Anyway, I'd say we probably can assume they get a +2 to Wisdom, or at least retain the +2 to Constitution, given their rather large push in Primal Power artwork. Might be the new stat bonus there +2 Con/+2Wis.
Fair enough, we are only getting three races in phb3 right? Githzerai, Wilden and Minotaur?
Anyway, I'd say we probably can assume they get a +2 to Wisdom, or at least retain the +2 to Constitution, given their rather large push in Primal Power artwork. Might be the new stat bonus there +2 Con/+2Wis.
Nah, that's the Wilden's ability scores. It's safe to assume Minotaurs will retain Str/Con as their racial ability score bonuses.
Also, we're getting an as-of-yet unannounced fourth race in addition to those three. It's mass speculation right now what it's going to be, with Goblin and Gnoll leading currently on the Future Release forums at least.
Fair enough, we are only getting three races in phb3 right? Githzerai, Wilden and Minotaur?
Anyway, I'd say we probably can assume they get a +2 to Wisdom, or at least retain the +2 to Constitution, given their rather large push in Primal Power artwork. Might be the new stat bonus there +2 Con/+2Wis.
We're gonna get 4 races, not 3, it has been announced. The 4th race is unknown to date.
As I was acknowledging in the PHB3 divine class speculation thread, I think it's really not probable that Minotaurs would get Con and Wis, because they're already going to give us the Con&Wis Wilden in the same book. Plus, Minotaurs have always been famous for their Strength, so no.
I also theorized that the Divine class in PHB3 will offer a Con primary build, and that the Minotaur in the cover is a member of such class.
Given that we're getting a Dex&Wis, a Con&Wis and a Str&Con, I bet the fourth race will give us Int for sure (after all this is the book where the Psion stars), so an Int&Cha would be the most balanced race to put along the otheer 3, but an Int&Wis would be the most needed given that we only have Deva right now, and I also think that both Int & Wis will be important for the unknown divine class we're getting.
Then who knows of course, but speculation is something I'm good at :D
EDIT: I got ninja'd! :D By the way, here's the link to the speculation thread about the unknown divine class.
Fair enough, we are only getting three races in phb3 right? Githzerai, Wilden and Minotaur?
Anyway, I'd say we probably can assume they get a +2 to Wisdom, or at least retain the +2 to Constitution, given their rather large push in Primal Power artwork. Might be the new stat bonus there +2 Con/+2Wis.
We're gonna get 4 races, not 3, it has been announced. The 4th race is unknown to date.
As I was acknowledging in the PHB3 divine class speculation thread, I think it's really not probable that Minotaurs would get Con and Wis, because they're already going to give us the Con&Wis Wilden in the same book. Plus, Minotaurs have always been famous for their Strength, so no.
I also theorized that the Divine class in PHB3 will offer a Con primary build, and that the Minotaur in the cover is a member of such class.
Given that we're getting a Dex&Wis, a Con&Wis and a Str&Con, I bet the fourth race will give us Int for sure (after all this is the book where the Psion stars), so an Int&Cha would be the most balanced race to put along the otheer 3, but an Int&Wis would be the most needed given that we only have Deva right now, and I also think that both Int & Wis will be important for the unknown divine class we're getting.
Then who knows of course, but speculation is something I'm good at :D
We're not getting an Int race...
WotC said that there's no race in the PH3 that's really good at Psion... -_-
Also, you was ninja'd...
We're not getting an Int race...
WotC said that there's no race in the PH3 that's really good at Psion... -_-
Also, you was ninja'd...
Oh, this changes everything, I didn't know. Well, it would leave the Deva as the only good user for an Int&Wis divine class, which supports my theory (I posted the link above along with the admission of ninja'dness :D ), and this is good since they would be thematically perfect.
At this point, Goblin and Kobold are really the most probable, because Gnoll would give another time Con & Dex, and Hobgoblin another Con.
But what if we get an Int race with no secondary ability good for Psions? It could be a much needed Int & Con or Int & Str...
Off the topic question...how is the ok in book a spelling error when I spell check?
EDIT: Random thought, with Dark Sun coming out and most likely PC stats for Thri-Kreen that might be why there are no Int races in PHB3. With such a psionic heavy world it would make sense to place your key psioncs races in that setting...if of course they make the "survival of the fittest" cut.
SOrry for the rant, especially since it is fairly off topic.
At this point, Goblin and Kobold are really the most probable, because Gnoll would give another time Con & Dex, and Hobgoblin another Con.
Kobold have the exact same "problem" as the gnoll, and the Goblin overlaps with the Halfling entirely- they both occupy a nearly identical mechanical space with miss mechanics.
At this point, Goblin and Kobold are really the most probable, because Gnoll would give another time Con & Dex, and Hobgoblin another Con.
Kobold have the exact same "problem" as the gnoll, and the Goblin overlaps with the Halfling entirely- they both occupy a nearly identical mechanical space with miss mechanics.
Koblod actually has more of a problem, because Shifty is difficult to balance. Gnoll at least was balanced for it's Dragon release, it just didn't get enough feat-love post-release or within the release itself.
At this point, Goblin and Kobold are really the most probable, because Gnoll would give another time Con & Dex, and Hobgoblin another Con.
Kobold have the exact same "problem" as the gnoll, and the Goblin overlaps with the Halfling entirely- they both occupy a nearly identical mechanical space with miss mechanics.
Koblod actually has more of a problem, because Shifty is difficult to balance. Gnoll at least was balanced for it's Dragon release, it just didn't get enough feat-love post-release or within the release itself.
'*In before Crimson declares Ferocius Charge to be an abomination in the eyes of God.*
There, are you happy? =)
Ferocious Charge is an abomination in the eyes of GOD!
There, are you happy? =)
Good, Yeenoghu is very happy that his children are an abomination to those astral snobs. It likely pleases Baphomet that the same is true of his own chosen people.
What im really hoping for as an aberration race to conincide with the new Far Realm theme of the 3rd round of core books. An updated Daelkyr Halfblood would be awesome.
Im really hoping we dont get 2 rehashed Dragon races taking up space when we are only getting a total 4 races. Besides, if they put Gnolls or Goblins in there it would completely contradict the reasoning they gave for not including Githyanki; they don't want to add another 'evil' race just yet.
What im really hoping for as an aberration race to conincide with the new Far Realm theme of the 3rd round of core books. An updated Daelkyr Halfblood would be awesome.
Gnolls and Goblins both have an established counter-culture, much like Drow do. Githyanki don't. Githyanki are solely villains, Gnolls and Goblins have heroic members. Thus, Gnolls and Goblins get a place as PCs, Githyanki don't. Of course, Goblins haven't YET, but it's only a matter of time, what with Eberron and all.
