I will buy an insider subscription no questions asked if they offer this. (even if it's not in insder)
Maybe.. An alien race, inspired by the Mooks of Wizardry, or the funky wacky Mother-Earthbound universe? would be rad.
I hope not personaly, my collecting nerdly personality - but there is always a place for something different, unusual.
Maybe.. An alien race, inspired by the Mooks of Wizardry, or the funky wacky Mother-Earthbound universe? would be rad.
Shardminds. You have your race. Give me Kobolds!
I hope not personaly, my collecting nerdly personality - but there is always a place for something different, unusual.
Maybe.. An alien race, inspired by the Mooks of Wizardry, or the funky wacky Mother-Earthbound universe? would be rad.
Shardminds. You have your race. Give me Kobolds!
More litteral aliens (albeit I use Shardminds - as a NATURALY evolving thing deep in deep underdark, like some sci-fi works or a psionic version of Earthdawn's obsidiansomething.).
Shardminds. You have your race.
That's like telling somebody who wanted a plant race that they had the Wilden. That's not good enough, and you know it.
For what it's worth, I have home-brewed a more sci-fi inspired race modeled partially after the archetypal Grey. Check it out if you like.
BTW, I like the Wildren - they live in the 'Amazonian' jungle equivalent area, with maybe similar plantish and similar oddities races, so....
Thank you. If they look like Giyggas 1,0/Giegue of Earthbound, funky.
I heard somewhere that HOTF was the last official source with races. Is this madness true?
I read the same rumor, but I don't recall ever seeing any official announcement about that.
I heard somewhere that HOTF was the last official source with races. Is this madness true?
It would only be true under conditions where that is minor news, as with the introduction of 5e, or the failure to produce additional books. But if another book is published, there will be at least 4 new races and classes or subclasses.
Shardminds. You have your race.
That's like telling somebody who wanted a plant race that they had the Wilden. That's not good enough, and you know it.
It was also sarcasm to get my Kobold point across. I've been preaching Kobolds since the start of 4e.
You guys will see several new races in 2012
[/thread]
You guys will see several new races in 2012
I can haz Kobolds?
Or Rakshasa(?). The cat guys who haven't even had an MM write-up (unless it's in MM2 or 3).
My fingers are crossed for Gnolls. I don't know why I like them so much, but I do.
Or Rakshasa(?). The cat guys who haven't even had an MM write-up (unless it's in MM2 or 3).
Gnolls already have a write up. They just haven't been given their flex stat.
I know, and so have Kobolds.
Kobolds don't have a write-up for PC use. They only appear in the back of the Monster Manual, and aren't designed to be used for PC's. Gnolls have had a full write-up for PC use in Dragon 367.
Oh, in which book is the full Gnoll write-up?
Dragon 367 has an article for playing Gnolls. Includes a few racial feats.
I want race to make more impact on my character, so for that I want powers feats and choise built into them.... that said Kobolds and Bugbears would be sweet as well.
kobold, goblin, hobgoblin, bugbear, and orc would be a good set.
I am a fan of "less is more". However, I, too, would like to see "official" PC write-ups for a few monster races:
kobold, goblin, hobgoblin, bugbear, and orc would be a good set.
There is always the Kingdom of Kalamar third party stuff - yes, they updated to 4th ed early. Not sure how it is, but they also have an HALF-Hob' race, which I'd use myself.
I am a fan of "less is more". However, I, too, would like to see "official" PC write-ups for a few monster races:
kobold, goblin, hobgoblin, bugbear, and orc would be a good set.
That would pretty much cover the iconic races of D&D. Should have been done already.
I am a fan of "less is more". However, I, too, would like to see "official" PC write-ups for a few monster races:
kobold, goblin, hobgoblin, bugbear, and orc would be a good set.
That would pretty much cover the iconic races of D&D. Should have been done already.
I'd rather see some actual NEW races, myself; not just 'stuff that's never had a PC writeup', but stuff that's never been in print in any form before.
I'd rather see some actual NEW races, myself; not just 'stuff that's never had a PC writeup', but stuff that's never been in print in any form before.
Definitely not. We want to play elves, not asdfgs. A lack of an image for a race is a severe disadvantage. It's not so bad for monsters, who only appear in one encounter, but the PC needs an image if we are to want to play it.
I am a fan of "less is more". However, I, too, would like to see "official" PC write-ups for a few monster races:
kobold, goblin, hobgoblin, bugbear, and orc would be a good set.
That would pretty much cover the iconic races of D&D. Should have been done already.
Id not mind full stats and such for dark dwarves and kenku as well. Duergar for their new and different feel, and kenku for their possible role in a Kara-tur game.
I'd rather see some actual NEW races, myself; not just 'stuff that's never had a PC writeup', but stuff that's never been in print in any form before.
Definitely not. We want to play elves, not asdfgs. A lack of an image for a race is a severe disadvantage. It's not so bad for monsters, who only appear in one encounter, but the PC needs an image if we are to want to play it.
YOU want to play elves, Shotgun. I wouldn't mind at all if humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, and halflings hit the circular file.
I'd rather see some actual NEW races, myself; not just 'stuff that's never had a PC writeup', but stuff that's never been in print in any form before.
Definitely not. We want to play elves, not asdfgs. A lack of an image for a race is a severe disadvantage. It's not so bad for monsters, who only appear in one encounter, but the PC needs an image if we are to want to play it.
YOU want to play elves, Shotgun. I wouldn't mind at all if humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, and halflings hit the circular file.
I like Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes and Halflings. I just like the option of having others too.
We don't need another parade of (to mock certain old-E habits) "[animal]folk that are yet another group of rustic tribal primitives who act like [animal] with a couple of traits exaggerated beyond all reason! Oh, and isn't [animal]folk" such a creative naming convention?" Yeah, no. It's possible to do a cat-person (or whatever) race well (TES Khajiit, for one), but D&D's past attempts at such have generally been... weak.
Going a bit more 'out there' can work, but it's something of a hit or miss proposition. Shardminds (bad naming convention aside) are a reasonably creative idea, but then we look at the wilden...
Of course, that's still better than having yet another variation of 'elf' or another human-with-... race that all too often seem to be trying to claim the same niche as another human-with-... race (shadar-kai and shades, for example).
And then you have the various "It's not quite X but we're nervous about 'spending capital' by providing X as a player race so we'll give you this watered down version instead!" races - shifters and their ilk. (The number of times they've danced around providing an actual werewolf race by shoving similar-but-not-quite options at us is becoming laughable.)
So yes, new races would be nice. More of the above would not.
He does have a point, though: a new race needs to be distinctive to be a worthwhile addition to the game. We don't need another parade of (to mock certain old-E habits) "[animal]folk that are yet another group of rustic tribal primitives who act like [animal] with a couple of traits exaggerated beyond all reason! Oh, and isn't [animal]folk" such a creative naming convention?" Yeah, no. It's possible to do a cat-person (or whatever) race well (TES Khajiit, for one), but D&D's past attempts at such have generally been... weak. Going a bit more 'out there' can work, but it's something of a hit or miss proposition. Shardminds (bad naming convention aside) are a reasonably creative idea, but then we look at the wilden... Of course, that's still better than having yet another variation of 'elf' or another human-with-... race that all too often seem to be trying to claim the same niche as another human-with-... race (shadar-kai and shades, for example). And then you have the various "It's not quite X but we're nervous about 'spending capital' by providing X as a player race so we'll give you this watered down version instead!" races - shifters and their ilk. (The number of times they've danced around providing an actual werewolf race by shoving similar-but-not-quite options at us is becoming laughable.) So yes, new races would be nice. More of the above would not.
Well yeah, that would be boring.
Shardminds (bad naming convention aside) are a reasonably creative idea, but then we look at the wilden...
I think the wilden are also a reasonably creative idea and could be a good addition to the game. But they need a lot more work on execution.
Same for shades.
Pixies too with a variant... they seem mostly okay in themselves, but they break some previous PC-design assumptions (no Tiny PCs, no free flying at level 1 for PCs...) and the consequences of that breakage were not thought through sufficiently.
Think of all of the really cool races that we would be missing out on if they never did anything original in this or past editions, if they never took the chance to create something cool. From this edition, we wouldn't have the Deva (awesome) or the Shard-Mind (flawed in execution but fantastic in concept) or the Hamadryad. If they never tried anything new back in 3E? We wouldn't have Warforged, Changelings, or Goliaths.
Other than possibly Kobolds, depending on how they're done, I can't think of any creatures existing in 4E that I specifically want to see statted out as PCs. I would much rather have new races. Yeah, with new races there's always the danger that they won't really gain any traction or that they won't be as original as we wish they were. But you know what else isn't original? Sticking to the same races every edition. I'd rather they take a chance and end up creating some cool stuff and some crap rather than just rehashing a bunch of other stuff that we've seen before.
Think of all of the really cool races that we would be missing out on if they never did anything original in this or past editions, if they never took the chance to create something cool. From this edition, we wouldn't have the Deva (awesome) or the Shard-Mind (flawed in execution but fantastic in concept) or the Hamadryad. If they never tried anything new back in 3E? We wouldn't have Warforged, Changelings, or Goliaths.
Now it is a lot harder to judge which races are the most popular than it was back in 3.5 when the various regions maintained character lists, but this seems more or less a list of the less popular races, not the successful ones. [Now the hamadryad is too new to judge, and is a race in several editions , tho generally called just "dryad". So she is hardly an innovation.]
A game with innovative names and races is a game that is not paying attention to its customers. Drow is a popular choice because of several books. So the game wisely copied the books. This is what the game should do, cater to the customer desire [which are heavily copy-cat], not create new races that will not interest the players unless they are inbalancing.
I would also like the sub-races to be fleshed out too. Human, Dragonborn and Goliath have potential for some sub-classes, I guess all the races do,
Also a new race would be nice, someone try to make something D&D iconic that hasn't been done before.
Basically no one is right or wrong in this thread so far. It's all fertile ground to build on.
Other than possibly Kobolds, depending on how they're done, I can't think of any creatures existing in 4E that I specifically want to see statted out as PCs. I would much rather have new races. Yeah, with new races there's always the danger that they won't really gain any traction or that they won't be as original as we wish they were. But you know what else isn't original? Sticking to the same races every edition. I'd rather they take a chance and end up creating some cool stuff and some crap rather than just rehashing a bunch of other stuff that we've seen before.
Think of all of the really cool races that we would be missing out on if they never did anything original in this or past editions, if they never took the chance to create something cool. From this edition, we wouldn't have the Deva (awesome) or the Shard-Mind (flawed in execution but fantastic in concept) or the Hamadryad. If they never tried anything new back in 3E? We wouldn't have Warforged, Changelings, or Goliaths.
