've honestly never seen a reason for humanoid monsters like ogres and hobgoblins to be shunned in society.

In my homebrew game world, they are not. For example, hobgoblins have their own nation, and hobgoblin mercenaries are prized throughout the land. The lizard-folk nation is one of the largest and most populous nations on the continent. Orcs have a country of their own, and though they are generally thought of as barbarians by most the civilized nations, their kind can be found in many cities and realms throughout the world.

So it all depends on the game world.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I've honestly never seen a reason for humanoid monsters like ogres and hobgoblins to be shunned in society.

There is no right or wrong answer to how cosmopolitan your society should be. It would be interesting if the society was so cosmopolitan that 'werewolf' and 'medusa' fit into the category of 'people' instead of 'monster', and it would be interesting if they didn't.

Which ever way you go you risk giving up something important. The real danger of cosmopolitan is that if you embrass it the tendency is to emphasis the commonalities between different species to the point that everything is just a human in makeup and there are little or no tangible differences between the species. They share mostly the same outlook, the same culture, the same biases (or lack there of), and the same basic drives for companionship, food, mates, etc. In a cosmopolitian world, everyone is an alien but no one is really strange.

In a closed world, it lets you really emphasis the differences in outlook between the species. Dwarves, elves, and humans - to say nothing of wierder things don't have to share remotely the same outlook. For example, in my game elves are arguably more shunned in human lands than goblins, not because elves are necessarily bad, but because elves are more alien than goblins. Goblins and humans largely value the same things. Elves could care less about most things that humans value. The world isn't a jolly place were everyone gets along regardless of how long their race lives, their biology, or what their attitude to life is, or even a world divided into the nice beautiful races in their fight with the dark ugly evil ones. What gets along has much less to do with appearance than it has to do with innate characteristics. Elves live for centuries if not struck down by disease or violence - both of which they are uncommonly vulnerable to. They can literally commune with nature, and they'll probably outlast any possible material possession in a blink of an eye, and if you withhold beauty from them they'll literally die like if you withheld food from a man. They are therefore naturally incompatible with humanity.

In my experience, not holding on tight to the innate differences of the species and the conflicts they might create ends up leaking into the world you create to the extent that nothing - whether dragon or fiend or thing from the dungeon dimensions - isn't ultimately and fundamentally human in its portrayal. Sometimes this is intentional, but more often than not it surfaces as a sort of blindness, a fundamental inability to imagine anything different than yourself to the extent that you here some people argue that its only realistic for their to be less diversity between things of radically different biology than exists in real humanity.

I'd rather risk losing what you gain by readily making monsters accessible NPCs to have conversations with, than losing the identity of the monsters altogether. I'm not saying that you can't do both (troll bards, hill giant drovers, ogres in the city watch, and so forth), but that if you don't remind yourself what you stand to lose it can be really easy to lose it and not realize it.
 

Depends on the campaign and/or setting. If the PCs all hail from a lost dwarven city and are seeking the surface world in order to bring back a fragment of the sun for the Elders, then the PCs might be restricted to dwarves, period. If the campaign launches from Sigil or some "wretched hive of scum and villainy", then pretty much anything might be admissible with little or no justification.

My personal preference is usually to limit PC races to a handful (often core, minus a couple choices), then expand the selection slowly as the campaign progresses and the players learn and/or invent more about the setting. But again, it really depends.
 

It's not.



It's not... what? Borked?


If you can find me another racial ability that can grant what amounts to vast sums of damage resistance to virtually any type of damage (or the equivalent) on a LA 0 creature... I'm all ears.


Oh, and they get elvish trance.

And they're abberations.

And they're immortal (never take age penalties).

Nor do they need to eat or drink.

And they take a -2 penalty to a dump stat for psions.
 
Last edited:


I've honestly never seen a reason for humanoid monsters like ogres and hobgoblins to be shunned in society.

Have you ever lived next to one? In my mind, it would be a little different than living next to someone with a different skin tone.

"Ogres are big, ugly creatures that live by raiding and scavenging. They join other monsters to prey on the weak..."

"Lazy and bad tempered, ogres solve problems by smashing them..."
 
Last edited:

In my current campaign you can play any race that is in the Player's Handbook. You can also play any subrace written in the Monster Manual of those races, except for duergar and drow. Otherwise monsters in the Monster Manual (along with duergar and drow) are treated by the common folk as, well, monsters.
 

Read.

Where do you read that they do not take age penalties?



Your article didn't support your point of view...

"the big thing is that the +2 dex MIGHT prevent me from dying, the elan's ability WILL. The ability to consciously say, no I don't want this to happen, is so precious in dnd that it can not be underestimated."



As to whether or not they take age penalties... Do they 'grow old" I see nothing that says that they do, but it does state clearly that they are effectively immortal. Wouldn't the world be filled with Wizened old Elan's if they did grow old?


I'm sorry, but it's just flat out borked. No other racial ability on +0 character can compare. When you throw in all the other benefits it just gets silly.
 

Your article didn't support your point of view...
There were multiple points of view in that thread. I thought exposing you to them might help.


Here's the thing about the Elan abilities. You get the most use out of them if you are a Psion, but they cut into your immediate actions. This prevents you from using immediate or swift action powers, which will often be more powerful than the racial abilities. Using a racial ability means no manifesting Precognition: Defensive, or Anticipatory Strike, or Energy Adaptation, or Hustle, or quickened powers.

Powers are also more cost effective. Psionic Vigor grants 5 temp HP per power point, while the Elan's ability prevents 2 points of damage for each power point spent.

They're just not as good as you are making them out to be.

As to whether or not they take age penalties... Do they 'grow old" I see nothing that says that they do, but it does state clearly that they are effectively immortal. Wouldn't the world be filled with Wizened old Elan's if they did grow old?

Elans age like anyone else. They just don't die.
 
Last edited:

Having access to the ability itself is key. Hands down, it would cut into your immediate actions. However, there aren't many immediate actions that could be as likely to DEFINITELY save your bacon like that would. If you KNOW you're going to take that damage, it'll keep you topside. Few and far between are the racial abilities that can duplicate that.

I concede the point on aging.
 

Remove ads

Top