GhostStepper: Thank You! That is exactly what I want, some sort of Far Realm twisted races that has aberrant origins. I once came up with a draft of Aberrant "Spawn", basically normal humans that had been changed by slavery to Beholders, Aboleths, and Illithids, with some different racial features for each type, like the different Genasi manifestations (only these can't be changed). The racial powers could also be sustained, which I felt might be a nice change of pace.
Isn't that basically Githzerai?
I mean, they're not TECHNICALLY aberrant origin, but they might as well be, since they're just as changed from their slavery to the Illithids as Shadar-kai are changed by their immigration to the Shadowfell.
Or Severents of the Old Ones. Let's not kid ourselves all the Far Realm really is, is Cthulhu dreaming in R'lyeh Gnolls and Goblins both have an established counter-culture, much like Drow do.
The thing that the developers specifically said was that they didn't want to repeat what they were doing with the drow, so being like the drow doesn't actually work in the favor of goblins or gnolls.
I think if we are going to see goblins anywhere, its going to be in Dragon, where the "villainous" options get published.
GhostStepper: Thank You! That is exactly what I want, some sort of Far Realm twisted races that has aberrant origins. I once came up with a draft of Aberrant "Spawn", basically normal humans that had been changed by slavery to Beholders, Aboleths, and Illithids, with some different racial features for each type, like the different Genasi manifestations (only these can't be changed). The racial powers could also be sustained, which I felt might be a nice change of pace.
I've decided im going to work on a 4e update to the daelkyr half-blood with greater emphasis on the uniquness of having a symbiont, which seems like the most stand-out feature of the race. Maybe if i end up polishing it up enough, ill submit it to Dragon.
My main issue right now is how i want to treat the symbionts. The familiar rules capture the concept pretty well, but i don't want to just repeat an existing mechanic. Likewise, i thought of each symbiont giving different passive benefits and granting a unique racial power, but that is too close to the genasi mechanics. Im also considering making them function like magic items that have enhancements that increase automatically with level.
Im really hoping we dont get 2 rehashed Dragon races taking up space when we are only getting a total 4 races. Besides, if they put Gnolls or Goblins in there it would completely contradict the reasoning they gave for not including Githyanki; they don't want to add another 'evil' race just yet.
Yeah, I feel that if they were going to include a traditionally evil race, githyanki would have been the best option.
What im really hoping for as an aberration race to conincide with the new Far Realm theme of the 3rd round of core books. An updated Daelkyr Halfblood would be awesome.
I'd like an aberrant race as well. I just read up a bit on the daelkyr half-blood and they seem pretty cool.
My thoughts are that they might make a reimagined elan race, similar to how they reimagined the tieflings. Maybe some combination of daelkyr-halfblood and elan?
Regardless of what they're named or what they look like, I think this aberrant race would be a race that came from the Far Realm to do battle with other aberrations for their own inscrutable reasons. I would prefer that they be their own race, not yet another race of modified humans. But the symbiont idea is cool so I guess I could live with it. Perhaps they could treat the symbiont like a bloodline feat, such as with dhampyrs?
I think they want something more...aberrent? Something more in league with the over all "look" of the Far Realm, so basically Deep Ones
You may be joking about the deep ones, but I actually think the locathah would make a good PC race.
Ever since I read about a ruined locathah city underneath the waves of the Al-Qadim setting, I've been somewhat intrigued by them.Alot of times when I read that people want stuff from the Far Realm I think either Mindflayers/Ableoths and whatnot, or Deep Ones.
Same when people bring up Shadowfell, but unfortunately I tend to think Revenge of the Emo Bands adventuring parties when I read about desires for shadowfell pcs.
Half joking half serious
Alot of times when I read that people want stuff from the Far Realm I think either Mindflayers/Ableoths and whatnot, or Deep Ones.
All of those would work for me, in some way.
I was thinking that locathah are, in a weird way, kind of appropriate for psionics and the 4e world. Kuo-toa and sahuagin could be distant cousins in manner similar to elves, eladrin, and drow. Perhaps kuo-toa and sahuagin are branches of the locathah race that "fell" or became savage.
Some number of locathah may worship Dagon, who in 4e is a master of dark, abyssal secrets. Lovecraft's deep ones even worshipped Dagon, IIRC... It's an interesting parallel with minotaurs, actually - many minotaurs revere Baphomet, another demon prince.
Finally, everyone knows about how eldritch horrors from beyond slumber deep beneath the sea. Perhaps an ancient locathah empire delved into psionic research and actually summoned great and terrible entities that ruined with their civilization.
For playability reasons, I'd make locathah a primarily land-based race that dwells on the coasts. They still would be able to breathe water and swimg fast, but they would have no problem staying on land for extended periods of time. My old AD&D 2e Monstrous Compendium 2 says they have a nomadic, hunter-gatherer society. I'd say the race is currently composed of descendants of the ancient civilization, driven away from their ancient homeland by the aforementioned psionic horrors.
Same when people bring up Shadowfell, but unfortunately I tend to think Revenge of the Emo Bands adventuring parties when I read about desires for shadowfell pcs.
Well, at least the skadar-kai aren't emo. They're metal. ;)
> repeat what they were doing with the drow, so being like the drow doesn't actually
> work in the favor of goblins or gnolls.
What they said was that they didn't want to use too much design capital, and felt that githyanki as a PC race would be doing that.
If goblins or gnolls were seen as a problem on that count then minotaurs probably would be as well - yet look what we're getting. Goblins are probably *less* of an issue than minotaurs are, especially when you look at Eberron.
All of them have a well-established good guy/bad guy split going back at least one edition, or were already somewhere in the murky middle, so it's not much of a shift to present them as PCs; Githyanki would require a lot more retooling and justification.
> I think if we are going to see goblins anywhere, its going to be in Dragon, where
> the "villainous" options get published.
The races that have appeared in Dragon have been a mix - so have the PHB-series races. None of the writeups have assumed that the PCs of that race will be of the villainous sort, though.
My thoughts are that they might make a reimagined elan race, similar to how they reimagined the tieflings. Maybe some combination of daelkyr-halfblood and elan?
Regardless of what they're named or what they look like, I think this aberrant race would be a race that came from the Far Realm to do battle with other aberrations for their own inscrutable reasons. I would prefer that they be their own race, not yet another race of modified humans. But the symbiont idea is cool so I guess I could live with it. Perhaps they could treat the symbiont like a bloodline feat, such as with dhampyrs?