Agree about Deva, Shardmind, Warforged, and Changelings, but on Goliaths have been here since 2e. They were just called Half-Giants then. And they were two different races in 3e/3.5e, but the two concepts were merged to form the modern 4e depiction of a Goliath.
That said, I feel like I've been able to do cool things with all the races published; I've just had to rework some flavour to fit my setting. Some needed more heavy reworking, but I heavily disagree about Wilden being lame. Wilden are like somewhere between a Grovvyl, a Treant, and a Khajiit in my opinion. Which is really cool. And the hive-mind idea has a lot going for it in roleplaying ideas.
I agree that new races are good. But old races are equally important: Kobolds should return to the game (due to fan-popularity), as well as Goblins (though I don't think Hobgoblins or Bugbears should), if only for Eberron's sake. Gnolls should get their flex-abilities, since they started them off, even if they decided it's a very monstrous race and I know that article was filled with canonical holes (like saying a Gnoll could make an Infernal Pact with Yeenoghu, which makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE; we need a true Demon Pact – they COULD have provided in Book of Vile Darkness, but now I think they turned their back on that. Dark Pact works reasonably well, but doesn't fit the Gnoll stats). In addition, I'm looking forward to seeing how they implement Bladeling flavour in the upcoming article. Bladelings are interesting enough that I've got my eye on them, but I'm not sure how to rework them to fit my setting yet.
There WAS an announcement a while back by WotC that HotFW would be the last book with new races – in a Rule of Three regarding Elemental Heroes. But Dragon is obviously a fertile ground for more options.
Now it is a lot harder to judge which races are the most popular than it was back in 3.5 when the various regions maintained character lists, but this seems more or less a list of the less popular races, not the successful ones. [Now the hamadryad is too new to judge, and is a race in several editions , tho generally called just "dryad". So she is hardly an innovation.]
A game with innovative names and races is a game that is not paying attention to its customers. Drow is a popular choice because of several books. So the game wisely copied the books. This is what the game should do, cater to the customer desire [which are heavily copy-cat], not create new races that will not interest the players unless they are inbalancing.
I can't agree with this at all. The Drow did start out somewhere too - they too had to have a time and place to draw that attention of players. Why don't make the new PHBs and "Heroes of" books the place where those new races originate and fascinate players?
A game with only innovative races is a game not paying attention to its customers, but a game with NO innovative races and concepts is one doomed to death of stagnation.
...this seems more or less a list of the less popular races, not the successful ones.
You think that the Changeling, Deva, and Warforged are unpopular?
I can hardly remember a 3.5 or 4E game that I've played that didn't include at least one of either a Changeling or a Warforged. Deva I haven't seen quite as often, but I usually at least see one on a list of possibilities because of how cool they are.
A game with innovative names and races is a game that is not paying attention to its customers.
That's certainly not true, at least not necessarily. A game with innovative names and races could easily be a game that realized that it's customers want innovative names and races.
Goliaths have been here since 2e. They were just called Half-Giants then.
That's like saying that Deva were called Aasimar in previous editions. They have some similarities, sure, but they're not the same thing at all.
And they were two different races in 3e/3.5e, but the two concepts were merged to form the modern 4e depiction of a Goliath.
I see no evidence of that whatsoever. It looks to me like they went with Goliaths and then later decided that they didn't feel like bothering with Half-Giants and just went with reflavoring the Goliath instead. The default presented Goliath, though, doesn't seem to take anything from the Half-Giant.
I don´t like the background of gnolls like PC race. They aren´t only wild people, but a damn bunch of crazy psychopaths (drows are psychopaths too, but the are cools and the good option is possible).
OK, we don´t furrys (animal-men like moreaus from d20 Modern). Why not all canon werebeasts like monster class? (crow, bat, lion and hyena too)
In my settings hobgoblins aren´t so stupy. They are like a mixture of gorillas from Planet of Apes and the Klingons from Star Treck. That is my reason to want hobgoblin like PC race.
Kobolds were PC race in "races of dragons" but.. I don´t know (It doesn´t end of convince me, I´m not sure)... it´s like if they are a mixture of dracoborn and haflings.
Goblins can be a PC race but.... what can they do a (evil) hafling can´t?
I suppose somebody likes stories about PC heroes what are from (evil) races but they look for redemtion, honor, respect and trust from people.
I think in the worst case we will can see new PC races in future articles of Dragon magazine.
...this seems more or less a list of the less popular races, not the successful ones.
You think that the Changeling, Deva, and Warforged are unpopular?
I can hardly remember a 3.5 or 4E game that I've played that didn't include at least one of either a Changeling or a Warforged. Deva I haven't seen quite as often, but I usually at least see one on a list of possibilities because of how cool they are.
A local list of PC has 34 humans, 23 elves, 16 dwarves, 12 drow, dragonborn 12, Half-elf 10, Eladrin 9, Halfling 6, Half-orc 6, Deva 5, Genasei 5, Tiefling 5, warforged 4, Gnome 2, Gnoll 2, Goliath 2, Reverant 2, Minotaur 2, Sharkai 2, Shifter 2, Shardmind 1, Kalastar 1, Bladling 1,
Wilden 1, Vrotlog 1.
Now the list is only one location and not that large, but it is superior to the half-remembered experience of one player.
So we do see a lot of the "cool" and "innovative" races are just not being played much at all.
A game with innovative names and races is a game that is not paying attention to its customers.
That's certainly not true, at least not necessarily. A game with innovative names and races could easily be a game that realized that it's customers want innovative names and races.
The very concept of roleplaying argues against the customers wanting innovation. We are wanting to play a role, not create one. And of course the name "Dungeons and Dragons" again limits our alleged interest in innovation. New monsters? Great. New hero types? Not so much.
We are often interested in a way to gain +1 to hit or damage or defense, but we are not asking the game to provide us with models. Rather, we have models we want the game to enable.
I suppose somebody likes stories about PC heroes what are from (evil) races but they look for redemtion, honor, respect and trust from people
There's no such thing as an evil race. The majority, even the vast majority, of a race may be evil, but there's nothing genetic or inherent about it. Everybody chooses their own moral and ethical path.
...this seems more or less a list of the less popular races, not the successful ones.
You think that the Changeling, Deva, and Warforged are unpopular?
I can hardly remember a 3.5 or 4E game that I've played that didn't include at least one of either a Changeling or a Warforged. Deva I haven't seen quite as often, but I usually at least see one on a list of possibilities because of how cool they are.
Yeah my current party has all 3 in it :P
Also had a shardmind at one point too, the player changed character due to being "too similar" to other characters in the party beyond race.
...this seems more or less a list of the less popular races, not the successful ones.
You think that the Changeling, Deva, and Warforged are unpopular?
I can hardly remember a 3.5 or 4E game that I've played that didn't include at least one of either a Changeling or a Warforged. Deva I haven't seen quite as often, but I usually at least see one on a list of possibilities because of how cool they are.
Yeah my current party has all 3 in it :P
Also had a shardmind at one point too, the player changed character due to being "too similar" to other characters in the party beyond race.
Ditto. It's a rare game where we have more than one PHB1 race represented in the party. Most recent game has a halfling ... a warforged, a minotaur, a wilden, a goblin, and a kenku.
A local list of PC has 34 humans, 23 elves, 16 dwarves, 12 drow, dragonborn 12, Half-elf 10, Eladrin 9, Halfling 6, Half-orc 6, Deva 5, Genasei 5, Tiefling 5, warforged 4, Gnome 2, Gnoll 2, Goliath 2, Reverant 2, Minotaur 2, Sharkai 2, Shifter 2, Shardmind 1, Kalastar 1, Bladling 1, Wilden 1, Vrotlog 1.
The fact the Humans are the most played race wherever you are is more than enough to show me that you lie well outside the norm.
The very concept of roleplaying argues against the customers wanting innovation. We are wanting to play a role, not create one.
That's so incredibly wrong that I don't even know how to begin explaining how incredibly wrong it is. It's possibly one of the most ridiculous things that I've ever heard anybody say about role-playing, and that's including statements made by people who don't role-play. Evidence that you are wrong simply comes form the fact that D&D isn't just a bunch of pre-generated characters. Rather, we are given the tools exactly to create new characters of our own. Yes, we are wanting to play a role, but we're wanting to play a role that we create, and giving us more options to pick from, more new and innovative and unique ways that we can create, can only improve our ability to role-play exactly what we want to role-play.
EDIT: Dragon-Born! Duh, I knew I was missing a big one. First introduced back in 3.5, right? I don't remember them existing before Races of the Dragon. You could sort of argue a conceptual similarity to Half-Dragons, I guess, but if you're going to go that far, then there isn't really anything original anyway, just stuff that's been done before that can be done in a new way.
A local list of PC has 34 humans, 23 elves, 16 dwarves, 12 drow, dragonborn 12, Half-elf 10, Eladrin 9, Halfling 6, Half-orc 6, Deva 5, Genasei 5, Tiefling 5, warforged 4, Gnome 2, Gnoll 2, Goliath 2, Reverant 2, Minotaur 2, Sharkai 2, Shifter 2, Shardmind 1, Kalastar 1, Bladling 1, Wilden 1, Vrotlog 1.
The fact the Humans are the most played race wherever you are is more than enough to show me that you lie well outside the norm.
And what is the evidence of such a norm? Your own personal information is clearly too limited and others posting here are rather obviously a biased sample. [By the simple fact of posting on a forum for starters, and this particular forum looks particularly likely to attack those who would be in unusual groups.]
The fact you object to humans being the most common suggests a bias. While for any given class, there is normally a better race, the is no class where the human is an inferior choice. Thus for a casual player [which means somebody who rarely if ever posts here among other things], selecting human is a wise choice since you are assured of getting something decent despite your class choice. And since our casual player does not want to invest the time to become an expert at the game, the easy choice is to be preferred.
The very concept of roleplaying argues against the customers wanting innovation. We are wanting to play a role, not create one.
That's so incredibly wrong that I don't even know how to begin explaining how incredibly wrong it is. It's possibly one of the most ridiculous things that I've ever heard anybody say about role-playing, and that's including statements made by people who don't role-play. Evidence that you are wrong simply comes form the fact that D&D isn't just a bunch of pre-generated characters. Rather, we are given the tools exactly to create new characters of our own. Yes, we are wanting to play a role, but we're wanting to play a role that we create, and giving us more options to pick from, more new and innovative and unique ways that we can create, can only improve our ability to role-play exactly what we want to role-play.
We create characters that fit a particular role, not create roles. If we wanted to create roles, GRUPS would be the dominant game since it lacks stated class roles entirely and doesn't have much in the way of fixed races either. But instead we play D&D where saying "I play a elven ranger" says a lot.