I think playing up the symbiont angle is a lot more evocative than bothering with the elans at all. While being immortal and just having "aberration" spelled out in their stats was kind of interesting, elans looked completely human and came off as sort of bland to me. On the other hand, i think creating a race that can grow a living, mutant chest plate or symbiotic arm would be a bit more out there and...well...aberrant.
I thought about going the bloodline route but i kinda like unique races instead of bloodlines. For my 4e update, ive decided that the new half-bloods can be born of 2 methods: born to half-blood parents or to any humanoid mother exposed radiation from the Far Realm. The former puts the race more in-line with how races operate this edition, as breeding true seems to be a big thing now. The later method of half-blood generation does a little to aleviate the "altered human" issue because they can be born to any kind of humanoid and use the same stats (the same way zombies, skeletons and other monsters formed of different races are different in fluff only while using the same stats).
Also, i feel like there is a lot more design space available by exploring a myriad of symbionts as opposed to working with the old elan racial features. There just wasn't a whole lot there.
What they said was that they didn't want to use too much design capital, and felt that githyanki as a PC race would be doing that. If goblins or gnolls were seen as a problem on that count then minotaurs probably would be as well - yet look what we're getting. Goblins are probably *less* of an issue than minotaurs are, especially when you look at Eberron.
You really think so? Glancing through the MM, it looks like every goblinoid and gnoll in the book is Evil or Chaotic Evil. Meanwhile, one ouf of 3 of the minotaurs in the book isn't evil and, if i recall, i think that nearly half of the minotaurs in the compendium are Any or Unaligned. In the core rules, goblins and gnolls seem to be presented as more likely to be evil than minotaurs.
The races that have appeared in Dragon have been a mix - so have the PHB-series races. None of the writeups have assumed that the PCs of that race will be of the villainous sort, though.
We got Gnoll, Shadar-kai, Minotaur and Revanant from Dragon. Pretty much all of them are "dark" or evil-curious. On the other hand, out of the 25 races in the PHBs how many are dark/evilish? Drow and possibly tieflings (though the later has been fluffed to really not be evil by default). The proportions seem to be pretty telling, IMO.
The biggest thing though is that when they said they didn't want to make too many villianous races into PC write-ups, the only thing they referenced as taking up to much design currency was the Drow, as if the Gnoll they already put out in Dragon didn't count. It sort of made it seem like Dragon wasn't a concern when putting out villain races.
My thoughts are that they might make a reimagined elan race, similar to how they reimagined the tieflings. Maybe some combination of daelkyr-halfblood and elan?
Regardless of what they're named or what they look like, I think this aberrant race would be a race that came from the Far Realm to do battle with other aberrations for their own inscrutable reasons. I would prefer that they be their own race, not yet another race of modified humans. But the symbiont idea is cool so I guess I could live with it. Perhaps they could treat the symbiont like a bloodline feat, such as with dhampyrs?
I think playing up the symbiont angle is a lot more evocative than bothering with the elans at all. While being immortal and just having "aberration" spelled out in their stats was kind of interesting, elans looked completely human and came off as sort of bland to me. On the other hand, i think creating a race that can grow a living, mutant chest plate or symbiotic arm would be a bit more out there and...well...aberrant.
I thought about going the bloodline route but i kinda like unique races instead of bloodlines. For my 4e update, ive decided that the new half-bloods can be born of 2 methods: born to half-blood parents or to any humanoid mother exposed radiation from the Far Realm. The former puts the race more in-line with how races operate this edition, as breeding true seems to be a big thing now. The later method of half-blood generation does a little to aleviate the "altered human" issue because they can be born to any kind of humanoid and use the same stats (the same way zombies, skeletons and other monsters formed of different races are different in fluff only while using the same stats).
Also, i feel like there is a lot more design space available by exploring a myriad of symbionts as opposed to working with the old elan racial features. There just wasn't a whole lot there.What they said was that they didn't want to use too much design capital, and felt that githyanki as a PC race would be doing that. If goblins or gnolls were seen as a problem on that count then minotaurs probably would be as well - yet look what we're getting. Goblins are probably *less* of an issue than minotaurs are, especially when you look at Eberron.
You really think so? Glancing through the MM, it looks like every goblinoid and gnoll in the book is Evil or Chaotic Evil. Meanwhile, one ouf of 3 of the minotaurs in the book isn't evil and, if i recall, i think that nearly half of the minotaurs in the compendium are Any or Unaligned. In the core rules, goblins and gnolls seem to be presented as more likely to be evil than minotaurs.The races that have appeared in Dragon have been a mix - so have the PHB-series races. None of the writeups have assumed that the PCs of that race will be of the villainous sort, though.
We got Gnoll, Shadar-kai, Minotaur and Revanant from Dragon. Pretty much all of them are "dark" or evil-curious. On the other hand, out of the 25 races in the PHBs how many are dark/evilish? Drow and possibly tieflings (though the later has been fluffed to really not be evil by default). The proportions seem to be pretty telling, IMO.
The biggest thing though is that when they said they didn't want to make too many villianous races into PC write-ups, the only thing they referenced as taking up to much design currency was the Drow, as if the Gnoll they already put out in Dragon didn't count. It sort of made it seem like Dragon wasn't a concern when putting out villain races.
Actually, we also got Warforged, you might remember. Minotaur have been unaligned from the beginning. As have Shadar-kai. And Revenants don't have a preferred alignment, though I would guess unaligned. Gnoll is the ONLY one with monster stats that use an evil alignment, and even then it says they used to be good and were corrupted, and there are still good Gnolls out there.
Drow, Tieflings, Genasi, Eladrin, Half-Orcs, Dragonborn, and Changelings all are great examples of races that also skirt that unaligned line of easy-to-use-as-villains. But any race does that.
WotC aren't releasing ANY race that doesn't have a potential for a culture of good alignments within it. That is the reason why Githyanki are out, but Gnolls are in.
Gnoll is the ONLY one with monster stats that use an evil alignment, and even then it says they used to be good and were corrupted, and there are still good Gnolls out there.
Which is exactly like the drow and, as i mentioned before, drawing direct parallels to the drow doesn't really help a "villain" race's chances of making it the PHB3.
WotC aren't releasing ANY race that doesn't have a potential for a culture of good alignments within it. That is the reason why Githyanki are out, but Gnolls are in.