The fact you object to humans being the most common suggests a bias. While for any given class, there is normally a better race, the is no class where the human is an inferior choice. Thus for a casual player [which means somebody who rarely if ever posts here among other things], selecting human is a wise choice since you are assured of getting something decent despite your class choice. And since our casual player does not want to invest the time to become an expert at the game, the easy choice is to be preferred.
This sounds like it make sense in theory, but it falls apart in practice, especially when it comes to casual players, and the reason is two-fold:
A) Casual players are the ones most likely to want to play something cool as opposed to settling for anything bland. In all of my years of D&D, I have never once shown a new player all of the races that they could pick from and gotten back a response of "Humans sound cool, I want to be one of those!" Humans are what you pick when you don't care what race your character is, which is the opposite of how most casual players feel about race. It's the same reason why newer players are more likely to want to play an arcane caster than a martial soldier; they wouldn't be wanting to try out D&D if they wanted to play something mundane.
B) Humans are one of the more complicated races to create (if not the most complicated), which turns off players that are new to the system and unfamiliar with it. Newer players can often be overwhelmed by the number of options that they have to pick from, and nothing exacerbates that more than picking a race that makes them have to pick another at-will power, another skill, and especially another feat. Newer and more casual players tend to favor simplicity, which is the one thing that Humans certainly do not offer when it comes to character creation.
In other words, casual players are exactly the kinds of player that tend not to want to be Human.
We create characters that fit a particular role, not create roles.
I do not know where you're getting this nonsense. Those two things are not exclusive in any way. We create characters that fit particular roles that we have created. Unless you and your groups have never created your own characters and instead just either use pre-generated characters or recreate characters that you've seen in other media, then I don't see how you could make that mistake, and even then you should know that's not what D&D is generally used for.
Goliaths have been here since 2e. They were just called Half-Giants then.
That's like saying that Deva were called Aasimar in previous editions. They have some similarities, sure, but they're not the same thing at all.
What you've failed to consider is that aasimar and deva, as well as half-giants and goliaths, actually share more in common than some races that have retained the same name through various editions.
Take gnomes, for example. In 2E and 3E, the gnome was a cousin of the dwarf, with a love of humour and a sense of mischief, but sharing many typically dwarven-esque characteristics, such as a love of gems and a curiousity for mechnanical devices. In 4E, gnomes retain their humour and mischief, but are now kin to elves and have a more fey outlook; it's specifically stated that they have no interest in technology.
So technically speaking, 4E gnomes and 2E/3E gnomes aren't the same thing at all either.
Umm, when you say this, you're effectively proclaiming that:
"The very concept of roleplaying is limited to things that have been done before."
Which is nonsensical. Your defense of it with:
> We create characters that fit a particular role, not create roles.
Is equally nonsensical. We create characters and take on their role within the game, whatever race that character may be. Whether the character's race (and associated stereotypes) have been done to death or are a totally new concept makes no difference to that.
If the game never innovated as far as PC races go then we'd still have nothing but human, elf, dwarf, and halfling. Or just human. (Because who would have wanted all of those then-innovative fantasy races muddling up our historical wargame?)
My fingers are crossed for Gnolls. I don't know why I like them so much, but I do.
Or Rakshasa(?). The cat guys who haven't even had an MM write-up (unless it's in MM2 or 3).
Gnolls already have a write up. They just haven't been given their flex stat.
It's not just the flex stat (which I think would be +2 DEX, +2 CON/STR), but more support in general.
More/better feat support. Class specific racial feats would be awesome (especially considering how well gnolls go thematically with Rangers, Barbarians and Druids). Maybe a racial Paragon Path.
I just want more gnoll-y goodness. The felx stat they could have put in the Dragon article that released it for goliaths, Genasi, Warforged, etc. and I still wouldn't have been pleased. Flex stat is not enough.
Your own personal information is clearly too limited and others posting here are rather obviously a biased sample. [By the simple fact of posting on a forum for starters, and this particular forum looks particularly likely to attack those who would be in unusual groups.]
What is this I don't even
You basically said that we're all biased here and nothing we say can be a logical argument BECAUSE we're posting here. That's just... so wrong, I don't have words for it. I hope you're trolling because that's just nonsense.
The fact you object to humans being the most common suggests a bias. While for any given class, there is normally a better race, the is no class where the human is an inferior choice. Thus for a casual player [which means somebody who rarely if ever posts here among other things], selecting human is a wise choice since you are assured of getting something decent despite your class choice. And since our casual player does not want to invest the time to become an expert at the game, the easy choice is to be preferred.
This sounds like it make sense in theory, but it falls apart in practice, especially when it comes to casual players, and the reason is two-fold:
A) Casual players are the ones most likely to want to play something cool as opposed to settling for anything bland.
I'd question this. Now it is likely true of the enthused newbie who rushes to the table begging to play, but "casual" by definition is the player who says "I've got nothing to do. I suppose I might as well play." He is also the player likely to be overwhelmed by the game and retreating to something he "knows" is a common response.
Humans are what you pick when you don't care what race your character is, which is the opposite of how most casual players feel about race. It's the same reason why newer players are more likely to want to play an arcane caster than a martial soldier; they wouldn't be wanting to try out D&D if they wanted to play something mundane.
Apples and oranges. Our image of the spellcaster is his doing all sorts of cool stuff, throwing fire, teleporting, turning people into frogs... Much cooler than this clown who just swings a sword. But when we compare races, we don't really have this big image difference. The elf is pretty much just a human who lives in the woods, the dwarf is one who lives in the mountains. We don't have that tremendous difference.
B) Humans are one of the more complicated races to create (if not the most complicated),
Now this suggests imposed bias. Has somebody been "warning" newbies that humans are more complicated, and thus reducing the number of humans played? And humans are more complicated only in the sense that one horse in a race is the fastest. The slowest is still way faster than anybody in the stands. Our 4e races are extremely similar. Unless the newbie is informed that it is most complicated, he won't notice that, and to the extent he does, he may deem it an advantage. The human is more complicated because you have to select two feats? He sees that as getting to select two feats, and he may be wise to do so. While technically more complex, selecting two feats takes a whole lot of the pressure off. You have a much better chance of choosing the best feat just by accident, and the 2nd feat is by definition only secondary.
which turns off players that are new to the system and unfamiliar with it. Newer players can often be overwhelmed by the number of options that they have to pick from, and nothing exacerbates that more than picking a race that makes them have to pick another at-will power, another skill, and especially another feat. Newer and more casual players tend to favor simplicity, which is the one thing that Humans certainly do not offer when it comes to character creation.
Now this reasoning seems to directly contradict the previous reasoning, which argues the newbie wants the new and different.
We create characters that fit a particular role, not create roles.
I do not know where you're getting this nonsense. Those two things are not exclusive in any way. We create characters that fit particular roles that we have created.
No, the roles have been created by WOTC. Now with the massive number of classes we have, the difference may be technical, but we only select the role from those offered, and then add in details. Consider here the female satyr here, which has been absolutely ruled out. And there won't be any male amazons when/if we have such a race/class.
I suppose somebody likes stories about PC heroes what are from (evil) races but they look for redemtion, honor, respect and trust from people
There's no such thing as an evil race. The majority, even the vast majority, of a race may be evil, but there's nothing genetic or inherent about it. Everybody chooses their own moral and ethical path.
I like your point of view, my opinion is if a race or people is 100% evil it will destroy itself (it may by civil war). A example are the derros. Derros can be a great enemy like the fantasy dwarf equivalent of crossed (comic) or crazies (movie) but a civilitation of derro is too fool. They wouldn´t survive a serious crisis.
Mind slayers can be a no hostile civilitation. Their type of reproduction...you know. And a town of "good" illithids would be fraals with head of octopus.
But the canon D&D says gnolls are... too hostile and xenophobes. Some goblin or a kobold could be tolerated and get glory like heroes but canon gnolls are the type of people who doesn´t like "foreigns". Today some DM could create a orc civilitation like noble savages similar to the ones from Warcraft franchise but.. if I create a gnoll PC who is like a noble savage nature-lover na´vi (or troll from warcraft) with head of hyena wouldn´t be the D&D canon gnoll (although it would be a renegade).
I want say is more difficoult justifing gnolls like PCs who don´t hate people from other races.
* Players don´t play a race only when a PC file is made and dices are being thrown. PCs races are played too when a creator of stories is imagining characters of that race...(for example do you rebember the buddy movies? Now let´s imagine a dislike-loyalty relation of a goblin and a hafling or gnome and kobold. They are discussing everytime but for the most dangeous moments they help them sincerely). The exotics PC races too are being played when they are used by DM.
Your own personal information is clearly too limited and others posting here are rather obviously a biased sample. [By the simple fact of posting on a forum for starters, and this particular forum looks particularly likely to attack those who would be in unusual groups.]
What is this I don't even
You basically said that we're all biased here and nothing we say can be a logical argument BECAUSE we're posting here.
You are quoting out of context.
The question at issue here is how often each race is played, not our opinions of these races. We can make all sorts of logical arguments, but when we talk facts, the facts rule, not the arguments. We do not vote on whether the world is round.
We can report what we play and what we see others play, but we are quite likely to have a biased sample as a result. We will, even without conscious intent to deceive, over-report the races we favor simply because we play them more than the average player likely does. In effect we would be doing the same thing as trying to determine how many people drink booze by taking a survey at an AA meeting.
You or I can report we play humans always/never/sometimes, but that is just one person, not exactly overwhelming evidence. We can report about tables we play at, but this is still just small numbers from one limited area for the most part. And we often don't pay that much attention to what the other races are. [We really want a leader, and we know the strikers, but whether they are humans, elves, or whatever is not that big a deal.] So our report is already subject to error, and when we start guessing at a roomful of players, that is pretty much what we are doing.
Another source of error comes from our being the people who post. We are tremendously more interested in the game and have some very definite opinions, which means we are not typical players. That does not predict with great accuracy how our choice of characters differs from the average player, but it does mean we are likely to differ, and a survey of our experiences is of limited value at best in finding out how often various races are played.
So can you point to any survey[s] on which races are played?
What you've failed to consider is that aasimar and deva, as well as half-giants and goliaths, actually share more in common than some races that have retained the same name through various editions.
I did consider it, but I wasn't going to bring it up because I didn't want to muddy things up any more than they already are, but either way, it still supports my point. The example you came up with was the Gnome, but the example that I was thinking of was the Tiefling. New things were done with these races. They were innovated instead of being kept the same. I don't particularly care about the Gnome, but for the Tiefling, I think that this innovation worked out very well.
Now it is likely true of the enthused newbie who rushes to the table begging to play, but "casual" by definition is the player who says "I've got nothing to do. I suppose I might as well play." He is also the player likely to be overwhelmed by the game and retreating to something he "knows" is a common response.
That certainly not my definition of a casual player, but I'll roll with it anyway. This version of the casual player, as you've just said, is likely to be overwhelmed by the game and this want to keep things simple and familiar, which leads back to my second point about Humans being too complicated for new and casual players.
Apples and oranges. Our image of the spellcaster is his doing all sorts of cool stuff, throwing fire, teleporting, turning people into frogs... Much cooler than this clown who just swings a sword. But when we compare races, we don't really have this big image difference. The elf is pretty much just a human who lives in the woods, the dwarf is one who lives in the mountains. We don't have that tremendous difference.
Maybe you don't, but but that has not been my personal experience or the experience of any new or casual players that I have met. If anything, newer and more casual players tend to think of race as a much bigger deal than more hardcore players do.
Now this suggests imposed bias. Has somebody been "warning" newbies that humans are more complicated, and thus reducing the number of humans played?
Nope, that's just what newbies come up with all on their own.
Unless the newbie is informed that it is most complicated, he won't notice that, and to the extent he does, he may deem it an advantage.
I don't think that you give newbies enough credit.
Now this reasoning seems to directly contradict the previous reasoning, which argues the newbie wants the new and different.
What are you talking about? Unless you're somehow equating new and different with complex and difficult, I don't know how you could possibly reach that conclusion.
No, the roles have been created by WOTC.
You just use official WotC pre-gens or something? You never create your own characters?
I suppose somebody likes stories about PC heroes what are from (evil) races but they look for redemtion, honor, respect and trust from people
There's no such thing as an evil race. The majority, even the vast majority, of a race may be evil, but there's nothing genetic or inherent about it. Everybody chooses their own moral and ethical path.
That entirely depends on your campaign world's cosmology. There are indeed utterly evil races in Middle Earth, because Morgoth fashioned them in evil and deprived them of their goodness. It is up to your group and your dungeon master.
I suppose somebody likes stories about PC heroes what are from (evil) races but they look for redemtion, honor, respect and trust from people
There's no such thing as an evil race. The majority, even the vast majority, of a race may be evil, but there's nothing genetic or inherent about it. Everybody chooses their own moral and ethical path.
That entirely depends on your campaign world's cosmology. There are indeed utterly evil races in Middle Earth, because Morgoth fashioned them in evil and deprived them of their goodness. It is up to your group and your dungeon master.
That's a house rule, and would be railroading to a PC. PC's are supposed to be the exception, not the rule.
I suppose somebody likes stories about PC heroes what are from (evil) races but they look for redemtion, honor, respect and trust from people
There's no such thing as an evil race. The majority, even the vast majority, of a race may be evil, but there's nothing genetic or inherent about it. Everybody chooses their own moral and ethical path.
That entirely depends on your campaign world's cosmology. There are indeed utterly evil races in Middle Earth, because Morgoth fashioned them in evil and deprived them of their goodness. It is up to your group and your dungeon master.
If we were talking about Lord of the Rings, that would be relevant. But we're talking about D&D.
Player 1 has chosen at different times: Human, Genasi
Player 2: Half Orc, Warforged, Gnome
Player 3: Half Elf, Human, Elf
Player 4: Half Orc, Goliath, Human
Player 5: Eladrin
Player 6: Elf
Player 7: Genasi
Player 8: Halfling, Dragonborn
Player 9: Gnome
Player 10: Human, Minotaur
Our campiagns tend to run long and slowly, so there are not a huge array of characters.
Plus my other roleplaying groups play respectively Old Dungeons & Dragons, Ace of Aces, Call of Cthulhu and 3rd Edition Dungeons and Dragons.
I suppose somebody likes stories about PC heroes what are from (evil) races but they look for redemtion, honor, respect and trust from people
There's no such thing as an evil race. The majority, even the vast majority, of a race may be evil, but there's nothing genetic or inherent about it. Everybody chooses their own moral and ethical path.
That entirely depends on your campaign world's cosmology. There are indeed utterly evil races in Middle Earth, because Morgoth fashioned them in evil and deprived them of their goodness. It is up to your group and your dungeon master.
If we were talking about Lord of the Rings, that would be relevant. But we're talking about D&D.
This seems like a strangely dismissive answer. Do you think there is only one way to play D&D? Do you think that people should never play D&D in Middle Earth? Do you think that people should never model their own homebrewed worlds on a philosophy resembling Tolkien's or Lewis's?
Certainly my own world (whose name varies from campaign to campaign) has absolutely evil and absolutely good races and powers. And when I played in my friend's AD&D campaigns in university, he always interpreted the worlds of Krynn and Greyhawk as containing absolutely good and absolutely evil races.
I know many people would not like such cosmologies and philosophies, and I know many worlds are different. But my point still stands that whether races are evil or not depends on your group and your dungeon master.
That entirely depends on your campaign world's cosmology. There are indeed utterly evil races in Middle Earth, because Morgoth fashioned them in evil and deprived them of their goodness. It is up to your group and your dungeon master.
That's a house rule, and would be railroading to a PC. PC's are supposed to be the exception, not the rule.
Every campaign's world and setting is a customized work of imagination. That is why I said it is up to your group and your dungeon master. Why would I play in a world distasteful to me? Why would you wnat to play in my campaign, if its setting was distasteful to you? At the same time, a group of friends must compromise and play the campaign which can suit all of them to one degree or another.
Let me clear also, that I believe in exceptional player characters. I think Drizzt is a good idea. At the same time, the players in my world would have to understand that they are exceptional and give me a damned good reason for their exception. A good background story can enrich the campaign.
But philosophically I still believe in the traditional notions of inbred evil, which stem I suppose from traditional beliefs in demons created as createures of evil and angels created as creatures of good. Thus Tolkien's orcs and valar. (Morgoth the valar is an example however that Tolkien also believed in exceptionalism.)
(Please forgive my exclusive focus on Tolkien: I read mostly history, not fantasy. And the few modern fantasy authors I have read did not please me well. I used to enjoy Moorcock as a lad, and his worlds seemed to have the convoluted amorality of Eberron.)
> But the canon D&D says gnolls are... too hostile and xenophobes.
No. The Butcher's Brood - gnolls who worship Yeenoghu and engage in all the demonic bloodletting - are hostile and slaughter everything in sight. The Monster Manual covers those, because they're the ones that the PCs are expected to come into conflict with.*
Those do not represent all gnolls, however. The "Playing Gnolls" article covered those who don't in some detail, and while those "hyena-soul" gnolls* still tend to keep to themselves, they're not outright hostile or bloodthirsty and may well cooperate with civilized communities nearby. No, the MM doesn't talk about those, because the PCs are unlikely to end up fighting them.*
* That's the general design of MM entries: they cover those creatures, or subgroups thereof, that the PCs are likely to end up fighting at some point. In the case of most humanoid creatures it talks about the evil/hostile groups and should not be taken as meaning that every last member of that race is the same.
And Lewis' Narnia books had creatures that were regarded/presented as 'evil races' in earlier books (e.g. minotaurs, dwarfs) become allies of the good guys in later books, showing that they were not evil but had just temporarily chosen the wrong side. Like Tolkien, Lewis' Christian faith would not allow him to do otherwise.
So, yeah, even the fathers of outdated 'Black-and-White-morality' high fantasy didn't think 'evil races' were a good idea.
But philosophically I still believe in the traditional notions of inbred evil
To be clear, you're just talking about in fantasy settings here, right?
What do I mean, well we had a game (3.5) where we befriended the kobold tribe, then later challanged an orc leader (with a half orc PC) to combat for the title of cheif... takeing over the tribe, and bribeing the shaman with magic to get them passafied. We gave everyone motives and made deals and tried to ally... then one day when negatiating with a red dragon to help us fight a necromacer for 2 shares of the treasue one of my players finaly snaped "Where do we draw the line" he asked... and we realized if we weren't killing the evil dragon, or the evil orcs, or the evil kobolds, how do we fight anyone...
The next campaign all orcs were CE, becuse that was how grumish made them... and we all sighed a relafe... sometime clear bad guys are needed...
In my current 4e game there are no good gnolls, they are all decendedts of demons, no one can play one... and I think it works great
But philosophically I still believe in the traditional notions of inbred evil
To be clear, you're just talking about in fantasy settings here, right?
Of course. This is a discussion about game worlds. Certainly there is no such thing as racial goodness or wickedness in the real world. Just like there is no real magic or psionics.
(On the other hand, according to Paul, all men are born steeped in sin and depraved from birth... )
But philosophically I still believe in the traditional notions of inbred evil
To be clear, you're just talking about in fantasy settings here, right?
That's the greatest unfortunate implication of things like Tolkien orcs - the "inbred evil". In my personal experience, people who held "beliefs in traditional notions of inbred evil" in fantasy, always were very conservative people - the local equivalent of WASPs. They were fanatical and intolerant people who hated the neighbouring country and its citizens because of history.
I hate this approach in real life, and by extension, I hate this approach in fantasy. Because I believe everyone is born as tabula rasa, and then gets raised, or makes personal choices into good or evil, in my settings the "monster" races are never good or evil. People like Orcs may be primitive and uneducated but they're no more evil than Amazonian natives or Australian Aboriginal people. What can be evil is governments and rulers - so if my players keep fighting Orcs it's not because Orcs are inherently evil, but because they have a Warchief who's an imperialist, expansionist jack-donkey.
I hate this approach in real life, and by extension, I hate this approach in fantasy. Because I believe everyone is born as tabula rasa, and then gets raised, or makes personal choices into good or evil, in my settings the "monster" races are never good or evil. People like Orcs may be primitive and uneducated but they're no more evil than Amazonian natives or Australian Aboriginal people. What can be evil is governments and rulers - so if my players keep fighting Orcs it's not because Orcs are inherently evil, but because they have a Warchief who's an imperialist, expansionist jack-donkey.
the problem becomes that then, why kill them.
If you can teach the orcs (becuse they are born tabula rasa) then isn't it wrong to fight them instead of educate them... and the more real we make them, the harder it is (atleast for some) to see them as the enemy to be slain...
the problem becomes that then, why kill them.
If you can teach the orcs (becuse they are born tabula rasa) then isn't it wrong to fight them instead of educate them... and the more real we make them, the harder it is (atleast for some) to see them as the enemy to be slain...
That's kind of the point - for me, they're not just "enemy to be slain". They're just other people, a different culture that may seem brutish or primitive for the civilised explorers. The "enemy to be slain" may come from any race, and not because of inherent evil, but because he's a pawn of an evil master and follows his orders unquestioningly. If the player characters have a choice, the good (or humanitarian neutral) characters will prefer getting better people to head them.
Also, you kill them because they are trying to kill you, as simple as that.
But I would rather talking about evil cultures or evil civilitations, no evil races by "bad seed". DNA doesn´t force you to choose your aligment. Morality of people is by education. What if a baby from a "evil" race is adopted by a monastery of good monks? (For example a half-orc who becames a great inquisitor/avenger/witch hunter). And I think is more interesting when the enemy faction isn´t only "evil people who hate you".