According to the MM, gnolls kill, pillage, destroy, attack without warning and slaughter without mercy. There is no mention in the book rules of good gnolls: they are an evil society and all the book fluff and stat blocks show Chaotic Evil for alignment. The only reason there is a potential for good alignments is because they decided to whip up a special article that mentions the idea in passing. Absolutley nothing is stopping them from doing the exact same for githyankis if they so choose, despite the fact that they are prortrayed as evil in the MM entry (though far less evil sounding than than the descriptions of Gnoll culture, IMO).
Ultimately my point is that, just like the drow, gnolls have an evil evil culture and are an "evil" race. If the developers feel that drow have taken up all of their villain race "currency" for PHBs, thats a pretty strong indicator than Gnolls won't make it into the PHB3 since they both have a similar level of evilness.
According to the MM, gnolls kill, pillage, destroy, attack without warning and slaughter without mercy. There is no mention in the book rules of good gnolls: they are an evil society and all the book fluff and stat blocks show Chaotic Evil for alignment.
Don't forget that Gnolls were the ones who, by the base PoL fluff, basically destroyed civilization. While that is certainly an impressive feat, I'm pretty sure it is more evil than anything the Githyanki have ever done.
According to the MM, gnolls kill, pillage, destroy, attack without warning and slaughter without mercy. There is no mention in the book rules of good gnolls: they are an evil society and all the book fluff and stat blocks show Chaotic Evil for alignment.
Don't forget that Gnolls were the ones who, by the base PoL fluff, basically destroyed civilization. While that is certainly an impressive feat, I'm pretty sure it is more evil than anything the Githyanki have ever done.
Eberron says there are good Gnolls, at the very least.
Even Minotaurs leave me apathetic when compared with Trolls, Ogres and Half-giants Goliaths.
In defence of the Elan, simply being aberrant was never really thier schtick, it was simply 3.5's way of saying "These Guys Are Different".
Instead, the point of the Elan was that they're a race that you choose to become, instead of simply being born as one.
Once this fact is accepted a vast amount of potential fluff unfolds for them. Maybe they have snakes in thier necks, or maybe they've drunk from the Well of Eternity, or been imbued with all the knowledge of the God of Time, or maybe they're what you get when a dream becomes one with the sleeper.
Maybe they're the Crystaline Race we had a picture of a while back.
In any case, they shouldn't be dismissed just because they're not Aberrant enough.
Eberron says there are good Gnolls, at the very least.
Which would have made the EPG a perfectly wonderful place to put official Gnoll PC stats. That boat sailed a few months ago though. :p
We all know, Gnolls, Elan, Goblins which makes it alittle easier for us as DM's and players to look at them and go "Oh yeah these guys where cool back then or these guys have always been alittle interesting why not."
The question really boils down to would you prefer a book that has something that is slightly familiar lets say the Gnoll or something completly different that no one expected lets call it the California Raisin Race which yes you would play if you wanted to play a bard. (The example is meant to be a little silly but also to make a point does something so odd, the raisin race, sound more appealing or less then something alittle more familiar)
Instead, the point of the Elan was that they're a race that you choose to become, instead of simply being born as one.
Once this fact is accepted a vast amount of potential fluff unfolds for them. Maybe they have snakes in thier necks, or maybe they've drunk from the Well of Eternity, or been imbued with all the knowledge of the God of Time, or maybe they're what you get when a dream becomes one with the sleeper.
My issue with the last edition version is that this is the exact same kind of fluff i saw every character that had magical/psionic powers use, i.e. "I'm a human who became some super powered guy through some ritual, accident or secret society!" They look just like humans but are supposedly "special" for some background reason, and that describes pretty much every human PC in the game. Their racial feauture and mundane appearance just wasn't unique enough to make them stand out as different, IMO.
If anything, the new Vistani seem to capture the flavor in 4e you are describing. They are a "race" you choose to be inducted into through a ritual, gaining a cool mind-affecting power in the process. That pretty much seems like the essence of the elan fluff right there.
The question really boils down to would you prefer a book that has something that is slightly familiar lets say the Gnoll or something completly different that no one expected lets call it the California Raisin Race which yes you would play if you wanted to play a bard. (The example is meant to be a little silly but also to make a point does something so odd, the raisin race, sound more appealing or less then something alittle more familiar)
Personally, Im looking for left field stuff because pretty much everything we have so far is familiar in one form or another. I think the revenant might be the only thing released so far that wasn't playable in some form last edition, and even then undead was an option.
Even Minotaurs leave me apathetic when compared with Trolls, Ogres and Half-giants Goliaths.
Really?
I mean, I honestly can't even tell you what he difference is between Orcs, Ogres, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Trolls, and Gnolls. At best, I can tell you that Trolls regenerate and that Gnolls like slightly more like dogs than the rest, but otherwise, they run together for me as generically ugly, evil, and uncivilized races.
Even Minotaurs leave me apathetic when compared with Trolls, Ogres and Half-giants Goliaths.
Really?
I mean, I honestly can't even tell you what he difference is between Orcs, Ogres, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Trolls, and Gnolls. At best, I can tell you that Trolls regenerate and that Gnolls like slightly more like dogs than the rest, but otherwise, they run together for me as generically ugly, evil, and uncivilized races.
Agreed, though as Gnolls are Hyena-like, they're actually more in the Feliforma than Caniforma division of Carnivores, and thus more similar to cats than dogs...
Even Minotaurs leave me apathetic when compared with Trolls, Ogres and Half-giants Goliaths.
Really?
I mean, I honestly can't even tell you what he difference is between Orcs, Ogres, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Trolls, and Gnolls. At best, I can tell you that Trolls regenerate and that Gnolls like slightly more like dogs than the rest, but otherwise, they run together for me as generically ugly, evil, and uncivilized races.
Agreed, though as Gnolls are Hyena-like, they're actually more in the Feliforma than Caniforma division of Carnivores, and thus more similar to cats than dogs...
...I would call you out for being so pedantic, but that would be hypocritical of me. Well played...
My issue with the last edition version is that this is the exact same kind of fluff i saw every character that had magical/psionic powers use, i.e. "I'm a human who became some super powered guy through some ritual, accident or secret society!"
Well, rituals and societies are basic fantasy tropes. I mean, look at the Divine power source.
If anything, the new Vistani seem to capture the flavor in 4e you are describing. They are a "race" you choose to be inducted into through a ritual, gaining a cool mind-affecting power in the process. That pretty much seems like the essence of the elan fluff right there.
Not really. It's a question of scale. Comparing the Vistani and the Elan is like comparing the Dhampyr and the Revenant; One flavours your character, the other defines it.
Not that the Elan couldn't theoretically work as a feat chain or PP, it would simply work better as a race.
Even Minotaurs leave me apathetic when compared with Trolls, Ogres and Half-giants Goliaths.