I like the idea of a monster humanoid who is rejected like a oucast but he fights to get respect and friendship (and a romantic partner). It´s like a allegory of teenage who looks for social acceptance.
in general I like shades of grey in my black and white...but sometimes we just need BLACK...
What do I mean, well we had a game (3.5) where we befriended the kobold tribe, then later challanged an orc leader (with a half orc PC) to combat for the title of cheif... takeing over the tribe, and bribeing the shaman with magic to get them passafied. We gave everyone motives and made deals and tried to ally... then one day when negatiating with a red dragon to help us fight a necromacer for 2 shares of the treasue one of my players finaly snaped "Where do we draw the line" he asked... and we realized if we weren't killing the evil dragon, or the evil orcs, or the evil kobolds, how do we fight anyone...
The next campaign all orcs were CE, becuse that was how grumish made them... and we all sighed a relafe... sometime clear bad guys are needed...
In my current 4e game there are no good gnolls, they are all decendedts of demons, no one can play one... and I think it works great
Having clear villains is good. But they should be villains because they made that choice, not because they were 'born evil'.
Now it is likely true of the enthused newbie who rushes to the table begging to play, but "casual" by definition is the player who says "I've got nothing to do. I suppose I might as well play." He is also the player likely to be overwhelmed by the game and retreating to something he "knows" is a common response.
That certainly not my definition of a casual player, but I'll roll with it anyway. This version of the casual player, as you've just said, is likely to be overwhelmed by the game and this want to keep things simple and familiar, which leads back to my second point about Humans being too complicated for new and casual players.
Which leads to the point that humans in 4e are only slightly more complicated than other races, to the point that the newbie should not be able to notice it. He needs to answer maybe 21 questions instead of 20.
Apples and oranges. Our image of the spellcaster is his doing all sorts of cool stuff, throwing fire, teleporting, turning people into frogs... Much cooler than this clown who just swings a sword. But when we compare races, we don't really have this big image difference. The elf is pretty much just a human who lives in the woods, the dwarf is one who lives in the mountains. We don't have that tremendous difference.
Maybe you don't, but but that has not been my personal experience or the experience of any new or casual players that I have met.
Now that does bring up the point that your experience is by definition a very small sample, and thus very likely to be biased. Can you point us to any larger sample?
If anything, newer and more casual players tend to think of race as a much bigger deal than more hardcore players do.
That is to be presumed since 4e has reduced racial difference to little more than ear length. However, our outsider has only a vague idea about these races. He can figure something called a goliath is going to be big and strong while a halfling is not, but he pretty much starts with a blank slate.
Unless the newbie is informed that it is most complicated, he won't notice that, and to the extent he does, he may deem it an advantage.
I don't think that you give newbies enough credit.
"...What race do you want to be?"
"I want to be X." [having just read read a story where an X was the hero.] Or...
"What's the difference?"
"Well... Except for human, all the races get 2 stat raises, but they are fixed so you should take particular classes as well. The human only gets one, but..."
[interrupting] "Forget human, what race is good for..." or just stays silent...
"...it is always the most important one. He gets other advantages, such as a 2nd feat, better defenses..."
I just don't see "complicated" coming up in regards to human vs other races. It comes up as soon as he sees this big book of rules, but by the time he gets up the nerve to start reading, it is no longer an issue.
Now this reasoning seems to directly contradict the previous reasoning, which argues the newbie wants the new and different.
What are you talking about? Unless you're somehow equating new and different with complex and difficult, I don't know how you could possibly reach that conclusion.
New and different are indeed related to complex and difficult. The new may in fact be simpler, but until you are used to it, it is quite easy for it to seem complex. And when you seek out the new, you routinely are seeking out the difficult, even if that is difficult only because it is new to you.
No, the roles have been created by WOTC.
You just use official WotC pre-gens or something? You never create your own characters?
Sure I create my own characters, according to rules and guided by models set by WOTC.
Which leads to the point that humans in 4e are only slightly more complicated than other races, to the point that the newbie should not be able to notice it.
No, it's the other way around. To the more experienced players the difference in complexity is negligible, because we know what we're doing. It's to a new player that the difference in complexity really shows, because they don't. For a newer player, perceptions of differences in complexity are magnified.
Now that does bring up the point that your experience is by definition a very small sample, and thus very likely to be biased.
(Smaller samples are not simply "likely to be biased"; they're just more likely to be biased.)
Of course, but it's my experience, so without compelling evidence to the contrary, my experience matters a heck of a lot more to me (just human nature, sorry) than your experience, which is coming from an equally small and biased sample, if not more so (considering that I'm fairly confidant that I've played with more different groups than even most people that frequent this board).
Can you point us to any larger sample?
Can you?
I just don't see "complicated" coming up in regards to human vs other races.
Do you never explain to newer players what different races can actually do before you ask them to pick theirs?
New and different are indeed related to complex and difficult.
No, they are not. They are entirely unrelated ideas. To think otherwise is simply fallacious.
Sure I create my own characters...
Then you do indeed create your own roles to play. What in the world have you been talking about? "We are wanting to play a role, not create one."?
Can we just all agree that the whole "we don't create new roles" discussion was just point blank stupid? When you create a new character, you give him a personality and motives - ones that most likely aren't copy-pasted of an existing character, or you. So you create a new role. And how does that relate to the earlier point of innovative and original races... I have no idea. Even if you never create new roles, but just copy-paste them from existing stuff, in case of an original race you would copy-paste that role from one of the examples provided in the new book.
Besides, both of you calling the other's environmental sample "small and biased"... it doesn't sound too mature. It actually reminds me of two kids yelling "no, he started!" As in, it doesn't lead anywhere, so for our common sanity, knock it off.
But the canon D&D says gnolls are... too hostile and xenophobes. Some goblin or a kobold could be tolerated and get glory like heroes but canon gnolls are the type of people who doesn´t like "foreigns". Today some DM could create a orc civilitation like noble savages similar to the ones from Warcraft franchise but.. if I create a gnoll PC who is like a noble savage nature-lover na´vi (or troll from warcraft) with head of hyena wouldn´t be the D&D canon gnoll (although it would be a renegade).
I want say is more difficoult justifing gnolls like PCs who don´t hate people from other races.
To expand on what Neutronium Dragon said...the "Playing Gnolls" article specifically outlines the nature-worshipping gnolls as a significant minority among gnoll tribes. That is, while Butcher's Brood are far more common, there are still hundreds of Unaligned gnoll tribes out there. These gnolls usually have a tribal society and tend towards Primal philosophies and religions. This is acceptable canon for the gnoll race.
I personally love gnolls. As a DM I use them as monsters, and on the rare chance I get to play, I like to be a gnoll. Have a great backstory, too. Gnoll from one of these tribes had his tribe wiped out, when a mercenary band blamed them for attacks by a group of Butcher's Brood. He was a pup, and taken captive and sold into slavery, where he grew up in a gladiator arena. But he had started his training as a shaman for his tribe, and remembered the names of his tribe's spirits, even though he couldn't talk with them that well. He became a barbarian, and his rages are literally calling out to the tribe's spirits, and inviting them into himself. He was freed by a group of Good adventuirers, and he set out on his own.
Nothing about that character is "drizzt-like" in that he's some Good renegade trying to cast off the reputation of his evil kin. He's an Unaligned character from an Unaligned people. If confronted with Butcher's Brood, he'd be just as willing to slay them as his companions. His whole tribe has nothign but contempt for those who are slaves of a demon lord. He's been raised among other humanoids his entire life, from the crowd in the arena to his fellow gladiators, so he is not socially awkward or xenophobic (other than being a 7'2" beast-headed humanoid...that could be awkward in town).
On the main topic...
There could be races with an inherent bend towards evil. Ironically (given my earlier statements), to use gnolls as an example, the Unaligned tribes fight to not fall to the Butcher's Lure, which is one reason they don't like Butcher's Brood gnolls. Don't forget, that all gnolls are born with innate knowledge of the Abyssal tongue, because their entire race was created by Yeenoghu. It is an example with a point to both sides. you have a race with an inherent (genetic) lean toward evil, but a significant minority of the race has fought that off and lives free of the demon lord's influence. But even members of those tribes who give in to their rage and inherent urges, usually fall to the Butcher's Brood.
But the bottom line is that there's no "wrong" way to do it. This is fantasy, not reality. In reality, the only humanoids we have to go by are humans. Humans are possessed of free will, and the generally accepted belief is that they are born innocent. In a fantasy world, this does not have to be true. There's nothing wrong with a DM deciding that all orcs are born Chaotic Evil. It's a fantasy race in a fantasy world. In a fantasy world, real-world assumptions regarding human behavior are not necessarily applicable to other races.
But the bottom line is that there's no "wrong" way to do it. This is fantasy, not reality. In reality, the only humanoids we have to go by are humans. Humans are possessed of free will, and the generally accepted belief is that they are born innocent. In a fantasy world, this does not have to be true. There's nothing wrong with a DM deciding that all orcs are born Chaotic Evil. It's a fantasy race in a fantasy world. In a fantasy world, real-world assumptions regarding human behavior are not necessarily applicable to other races.
The thing is, it makes the setting psychologically unrealistic, and psychology is one of the few thing that should always be left realistic.
Making a whole race of people born into evil is first and foremost ridiculous - babies are not born evil, all they want is to eat, sleep and poop. Only through their upbringing they acquire societal norms and knowledge of good or evil. It just is not in their little brains when they are born. Handwaving it away with magic is just a lazy get out just to have cheap mooks that your PCs may slaughter without remorse.
Then of course, it's like making a villain who has no motivations, just doing evil "for lulz". No one likes those villains, unless you're just doing story-less dungeon crawl. But for me, every campaign has to have a story, or might as well just run some video game and bludgeon murlocs or nekkers or whatnot. Villains have to have a history, reasons and motivations for doing evil deeds. Similarly, "evil" races are not born into evil - they have reasons to follow an evil overlord, e.g. having been conquered by him, or hired, or manipulated.
Babies aren't born with sexual urges, either. But more complicated urges and emotions develop as the body matures, and hormones are released into the system. It a world where races are handcrafted by gods and devils alike, naturally "evil" races are possible, and it isn't simply "handwaving."
So as your body matures, you can suddenly become a mindless murderer? That's what I'm calling: a psychological realism. It just doesn't happen - things like tolerance and mental deviation (into a murderer) are not inborn. That's all besides this approach being just lazy to let your players have a quick kill with a clear conscience.
also i think there is another coming in dragon in a month or 2, allthough i am the least sure about this one.
Yes, you can. There are psychopaths and sociopaths out there who are simply programmed since birth to be amoral murderers. And that is in a world without gods or supernatural beings who can deliberately shape their progeny to hold morales that suit them. The idea is prevalent in science fiction as well as fantasy in every dimension, and complaining that it is a "lazy" practice undermines everything that a clever author or player can do with the idea simply because it offends your desires or sensibilities.
And they are singular individuals for a reason - because it's not normal.
The thing is, a clever author won't use it. Precisely because it's a cheap and lazy way to get mooks you can easily kill. A clever author will know every character is a character with personality and motives, and not a faceless mob to throw at people. Because, what other purpose would it hold?
Babies aren't born with sexual urges, either. But more complicated urges and emotions develop as the body matures, and hormones are released into the system. It a world where races are handcrafted by gods and devils alike, naturally "evil" races are possible, and it isn't simply "handwaving."
Whether or not that's how races came to be, there still remains free will. Your guy may have all kinds of nasty impulses, but he also has willpower. He can overcome them.
Yes, most monsters have some capacity to overcome their urges, certainly. And some excellent fiction has been written about that struggle, and the question of whether or not something born evil can ever be good, with a variety of answers and perspectives. Saying that clever authors would never introduce the idea of "evil" creatures is a disservice to clever authors everywhere.
I find nothing clever in 'these guys? They're all evil. Why? Born that way'.
Yes, most monsters have some capacity to overcome their urges, certainly. And some excellent fiction has been written about that struggle, and the question of whether or not something born evil can ever be good, with a variety of answers and perspectives. Saying that clever authors would never introduce the idea of "evil" creatures is a disservice to clever authors everywhere.
Creatures can be evil, but they're evil by choice or upbringing, or circumstances. A clever writer knows that and if he delves into the subject of why are his characters' enemies evil, he will note their reasons. At least in the modern era, if the enemies are just stupid evil charging for lulz, the writer won't get acclaimed anywhere.
Sometimes somebody is good or evil only to specific group. Let´s imagine a noble lord centaur who is loyal to his tribe and friends of fays and people from wood, but he´s "evil" with all foreings. He acts like a good creature only with his friends and allies, but he´s very cruel and evil with no-friend people.
For the purposes of this discussion, I'm using the standard alignment system's definitions of good and evil. So if you're good to "your" people, but you slaughter mercilessly the "not we", you're still evil in that system - because you bring harm to innocents.
(Which, by the way, is how most evil people are evil in real world - they're not mass murderers who kill everybody - they have "their" people, out of whose misguided protection they murder innocent people, like certain religious or national fanatics)
Orcs=born evil, but a few rare ones might become neutral
Goblins, bugbears, kobolds, and lizard folk= most are evil but some can be delt with
color dragons are evil
most other races we have run the gambit...
Which leads to the point that humans in 4e are only slightly more complicated than other races, to the point that the newbie should not be able to notice it.
No, it's the other way around. To the more experienced players the difference in complexity is negligible, because we know what we're doing. It's to a new player that the difference in complexity really shows, because they don't. For a newer player, perceptions of differences in complexity are magnified.
In making a new PC one has to answer, say, 20 questions. In making that PC human, one answers 21. Novice or highly experienced, there just isn't a noticeable difference here.
Now that does bring up the point that your experience is by definition a very small sample, and thus very likely to be biased.
(Smaller samples are not simply "likely to be biased"; they're just more likely to be biased.)
Of course, but it's my experience, so without compelling evidence to the contrary, my experience matters a heck of a lot more to me (just human nature, sorry) than your experience, which is coming from an equally small and biased sample, if not more so (considering that I'm fairly confidant that I've played with more different groups than even most people that frequent this board).
But that of course limits your certainty. You, in theory, could be the most experienced player around, and still not know even 1% of the game. Anything you say could be way off.
Can you point us to any larger sample?
Can you?
So the answer to my question seems to be "no", meaning that assertions such as yours that humans are not the most common race and/or that others are common have to be taken as mere guesses rather than anything backed up by serious evidence.
I just don't see "complicated" coming up in regards to human vs other races.
Do you never explain to newer players what different races can actually do before you ask them to pick theirs?
With 49 races [& gaining]? The game would be over before we could start. Much better to let them choose almost at random. A virtue of 4e is that there are no bad racial choices and the player can be reasonably satisfied by any choice made at random. Now if the PC has a major class preference, a suggestion that races X, Y, & Z [which always includes human] are good choices is in order, but for most players, knowledge about races is not needed in selecting races. If the player is seriously worried about complexity, he should be steered towards essentials classes.
New and different are indeed related to complex and difficult.
No, they are not. They are entirely unrelated ideas. To think otherwise is simply fallacious.
This is simply an assertion. How are they different? How do those differences really concern us?
Sure I create my own characters...
Then you do indeed create your own roles to play. What in the world have you been talking about? "We are wanting to play a role, not create one."?
You are simply using too specialized a definition of "role" here. Each PC does not play a role that no other PC plays. Rather we have roles like that of party healer, which is played by any leader.
While such ideas may be anathema to you, one cannot say that it is impossible to build a fantasy world based on the idea that evil gods created evil races. (Calvin even taught that the good and perfect God created some men irrevocably doomed to hell and others eternally predestined to heaven. Try to wrap your ead around that.)
There are famous thinkers like John Calvin who taught that even men do not have free will (for which belief he has been reviled by many throughout modern history, but there are still some who subscribe to his doctrines), that even babies are created sinful and wicked from conception.
While such ideas may be anathema to you, one cannot say that it is impossible to build a fantasy world based on the idea that evil gods created evil races. (Calvin even taught that the good and perfect God created some men irrevocably doomed to hell and others eternally predestined to heaven. Try to wrap your ead around that.)
And the fact that there are still religious followers of Calvin's teachings shut me up now. I'd love to discuss that, if I could.
Novice or highly experienced, there just isn't a noticeable difference here.
I've not encountered a single notice player that would agree.
But that of course limits your certainty.
Only marginally.
So the answer to my question seems to be "no", meaning that assertions such as yours that humans are not the most common race and/or that others are common have to be taken as mere guesses rather than anything backed up by serious evidence.
Only to the same degree that assertions such as yours that people don't want to play more unique and innovative races like the Changeling and Warforged have to be taken as mere guesses rather than anything backed up be serious evidence.
With 49 races [& gaining]? The game would be over before we could start. Much better to let them choose almost at random.
Wow, that approach sounds pretty much terrible.
How are they different?
How are innovation and complexity different? Are you serious?
You are simply using too specialized a definition of "role" here.
I'm using role in the same way that you used it in this ridiculous post:
The very concept of roleplaying argues against the customers wanting innovation. We are wanting to play a role, not create one.
But the bottom line is that there's no "wrong" way to do it. This is fantasy, not reality. In reality, the only humanoids we have to go by are humans. Humans are possessed of free will, and the generally accepted belief is that they are born innocent. In a fantasy world, this does not have to be true. There's nothing wrong with a DM deciding that all orcs are born Chaotic Evil. It's a fantasy race in a fantasy world. In a fantasy world, real-world assumptions regarding human behavior are not necessarily applicable to other races.
The thing is, it makes the setting psychologically unrealistic, and psychology is one of the few thing that should always be left realistic.
Making a whole race of people born into evil is first and foremost ridiculous - babies are not born evil, all they want is to eat, sleep and poop. Only through their upbringing they acquire societal norms and knowledge of good or evil. It just is not in their little brains when they are born. Handwaving it away with magic is just a lazy get out just to have cheap mooks that your PCs may slaughter without remorse.
Then of course, it's like making a villain who has no motivations, just doing evil "for lulz". No one likes those villains, unless you're just doing story-less dungeon crawl. But for me, every campaign has to have a story, or might as well just run some video game and bludgeon murlocs or nekkers or whatnot. Villains have to have a history, reasons and motivations for doing evil deeds. Similarly, "evil" races are not born into evil - they have reasons to follow an evil overlord, e.g. having been conquered by him, or hired, or manipulated.
Are we just discussing "mortal" races? What about demons and devils? Are they not physically comsposed of evil? Are they not intrinsically evil from the moment of their existence? And beings created by or tainted by demons? Where do they fall in?
If these are acceptable, why is a mortal race, especially one created by, and favored of, a chaotic evil god? Now, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, because personally, I run that all mortal races have free will. But the point is that your idea of "psychologically unrealistic" falls short in a world where we accept hydras with respawning heads, mortals who can violate reality by sheer force of will or inborn talent, animated corpses, and gods, demons, angels, etc. This is fantasy, and why should a sense of realism have to conform to SOME limitations fo the real world and not others? Any race that is not human has ZERO obligation to conform to human norms and social byes of the real world.
A race that is not human does not necessarily have to be judged by human standards.
Babies aren't born with sexual urges, either. But more complicated urges and emotions develop as the body matures, and hormones are released into the system. It a world where races are handcrafted by gods and devils alike, naturally "evil" races are possible, and it isn't simply "handwaving."
Whether or not that's how races came to be, there still remains free will. Your guy may have all kinds of nasty impulses, but he also has willpower. He can overcome them.
And who says that nonhuman races have free will? Again, just playing devil's advocate here, because in my world, all mortal races have free will. But nothing in the books says this is true, it's just my belief and the way I run things. There's no core ruling, fluff or crunch, that says anything about other races.
The reason I play devil's advocate on this matter is that even though in games I run, all ortal races have free will, I firmly believe that there's nothign wrong with someone running it another way. For example, given the example of some people in the real world that are just born with certain imbalances that make them psychopaths/sociopaths, whatever that leads them to being killers and murderers...who's to say that an entire race could not be so afflicted as a genetic trait?
Another good example is shardminds. Shardminds, in my campaign world, do not have the same kind of free will that other races have (being living constructs instead of a mortal race). Shardminds are created from fragments of the Living Gate between this universe and the Far Realm. As such, the fragments all have a purpose, that being to restore/preserve/reinforce the Living Gate. In the way they go about that and in their everyday actions they have some amount of free will, but that purpose remains ingrained into them.
We view free will as something inherent and inborn to the human condition. But these are fantasy races, not humans. We like to think that an orc left as an infant in a human monastery would grow up with the exact same values as a human infant found at the same time and raised the same way. but in a fantasy world, who are we to say that such is necessarily true? That's based on a human ideal, judged by human standards. Maybe a DM would rule that said orc will still have innate evil in him as a child of Gruumsh. You and I might not agree that such would happen, but nothing says it could not. And why should that suspend our disbelief when animated corpses, reincarnating devas, shapechanging animals, and ambulatory plant life does not?
Yes, most monsters have some capacity to overcome their urges, certainly. And some excellent fiction has been written about that struggle, and the question of whether or not something born evil can ever be good, with a variety of answers and perspectives. Saying that clever authors would never introduce the idea of "evil" creatures is a disservice to clever authors everywhere.
I find nothing clever in 'these guys? They're all evil. Why? Born that way'.