Really?
Really.
At least with Trolls we have something more fantastic than "Cow-Man".
Even Minotaurs leave me apathetic when compared with Trolls, Ogres and Half-giants Goliaths.
Really?
Really.
At least with Trolls we have something more fantastic than "Cow-Man".
To be fair, they're more like Bull-Men and Cow-Woman. ^_~
But I still think that's miles ahead of "Generic ugly stupid uncivilized evil race #1", "Generic ugly stupid uncivilized evil race #2", "Generic ugly stupid uncivilized evil race #3", and "Generic ugly stupid uncivilized evil race #4".
My issue with the last edition version is that this is the exact same kind of fluff i saw every character that had magical/psionic powers use, i.e. "I'm a human who became some super powered guy through some ritual, accident or secret society!"
Well, rituals and societies are basic fantasy tropes. I mean, look at the Divine power source.
If anything, the new Vistani seem to capture the flavor in 4e you are describing. They are a "race" you choose to be inducted into through a ritual, gaining a cool mind-affecting power in the process. That pretty much seems like the essence of the elan fluff right there.
Not really. It's a question of scale. Comparing the Vistani and the Elan is like comparing the Dhampyr and the Revenant; One flavours your character, the other defines it.
Not that the Elan couldn't theoretically work as a feat chain or PP, it would simply work better as a race.Even Minotaurs leave me apathetic when compared with Trolls, Ogres and Half-giants Goliaths.
Really?
Really.
At least with Trolls we have something more fantastic than "Cow-Man".
bull-demon-men sounds cooler than big rock men that regenerate.
At least with Trolls we have something more fantastic than "Cow-Man".
With minotaurs we can also do "Yak-Man." ;)
Gnoll is the ONLY one with monster stats that use an evil alignment, and even then it says they used to be good and were corrupted, and there are still good Gnolls out there.
Which is exactly like the drow and, as i mentioned before, drawing direct parallels to the drow doesn't really help a "villain" race's chances of making it the PHB3.WotC aren't releasing ANY race that doesn't have a potential for a culture of good alignments within it. That is the reason why Githyanki are out, but Gnolls are in.
According to the MM, gnolls kill, pillage, destroy, attack without warning and slaughter without mercy. There is no mention in the book rules of good gnolls: they are an evil society and all the book fluff and stat blocks show Chaotic Evil for alignment. The only reason there is a potential for good alignments is because they decided to whip up a special article that mentions the idea in passing. Absolutley nothing is stopping them from doing the exact same for githyankis if they so choose, despite the fact that they are prortrayed as evil in the MM entry (though far less evil sounding than than the descriptions of Gnoll culture, IMO).
Ultimately my point is that, just like the drow, gnolls have an evil evil culture and are an "evil" race. If the developers feel that drow have taken up all of their villain race "currency" for PHBs, thats a pretty strong indicator than Gnolls won't make it into the PHB3 since they both have a similar level of evilness.
One thing that I think is important with regards to WotC saying they didn't want to put in any more "evil" races as PCs: at the time that statement was made, gnolls were already a PC race. The fact that drow are typically evil certainly hasn't stopped WotC from putting in new content for them, so I don't see it stopping them from doing it for gnolls either.
One thing that I think is important with regards to WotC saying they didn't want to put in any more "evil" races as PCs: at the time that statement was made, gnolls were already a PC race. The fact that drow are typically evil certainly hasn't stopped WotC from putting in new content for them, so I don't see it stopping them from doing it for gnolls either.
Look at the specific context in which the statement about drow was made though. They were saying they didn't want to fill the last race slot in the PHB3 with githyanki expressly because they are an evil race. That pretty much takes gnolls out of the running too.
DOn't forget they already have the minotaur in the book, a traditionally evil race. So maybe they wanted avoid two evil races in the book, especially after already having the drow in forgotten realms.
Minotaurs are unaligned. They've had a mixed culture from the beginning.
Although an abberant that was a little... abberanty would be nice. Eye stalks, cilia feet or snake-body with arms (but how do you do boots?).
Also, left field thought: Sentient Ooze people! Just throwing that out there.
Minotaurs are unaligned. They've had a mixed culture from the beginning.
In 4e, but traditionally minotaurs have been an evil and monstrous race, not much different from ogres.
Minotaurs are unaligned. They've had a mixed culture from the beginning.
In 4e, but traditionally minotaurs have been an evil and monstrous race, not much different from ogres.
Doesn't matter. If something's been retconned, it's been retconned. The tradition only matters if something's carried over to the new edition.
That said, I'm VERY disappointed with whoever approved the Class Acts article giving an Evoker Wizard build in Dragon this month. The build is alright, should be wrapped in the War Wizard, and Evocation means nothing like what they claimed it was in past editions. 4e gets it right with Primal power names (evocations), but then they have to screw it up with tradition that (I thought) had no place in 4e. As you might guess, the article isn't written by one of the big guys at WotC...
I guess what I'm saying is, 4e retconned a lot of things, and untenable fluff and crunch should go and have gone the way of the Dinosaurs.
Minotaurs are unaligned. They've had a mixed culture from the beginning.
In 4e, but traditionally minotaurs have been an evil and monstrous race, not much different from ogres.
Not really. They were unaligned and even heroes in Dragonlance from nearly the beginning on. And the 3.5 Eberron version isn't much different from the 4e version.
And as much as I hate making a WoW comparison, Tauren are second-rate Minotaurs, so there's that grouping as well.
If not PHB3, maybe they'll support the Dragon races a bit more :I
I do hope it is Gnolls, it's an interesting race that I think could add quite a bit of flavour, and Dex+Con is still a gap in handbook races so it isn't like they'd be redundant or anything (even if there was another in PHB3 itself)
If not PHB3, maybe they'll support the Dragon races a bit more :I
However, Dex/Con is not optimal for anything but the Bleak Disciple Assassin at this point, which is DDi only. Much more preferable would be an Int/Con race, which would be optimal for Battlesmith Artificers, Ensnaring and Shielding Swordmages, Infernal, (some) Star, and Vestige Warlocks, and Summoner and Staff Wizards. I do hope for more classes that play up Dex/Con, but for now, we're in desperate need of an Int/Con race.
I do hope it is Gnolls, it's an interesting race that I think could add quite a bit of flavour, and Dex+Con is still a gap in handbook races so it isn't like they'd be redundant or anything (even if there was another in PHB3 itself)
If not PHB3, maybe they'll support the Dragon races a bit more :I
However, Dex/Con is not optimal for anything but the Bleak Disciple Assassin at this point, which is DDi only. Much more preferable would be an Int/Con race, which would be optimal for Battlesmith Artificers, Ensnaring and Shielding Swordmages, Infernal, (some) Star, and Vestige Warlocks, and Summoner and Staff Wizards. I do hope for more classes that play up Dex/Con, but for now, we're in desperate need of an Int/Con race.
While I agree that an Int/Con race would be nice, it would need to be easily accessable. That's the problem with making Githyanki a PC race - They're optimal for so many classes and they're so inaccessable. It's the same problem that Kalashtar have, except that they can be easily flavored into most campaigns as something else because they're just psychic people. Other villian races lack this problem - Drow are Dex/Cha, which Halflings already cover; Minotaur is covered by Goliaths; Half-Orcs, while the only STR/DEX race, are found in almost every kind of DnD-esque fantasy setting, whereas Gith are not (I'd heard of Orcs and Half-orcs before playing DnD, but never a "gith"); Revenants and Gnolls are only optimal so far for one build of Assassin, which is already a 'dark', though not necessarily 'evil' class.
Anyways, on the minotaur. Whatever problems the minotaur has can be easily fixed with a few word insertions/replacements, while still keeping their flavor:
Ferocity - Replace 'Melee Basic Attack' with simply 'Basic Attack'.
Heedless Charge - Probably alright, since its a minor feature anyways, but you could also add the bonus to opportunity attacks provoked for ranged and area attacks.
Goring Charge - Standardize it with other racial attack powers. That is to say, instead of STR for attack and STR damage, do STR/DEX/CON for attack and STR/DEX/CON damage. To make it substatintially more useful, simply make it not require a charge. Make it a once per encounter melee basic attack. Now it serves many more purposes - Classes that might not use melee weapons now have a powerful opportunity attack at least once per encounter that even stops movement. In addition, Minotaurs with a focus on CON and not STR, like an Infernal Warlock or a CON/WIS Battlemind can still make full use of the ability. The Opportunity Gore feat can still exist - it would simply make it an opportunity attack that you could always use, like it already does.
It works very well for several classes/builds even if it's not their designated primary/secondary; archery rangers in particular, and artful rogues can also use it. It's also both secondaries of a number of classes (especially primal ones), and gnolls have turned out to be a popular choice for those.
> Dex/Con is not optimal It works very well for several classes/builds even if it's not their designated primary/secondary; archery rangers in particular, and artful rogues can also use it. It's also both secondaries of a number of classes (especially primal ones), and gnolls have turned out to be a popular choice for those.
Well, my point remains valid. If they're going to fill INT/CON with its first PC race, it needs to be very accessable (Which Githyanki is certainly not).
> Dex/Con is not optimal It works very well for several classes/builds even if it's not their designated primary/secondary; archery rangers in particular, and artful rogues can also use it. It's also both secondaries of a number of classes (especially primal ones), and gnolls have turned out to be a popular choice for those.
Well, my point remains valid. If they're going to fill INT/CON with its first PC race, it needs to be very accessable (Which Githyanki is certainly not).
Agreed. It should be a race that is not fundamentally evil... it needs to be able to spawn good and lawful good heroes, not just an occasional unaligned hero...
Imo, having unaligned/evil heroes/PC-Races would make for a nice change.
Why is everyone so hung up on the idea that heroes have to be good/lawful-good?
Imo, having unaligned/evil heroes/PC-Races would make for a nice change.
No, that's not what I mean. A race should have the potential for ALL alignments, rather than restricted to one or two. A race that is ALWAYS Lawful Good would be just as bad, because then you couldn't have Good or Unaligned heroes.
That said, this is a game about heroes, and heroes do heroic things, which generally means they aren't evil or chaotic evil, since that would entail doing villainous, rather than heroic, things.
A race is in an interpretive ghetto if it only possess a single alignment. While this is good for codifying villainous races (allowing us to know that we're dealing at the very least with a race that's going to be hostile to our ideals, if not outright antagonists), it's no good for a PC race that should allow ANY character concept feasible. This is the same reason why races don't have negative modifiers anymore. No race should be -bad- at any class or build, but there are some class builds they're more adept at than others.
A race could have a suggested background alignment centre – for example, Tieflings tend to have some sort of a relationship with their evil ancestors, and might very likely be unaligned, but they could just as well reject that evil, and fight their entire lives to break that stereotype (Good), or they might be paragons of order and good despite their evil blood (Lawful Good).
Nor is it valid to dismiss the Dragon article that depicts gnolls as having multiple cultures - Dragon articles (whether anyone likes it or not) are considered as official/canon as the MM by WotC, which means that that fluff is just as official - when one of those cultures is nonevil and capable of and even likely to produce heroic individuals of any alignment.
--
I'm in no way certain that gnolls will appear in the PHB3; I just don't buy the "inherently inappropriate" statements.
None of the races mentioned so far only possess a single alignment, including gnolls. Citing the MM entries isn't proof of anything because the MM entries (with the exception of one or two creatures that are specifically meant for use as mounts) for creatures represent typical antagonists of that species rather than the entire possible range of them. That doesn't just apply to gnolls; it covers pretty much everything. Nor is it valid to dismiss the Dragon article that depicts gnolls as having multiple cultures - Dragon articles (whether anyone likes it or not) are considered as official/canon as the MM by WotC, which means that that fluff is just as official - when one of those cultures is nonevil and capable of and even likely to produce heroic individuals of any alignment. -- I'm in no way certain that gnolls will appear in the PHB3; I just don't buy the "inherently inappropriate" statements.
However, it should be duly noted that there is a difference between Gnolls and Githyanki or Rakshasas (for example) in that regard: the fluff of the latter two races essentially prohibits good and lawful good members of their society, while the fluff of Gnolls says nothing to the sort, and there is even fluff on the side of them having good-subcultures devoted to their previous God, and to the Primal Spirits, not to mention the organisation in Eberron made of up good Gnolls.
There are races that have "inherently inappropriate" elements; Gnolls just aren't one of those.
However, it should be duly noted that there is a difference between Gnolls and Githyanki or Rakshasas (for example) in that regard: the fluff of the latter two races essentially prohibits good and lawful good members of their society
I must disagree. As corrupted Deva, Rakshasas are by definition evil. Githyanki, on the other hand, typically merely originate from a culture dominated by an evil matriarch (Lich Queen), and this makes them pretty much in the same boat as the Drow (dominated by Lolth).
Gnolls on the other hand are described as feral and animal like. Their savagery goes beyond culture, and much like a wild animal raised as a pet, a Gnoll would retain an edge of that savagery even if raised outside their typical culture.