Again, I point to the example of demons and devils. Are they not 'born that way'?
There are famous thinkers like John Calvin who taught that even men do not have free will (for which belief he has been reviled by many throughout modern history, but there are still some who subscribe to his doctrines), that even babies are created sinful and wicked from conception.
While such ideas may be anathema to you, one cannot say that it is impossible to build a fantasy world based on the idea that evil gods created evil races. (Calvin even taught that the good and perfect God created some men irrevocably doomed to hell and others eternally predestined to heaven. Try to wrap your ead around that.)
You're quoting Calvin on this? Calvinists believe that God has some kind of pre-determined list of who is an isn't getting into heaven, and that no matter how good you are, how AMAZING a person you are in your life, if you weren't on that list at birth, you're screwed (something entirely contrary to the teachings of Christ in the New Testament, despite Calvinists being a sect of Christianity). Furthermore, even if you WERE on that list, if you didn't maintain a Puritan lifestyle and ideals, you could screw it up for yourself and end up in Hell anyways.
These were the people that founded America. People so uptight the BRITISH kicked them out. :p
Sorry for the tangent. Hate Calvin. But I suppose for the sake of argument, the idea of a people WITHOUT free will is a relevant example. It also reminds me that even in other cultures and religions, people have not always believed in free will among humankind. There are plenty of example of ancient religions when people believed that the gods controlled their fate. That sometimes when people acted in strange ways that soemthign supernatural was somehow to blame. In a world where the supernatural is very real, why should this be such a hard concept to believe?
Demons and devils can also choose to not be evil. They are sapient (well, most of 'em ... dretches and the like may be an exception, I'm not in a position to look it up), therefore they have the ability to determine their own path in life.
Demons are literally formed of elemental Chaos and Evil. That is a part of the very fibers of their being.
In 3e, the same could be said of ALL extraplanar outsiders and their respective alignments. A Good Demon or an Evil Celestial had to be corrupted from an outside source into changing their ways. A being instrinsically composed of pure Good and law is Lawful Good to an extent that is not mortally possible, as mortals HAVE free will and are fallible.
Demons and devils can also choose to not be evil. They are sapient (well, most of 'em ... dretches and the like may be an exception, I'm not in a position to look it up), therefore they have the ability to determine their own path in life.
Demons are literally formed of elemental Chaos and Evil. That is a part of the very fibers of their being.
In 3e, the same could be said of ALL extraplanar outsiders and their respective alignments. A Good Demon or an Evil Celestial had to be corrupted from an outside source into changing their ways. A being instrinsically composed of pure Good and law is Lawful Good to an extent that is not mortally possible, as mortals HAVE free will and are fallible.
Ok, but you're quoting a rule that doesn't exist.
First, in-universe reason, it's exactly because they're mortals. What differs them from demons is that they're natural creatures who are not literally made of evil magic. As long as there are hearts pounding blood in their bodies and brains not addled with arcane magic from birth, they are physical, living beings that can make any choices they want.
Second, out-of-universe reason, is that, as I said before, psychological realism is one of the few things that should be left realistic in a world full of magic. Why? So the characters and villains in the setting feel realistic in their motives. So the villains are not doing evil for evil's sake, which is in modern times pretty universally considered a mark of bad writing. So the heroes are not just pure, uncorrupted goodness - but have their own problems and motivations (otherwise you're again doing a disservice).
Sometimes a "evil" creature (like a centaur who is lord of forest) can be "good" to some peple, like if he had got that allegiance (rule from d20 Modern, I think wasn´t a bad idea). (For example ee can hates "invaders" humans but loves fays of wood).
Why is anybody evil? Nietzche said the Übermench o superman had got his own code, and the Jew-Cristhian ethic was a "morality of slaves". For me that "übermenche" is a psycopath without Freudian super-ego but unfortunallity some people (of real world) think be good is be a stupy idealist, and the bright ones are wolves who live among the sheeps. Only they are honest when they know they would be punished.
Novice or highly experienced, there just isn't a noticeable difference here.
I've not encountered a single notice player that would agree.
And I have yet to find one who can even be said to notice. Oh yes, lots who think the whole system is way too complex, but noticing that avoiding human makes it some marginal degree simpler? Not a one. It is a point that requires far too much knowledge of the game for our novice, so I have to conclude that in some way, you or whoever is working with these novices is in some way telling them that human is more complex.
So the answer to my question seems to be "no", meaning that assertions such as yours that humans are not the most common race and/or that others are common have to be taken as mere guesses rather than anything backed up by serious evidence.
Only to the same degree that assertions such as yours that people don't want to play more unique and innovative races like the Changeling and Warforged have to be taken as mere guesses rather than anything backed up be serious evidence.
So far, I am the one who has at least tried to provide evidence beyond my personal experience.
With 49 races [& gaining]? The game would be over before we could start. Much better to let them choose almost at random.
Wow, that approach sounds pretty much terrible.
You have a better? Please supply. Keep in mind of course that we only have so much time, and need to get this newbie playing asap. Taking an hour or two to draw up the PC and then telling him to come back next week to actually play is not a valid option.
How are they different?
How are innovation and complexity different? Are you serious?
I am serious and you seem to be dodging the question. Please supply the ways change and complexity differ, and how those differences are important to the discussion at hand.
You are simply using too specialized a definition of "role" here.
I'm using role in the same way that you used it in this ridiculous post:The very concept of roleplaying argues against the customers wanting innovation. We are wanting to play a role, not create one.
My statement is clearly based on a more expansive definition of "role" than you want to use. It is also irrelevant to the point at hand. Whatever definition we use, the player wants to play it, not create it.
But the concept of "role" is plural. You play the role of hero in a story. That hero could act in an infinite number of different ways and still be the hero. There is no unique hero to play. You take the role and play in one of a great many ways.
Demons and devils can also choose to not be evil. They are sapient (well, most of 'em ... dretches and the like may be an exception, I'm not in a position to look it up), therefore they have the ability to determine their own path in life.
Demons are literally formed of elemental Chaos and Evil. That is a part of the very fibers of their being.
In 3e, the same could be said of ALL extraplanar outsiders and their respective alignments. A Good Demon or an Evil Celestial had to be corrupted from an outside source into changing their ways. A being instrinsically composed of pure Good and law is Lawful Good to an extent that is not mortally possible, as mortals HAVE free will and are fallible.
Ok, but you're quoting a rule that doesn't exist.
When discussing the nature os Good and Evil in races, and the capacity for either (or both), there are very little in the way of rules on EITHER side of the discussion. There's no rule that says ORCS are not inherently and irrevocably evil, either. Nor is there a rule that says there is.
Since this isn't a rules issue, why are you upset that I am not quoting a rule?
There are two reasons for why mortal races should always have free will (and one reason why demons don't have to).
First, in-universe reason, it's exactly because they're mortals. What differs them from demons is that they're natural creatures who are not literally made of evil magic. As long as there are hearts pounding blood in their bodies and brains not addled with arcane magic from birth, they are physical, living beings that can make any choices they want.
Second, out-of-universe reason, is that, as I said before, psychological realism is one of the few things that should be left realistic in a world full of magic. Why? So the characters and villains in the setting feel realistic in their motives. So the villains are not doing evil for evil's sake, which is in modern times pretty universally considered a mark of bad writing. So the heroes are not just pure, uncorrupted goodness - but have their own problems and motivations (otherwise you're again doing a disservice).
Again, I personally agree with you. But just because I feel one way doea not mean that invalidate the choices of someone else who prefers something different.
On a more realistic and biological level, what if, through selective breeding, thr only traits that orcs (to use an example) sought after in mates was a certain bloodthirstyness that made them capable warriors. Those same traits stemmed from the chemical imbalances found in psychopaths and serial killers, so that all orcs alive today are genetically predisposed towards violent psychopathy. A non-evil orc would still be possible through a birth mutation (at that point it would be a mutation) that caused an individual orc to NOT be psychotic, but such would be the exception and not the rule. Is that not a possibility?
But again, my main point, objectively here, is that in a fantasy world, the fantastic elements need not adhere to real-world values. Shoud HUMANS always have free will and be more than "evil for evil's sake"? Yes, because doing so actively detracts from our suspension of disbelief. But with any fantasy race or monster, there is no bar set to which they must reach, no standard they must adhere to.
I have readen about gnolls like PC race (Unapproachable East and a Spanish blog). All gnolls are tainted by forces of hells. They can be noble savages like trolls from World od Warcraft, but they are too bond or linked to nature, savagery and brutality. (A tiefling who loves forest is cooler for me)
This was addressed. Even the nature-worshipping gnolls must fight the urge to succumb to the bloodlust of Yeenoghu, which is inherent to their race.
Why is anybody evil? Nietzche said the Übermench o superman had got his own code, and the Jew-Cristhian ethic was a "morality of slaves". For me that "übermenche" is a psycopath without Freudian super-ego but unfortunallity some people (of real world) think be good is be a stupy idealist, and the bright ones are wolves who live among the sheeps. Only they are honest when they know they would be punished.
Problem is, real-world human psychological issues only necessarily apply to humans. Sapient non-humans do not have to adhere to human psycho-social norms. Would you expect a mind flayer or a beholder to think like we do? Of course not. By definition, they are alien, aberrant life forms from a realm of madness. Their minds are unknowable and incoherent to us. Who says any other race can be understood vy
All Mortals like orcs, if you look close, also... So yes, DELIBERATLY, Nurture is the thing for mortals. Not Nature. Culture and upbringing. This is how it is now, clearly if you read between the line.
By example, in my world, the 'greenies' branch of Orcdom are generaly Unaligned, with Good ones a notable minority if you went for stats.
Orcs may be more,.. agressive, darring, etc PSYCHOLOGICALY than Humans, but Evil,. not.
The problem is not Orcs. It's their traditional culture, product of their religion perhaps - gruumsh in older editions. Gruumsh may have 'co-opted', 'took over' them - remove this god, the other similar cults, remove the traditional culture, and they will be like other basic races.
Like Orcs of Eberron or Tamriel (world of the Elder Scrolls games) - and related to like how Drow raised in Elistraean culture of old turn out. (I have an Alt Universe version of Her as an Exarch of Sehanine. Still work in progress some, but...), or similar religions and cultures.
To make nature win also bring.. unfortunate implications. Modern D&D have to advance in such things as well.
On a more realistic and biological level, what if, through selective breeding, thr only traits that orcs (to use an example) sought after in mates was a certain bloodthirstyness that made them capable warriors. Those same traits stemmed from the chemical imbalances found in psychopaths and serial killers, so that all orcs alive today are genetically predisposed towards violent psychopathy. A non-evil orc would still be possible through a birth mutation (at that point it would be a mutation) that caused an individual orc to NOT be psychotic, but such would be the exception and not the rule. Is that not a possibility?