There are races that have "inherently inappropriate" elements
Again I disagree, no race is "inherently inappropriate". The baseline culture of most monstrous races might be "inherently inappropriate", but the assumption is typically that PC examples of such races represent individuals that reject that culture. Even for particularly savage races that might be instinctually "evil" the presumption is that a PC character represents an individual struggling to overcome their baser urges.
However, it should be duly noted that there is a difference between Gnolls and Githyanki or Rakshasas (for example) in that regard: the fluff of the latter two races essentially prohibits good and lawful good members of their society
I must disagree. As corrupted Deva, Rakshasas are by definition evil. Githyanki, on the other hand, typically merely originate from a culture dominated by an evil matriarch (Lich Queen), and this makes them pretty much in the same boat as the Drow (dominated by Lolth).
Gnolls on the other hand are described as feral and animal like. Their savagery goes beyond culture, and much like a wild animal raised as a pet, a Gnoll would retain an edge of that savagery even if raised outside their typical culture.There are races that have "inherently inappropriate" elements
Again I disagree, no race is "inherently inappropriate". The baseline culture of most monstrous races might be "inherently inappropriate", but the assumption is typically that PC examples of such races represent individuals that reject that culture. Even for particularly savage races that might be instinctually "evil" the presumption is that a PC character represents an individual struggling to overcome their baser urges.
Good Githyanki don't exist. Their fluff restrains them from it, because the Lich Queen would kill any good Githyanki. Lolth doesn't have nearly the same sort of control over the Drow, considering her distance as a deity far and away in the Demon-Web Pits.
Githyanki don't have a counterculture where they might be good. Drow and Gnolls do. Githyanki could possibly be -made- to have such a counterculture in the future, but WotC has said that they don't want to degrade another villainous race that's far more useful in the situation it's currently in than as a hero. Githyanki provide especially suitable villains for Githzerai, a hero-race, and may provide perilous temporary allies as well (team up against the common enemy of the Illithids, for example). But even then, it's the enemy of my enemy is my friend – and like in the late 1940s, once the enemy is taken care of, the alliance of Gith would quickly dissolve. It's a very flavourful concept, but it loses it's strength if Githyanki became part of the good-guys.
Drow have already experienced villain-decay, and become a heroic race alongside the evil. Hopefully, by accepting that villain decay as canon, Drow heroes (which are inordinantly popular), will start to feature more hero types than Drizz't clones.
On the otherhand, Githyanki really don't have the same attraction to them. Sure, there are people who like them as a PC race, but I've seen more people clamouring for them because of the Int/Con and for balance with the Githzerai than their actual fluff as a stand-alone race. I know I was a member of that group before the declaration that the Githyanki would not be in PH3. I even noted the mention of Githyanki in the Psion Debut, and saw it as proof of their placement in the book, until WotC declared a Word of God saying they weren't in (during the Githzerai Debut).
By the way, let's look at that Word of God statement, shall we?
James Wyatt: Contrary to some message-board claims,
the githyanki are not appearing in Player’s Handbook 3.
Why not, you ask?
The githzerai’s evil kin are great villains, and we want
to be careful about how often we turn villain races into
player character options. Making the drow a playable
race spent a lot of that currency, and we don’t want to
overdo it.
Mike Mearls: While sometimes it’s fun to play against
stereotypes, we don’t want every villainous race to go the
way of the drow.
When they say currency, they mean that the villains pretty much lose their terrifying power to insight fear and danger in the heroes if they're no longer evil, if they're one of the races that could be any alignment.
While finding out that the halflings are actually evil cannibals is horrifying, it's a very different sort of villainhood than the vengeful race of militant space pirates controlled by a Lich Queen.
Why is everyone so hung up on the idea that heroes have to be good/lawful-good?
Imo, having unaligned/evil heroes/PC-Races would make for a nice change.
No one is hung up over that except WotC. They're the only ones that have the ludicrous notion that having multiple "bad guy" races as PC options is a bad thing.
Why is everyone so hung up on the idea that heroes have to be good/lawful-good?
Imo, having unaligned/evil heroes/PC-Races would make for a nice change.
No one is hung up over that except WotC. They're the only ones that have the ludicrous notion that having multiple "bad guy" races as PC options is a bad thing.
Actually, heroes should never be evil or chaotic evil. Unaligned is alright, because they care about themselves and their family, friends, and allies, but not about much beyond that (self-interested is how I'd describe Unaligned, but not overly selfish).
Evil and Chaotic Evil don't work together in groups. The group structure falls apart, so PCs should never be Evil or Chaotic Evil. Because of this, every Player Race should have backgrounds so that the player could be Good, Lawful Good, or Unaligned without being "the only Good one in the world."
That means that the race shouldn't be an evil-cultured race, but a race with various cultures of differing alignments. Drow have developed into one of those races, but it was a long time in the making. Githyanki have not. Minotaur have developed into one of those races, Rakshasa have not (and should NEVER). There lies the fundamental situation about races and alignment.
Evil and Chaotic Evil don't work together in groups. The group structure falls apart, so PCs should never be Evil or Chaotic Evil. Because of this, every Player Race should have backgrounds so that the player could be Good, Lawful Good, or Unaligned without being "the only Good one in the world."
Belkar Bitterleaf (Order of the Stick webcomic) is chaotic evil, he's in a party, and he's a "hero". Granted, it doesn't work as smoothly as a full good/lawful/unaligned party would, but it works.
I currently play a chaotic evil character in a party. And instead of trying to kill them, I try to steer them into comitting evil deeds, although I'm usually the only one who actually does evil stuff so far. (including mutilating corpses, robbing would-be robbers and subsequently attacking them for no reason other than to kill them, etc.) The main reason why I don't attack anyone in a town is because the guards are too strong.
Evil *can* and *does* work in groups. They just do so in a different way than unaligned/good does. 3.5 has more than enough material on that part iirc.
Belkar Bitterleaf (Order of the Stick webcomic) is chaotic evil, he's in a party, and he's a "hero". Granted, it doesn't work as smoothly as a full good/lawful/unaligned party would, but it works.
To be fair, it works in Order of the Stick because there have been multiple counts of DM intervention specifically designed to screw him over and force him not to act as he would like to act.
Belkar Bitterleaf (Order of the Stick webcomic) is chaotic evil, he's in a party, and he's a "hero". Granted, it doesn't work as smoothly as a full good/lawful/unaligned party would, but it works.
To be fair, it works in Order of the Stick because there have been multiple counts of DM intervention specifically designed to screw him over and force him not to act as he would like to act.
Exactly my point: Evil only works if the characters can't fulfill their motives, and without motives, there aren't character plotlines, which means these are just adventurers forced into some event without any will otherwise (we're doing this because we're adventurers, rather than being actually invested!) Thus, railroading happens, and I have yet to see a railroaded game that resulted in much fun at all for the players or the DM. The whole thing just is riddled with problems.
Evil and Chaotic Evil don't work together in groups. The group structure falls apart, so PCs should never be Evil or Chaotic Evil. Because of this, every Player Race should have backgrounds so that the player could be Good, Lawful Good, or Unaligned without being "the only Good one in the world."
And what exactly is the problem with being the only good X in the world?
Evil and Chaotic Evil don't work together in groups. The group structure falls apart, so PCs should never be Evil or Chaotic Evil. Because of this, every Player Race should have backgrounds so that the player could be Good, Lawful Good, or Unaligned without being "the only Good one in the world."
And what exactly is the problem with being the only good X in the world?
It means it's an extremely situational race that only breeds a single character type. Drow have been released from that problem since they became Player Races and are more than just Drizz't clones rebelling against their evil kin – there's multiple Drow cultures now, with good and evil elements amongst the race.
I'm not saying it's not viable to play "the lone good guy amongst the evil race" – that's what the MM races are for, along with providing a PC-esque villain NPC. But there's not going to be much racial fluff if the race is "you're a heroic loner, rebelling against your evil kin." There's only so many ways to play that character (outside of racial-class combinations).
Revi from Black Lagoon is blatantly Chaotic Evil, yet she can work with a group, and even act heroic (though usually for money).
Revi wouldn't work in a PC situation because she needs someone like Dutch and even more so, Balalaika to beat her up/scare her when she starts to cause problems with the party. Essentially, in that regard, she's like a wolf on a leash. That doesn't work well for party relations… it would cause friction between the players, and even more so between their characters. You could be sure that the player playing Rock would start to wonder why s/he's even playing this game with such a disruptive player like the one controlling Revi.
It makes for an interesting Anime, but wouldn't work well AT ALL in D&D.
Revi wouldn't work in a PC situation because she needs someone like Dutch and even more so, Balalaika to beat her up/scare her when she starts to cause problems with the party. Essentially, in that regard, she's like a wolf on a leash. That doesn't work well for party relations… it would cause friction between the players, and even more so between their characters. You could be sure that the player playing Rock would start to wonder why s/he's even playing this game with such a disruptive player like the one controlling Revi.
It makes for an interesting Anime, but wouldn't work well AT ALL in D&D.
I'll have to disagree here, if for the only reason that you're going by the anime instead of the manga. Now, unlike most series that have gone from manga to anime that I've seen, Black Lagoon is a very faithful adaptation. However, I feel it still misses some of the nuances of the manga.
While you are correct for the most part, and Revi does need a strong leader type to help reign her in, other the early arcs like the submarine one most of the time she ends up doing the right thing or being a good team player because she herself makes the decision to do so.
Most of those cases are not due to altruism of course. But the majority of the time she will work with people to accomplish a goal without any browbeating necessary. Hell, as much as she makes fun of Rock's morality a lot of the time, she cares for him and is willing to work within his frame of things. The curent American release of the series is at a point where the Columbian bo and his maid have made a return (I'm pretty sure the anime stopped before this arc), and she's going along with Rock's plan to "save the day" (so to speak) because it's Rock instigating things, not because soeone forced her to, or because she's being paid to.
Now, I'm not saying that is something easy to carry out in a non-scripted atmosphere. But it is possible, epsecially with a group of players that trust each other and know how each other works.
It means it's an extremely situational race that only breeds a single character type. Drow have been released from that problem since they became Player Races and are more than just Drizz't clones rebelling against their evil kin – there's multiple Drow cultures now, with good and evil elements amongst the race.
Actually, one could argue that "not-evil" drow existed before Drizz't did. Eilistraee-worshippers anyone? First mention that I can find of her is from 1991.
It makes for an interesting Anime, but wouldn't work well AT ALL in D&D.
Well, if we look at the direction that D&D is going...
Essentially, in that regard, she's like a wolf on a leash.
Works for my party so far. ^_^
Revi wouldn't work in a PC situation because she needs someone like Dutch and even more so, Balalaika to beat her up/scare her when she starts to cause problems with the party. Essentially, in that regard, she's like a wolf on a leash. That doesn't work well for party relations… it would cause friction between the players, and even more so between their characters. You could be sure that the player playing Rock would start to wonder why s/he's even playing this game with such a disruptive player like the one controlling Revi.
It makes for an interesting Anime, but wouldn't work well AT ALL in D&D.
I'll have to disagree here, if for the only reason that you're going by the anime instead of the manga. Now, unlike most series that have gone from manga to anime that I've seen, Black Lagoon is a very faithful adaptation. However, I feel it still misses some of the nuances of the manga.
While you are correct for the most part, and Revi does need a strong leader type to help reign her in, other the early arcs like the submarine one most of the time she ends up doing the right thing or being a good team player because she herself makes the decision to do so.
Most of those cases are not due to altruism of course. But the majority of the time she will work with people to accomplish a goal without any browbeating necessary. Hell, as much as she makes fun of Rock's morality a lot of the time, she cares for him and is willing to work within his frame of things. The curent American release of the series is at a point where the Columbian bo and his maid have made a return (I'm pretty sure the anime stopped before this arc), and she's going along with Rock's plan to "save the day" (so to speak) because it's Rock instigating things, not because soeone forced her to, or because she's being paid to.
Now, I'm not saying that is something easy to carry out in a non-scripted atmosphere. But it is possible, epsecially with a group of players that trust each other and know how each other works.
Granted, I have only watched the anime. And I know that Revi and Rock's relationship is a lot more nuanced than I explained. In that regard, she's in a hazy unaligned area, because she cares about her allies and friends (a fundamental Unaligned area that sets the alignment apart from the lower two). That said, she does do a lot of evil and selfish things, which all the more reinforces my belief that YOU CANNOT PRESCRIBE D&D ALIGNMENT TO LITERARY CHARACTERS.
For example, it quickly breaks down if you try to determine Batman's alignment. It's just not a useful tool when you're talking about other media.
And even if it's possible (which judging from the reactions of a couple vocal board members here, I will assume it is), a majority of games would break down because of it. WotC isn't going to brand something that would cause problems in their games – it's supposed to be a system-edition that makes the game more fluid and easier to play, not more hazardous. Hasbro wouldn't like it.