No, because they would be incapable of raising children or living in any sort of even semi-stable society. Such a species would die out long before it got to the point that every individual bar the occasional mutant was "always chaotic evil".
This was my problem with the way drow were described many years ago. That whole "twins murdering each other in the womb" rubbish. As a writer who used to be a geneticist and has at least a passing interest in anthropology, I'd be embarassed to produce such utter drek. A race or species can't be simultaneously made up entirely of uncontrollably violent psychopaths and form stable or semi-stable groups, raise children, have a priesthood and a social hierarchy, form armies, etc.
You could just about get around it by making your orcs an artificial 'weapon race' (like the sranc from R. Scott Bakker's Second Apocalypse novels*) who don't need to breed or raise children or form societies in any recognisable sense. But then they're basically just demons by another name rather than a recognisably 'humanoid' race. And you'd still need them to be utterly dependent on their 'masters' to actually work together as a meaningful threat. Uncontrollably violent psychopaths might make good shock troops, but they wouldn't make for a good army on their own. They couldn't ever be self-sufficient (which is actually a plot point in the aforementioned books - the wild lands of the North are full of sranc because the semi-mythical bad guys who made them are actually still around).
* - Concepts of 'good' and 'evil' in the Second Apocalypse series are not really comparable to D&D alignment anyway, so it's maybe not a good model for our purposes. Certainly, WotC are never going to give us a race of beings who explicitly get sexual gratification from violence...
A non-human race may find slave-owning to be completely acceptable behaviour, for example, while finding the mere concept of helping or giving charity to others to be utterly abhorent.
Regarding lazy writing and good and evil races, personally I think it is lazy writing to assign human morals to non-human characters. Just because you or I as humans consider a specific act to be good or evil, doesn't mean that members of a completely different species would share those same values.
A non-human race may find slave-owning to be completely acceptable behaviour, for example, while finding the mere concept of helping or giving charity to others to be utterly abhorent.
Which, in D&D terms, makes them evil. Do understand - I'm still using D&D alignment system to describe "good" and "evil", not what I personally consider under those terms in real life, as that's obviously more complicated.
Other than that: read Duskweaver's post. It's very thought out post that addresses my main concerns in a more... academically worded way. "Non-human morals" doesn't have to mean "evil omnicidal psychopath", as Lovecraft would have you believe.
Regarding lazy writing and good and evil races, personally I think it is lazy writing to assign human morals to non-human characters. Just because you or I as humans consider a specific act to be good or evil, doesn't mean that members of a completely different species would share those same values.
A non-human race may find slave-owning to be completely acceptable behaviour, for example, while finding the mere concept of helping or giving charity to others to be utterly abhorent.
What they find acceptable or abhorrent is irrelevant to whether or not that's good or evil.
Regarding lazy writing and good and evil races, personally I think it is lazy writing to assign human morals to non-human characters. Just because you or I as humans consider a specific act to be good or evil, doesn't mean that members of a completely different species would share those same values.
A non-human race may find slave-owning to be completely acceptable behaviour, for example, while finding the mere concept of helping or giving charity to others to be utterly abhorent.
Which, in D&D terms, makes them evil. Do understand - I'm still using D&D alignment system to describe "good" and "evil", not what I personally consider under those terms in real life, as that's obviously more complicated.
Other than that: read Duskweaver's post. It's very thought out post that addresses my main concerns in a more... academically worded way. "Non-human morals" doesn't have to mean "evil omnicidal psychopath", as Lovecraft would have you believe.
And to add to your answer - maybe there is something universal to morals, an 'Humaness'. Something elves, orcs, kalashtars, halflings, etc may all ascribe to. Like the Golden Rule.
And maybe also to the basic psyche of being sentient, there is also a basic common universal ground...
Regarding lazy writing and good and evil races, personally I think it is lazy writing to assign human morals to non-human characters. Just because you or I as humans consider a specific act to be good or evil, doesn't mean that members of a completely different species would share those same values.
A non-human race may find slave-owning to be completely acceptable behaviour, for example, while finding the mere concept of helping or giving charity to others to be utterly abhorent.
Which, in D&D terms, makes them evil. Do understand - I'm still using D&D alignment system to describe "good" and "evil", not what I personally consider under those terms in real life, as that's obviously more complicated.
But we weren't discussing D&D terms - we were talking about writing, not playing. If an author is using the D&D alignment system as a basis for his characterisation, then that most certainly is a lazy author ;).
I'm using D&D terms to determine what's good and evil - because we're on a frigging D&D board, and because we're talking about game campaigns and races' morality, still in D&D.
Err... no it's not? If a race considers a particular action to be acceptable behaviour, then they're not going to consider that action to be evil - at worst it will be neutral. A non-human race may even find being a slave-owner a desirable and respectable trait - in which case to them, it would be good. Similarly, if a particular race considers an act to be abhorent, then to them that act would be evil. Basically, forcing our own human views of morals on an entirely different species just doesn't make sense.
Let me put it this way (I'm gonna be drastic). Let's pretend I go out on the streets and start killing hobos. Why? Because I think they're pests, and for the greater good of our society, they need to be dealt with. So I think I'm doing good. Does it actually make me a good person? No, it doesn't. Just thinking you're doing good (when you're killing innocent people) makes you just a psychopath - and very much evil. Reality check: every real evil person thinks he's doing good. Guess what - they're still evil. Because evil, at least still following the same definition, is "harming innocent people". It doesn't matter if you think you're helping someone, because you're still harming innocent people, thus you're still evil. And probably also insane if you still consider yourself good while having blood on your hands.
The moral relativism I sometimes see is getting on my nerves. Harm =/= help, no matter how hard you tell yourself otherwise.
Rules maybe not, but there was a CLEAR and DIRECT and DELIBERATE design decision around this subject, rather notably toward dragons.... They are not anymore fixed in one alignement as a majority. Not to Eberron's level, but EVIL Metalic dragons, by example, are known...
First off, dragons are creatures with a finite lifespan, albeit a long one. You deliberately avoided both the point of DEMONS, as well as the real point.
THIS IS NOT A RULES DISCUSSION. No matter what you say, no matter how you swing it, there are no hard and fats rules on this matter. It's all fluff, design, and writing which we are discussing. And I've read the 4e design notes on the matter, and what you say, while true about dragons, does NOT apply to demons. Read Worlds and Monsters again if you like.
All Mortals like orcs, if you look close, also... So yes, DELIBERATLY, Nurture is the thing for mortals. Not Nature. Culture and upbringing. This is how it is now, clearly if you read between the line.
Bolded the part where your argument fails to debunk my point. You are makes inferences. There are no hard and fast rules on the matter. And what IS a fact is that this is a fantasy world with sentient magic items, beings of pure LAW and GOOD, or CHAOS and EVIL, entire species exist as the result of one mad wizard's experiments (Chuuls, to name one), and numerous crazy things that defy all normal concepts of physics and psychology (any number of aberrations). Why is is impossible to believe that, in such a world, that fantasy humanoids don't follow the same rules we do?
Now, once again, I personally do not run things this way. I prefer the idea that mortal races have free will, and that's how I run/write in my campaign world.
*a great deal of well thought out and well-supported arguments*
Once again, FANTASY.
While you make very persuasive arguments, there remains the issue that fantasy is NOT beholden to human psychological norms. By simple virtue of being fantasy, and accepting interfering gods, mind flayers, spelljammers, planeswalkers, and owlbears and such, no human conceits MUST apply to nonhuman races.
Regarding lazy writing and good and evil races, personally I think it is lazy writing to assign human morals to non-human characters. Just because you or I as humans consider a specific act to be good or evil, doesn't mean that members of a completely different species would share those same values.
A non-human race may find slave-owning to be completely acceptable behaviour, for example, while finding the mere concept of helping or giving charity to others to be utterly abhorent.
What they find acceptable or abhorrent is irrelevant to whether or not that's good or evil.
I'm sorry nb_nmare, I know you've been kind of on my side here, but I gotta agree with Salla on this one. In a D&D world, morality is not relative. Even in 4e, Good and Evil remain objective forces. A different species may have differing values and social norms, yes. But that does not have any bearing on the objective "evil-ness" of such acts. Take, for example, hobgoblins. Hobgoblins consider burtality, authority by force, slavery and conquest desirable social traits. While they like them and consider them "good" (as in desirable), that does not make such acts Good (as opposed to Evil).
That, actually, is what makes such races "Evil" or "Chaotic Evil" as races, a point I think no one is debating. It is the social norms of the by-and-large cultures of those races, and what those cultures value as desirable and undesirable that makes them Evil as a culture. What the other posters are sayign here is that such is a product of their culture, and not the race itself. That, if you take an infant hobgoblin and raise it with dwarves, it will behave like a dwarf in all ways. This is consistent with real-world examples of adopted infants. Babies from other cultures raised in America, for example, don't retain any kind of cultural or behavioral norms from their country of origin.
My point (and once again, I am playing Devil's Advocate here), is that in a fantasy world, those real-world psychological and sociological norms need not apply. It's fantasy, and with so many other "real-world" norms just thrown out the window, what's one more? Furthermore, I maintain that there are no actual RULES that govern this issue, and so, it is perfectly acceptable, RAW, to have races be inherently Evil or Chaotic Evil. But just because a race is Evil or CE doesn't mean they don't have values, or their own social norms, or love and family. Who knows, maybe Gruumsh instilled in every orc's heart the desire to ferociously multiply their species, and to break, slaughter, and annhiliate everything else.
Is this cut-and-dried view of races lazy writing? Maybe, but who are we to judge? I don't write like that, I prefer that the one thing mortal races have going for them, the one thing that makes them able to break the mold and be great heroes and villains, is free will. So Nuture over Nature for me. But far be it from me to tell someone they're "doing it wrong" when it comes to something that is not covered by the rules, and is purely a matter of writing style. It's not mine, but just because it's different than I like it, does not make it bad.
It's FANTASY, people. You'll buy reincarnating devas; a race of dragon-people who hatch from eggs, and yet have mammaries; a race of people marked forever with diabolic attributes for the sins of their forefathers; and a race of sentient crystals; but the idea of a race with inborn tendency to evil (maybe due to direct influence of an Evil deity), stretches your imagination/disbelief too far?
It also occurs to me that one of the religious and old scholastic definitions of good could be easily applied to a fantastic world. That which is ordained and approved by the good gods is Good, and that which is ordained and approved by the evil gods is Evil. That seems tautological, but what I mean is that the dungeon master and players can readily accept that Bahomet or Dol Arrah or Amaunator have certain set ideals of what is good: the next step is that those ideals become the standard for goodness, without any concern for cultural relativism. The simpler the dungeon master keeps that god's core standards, the more inclusive the definition of good can be for everyone. Then the campaign can be as mediaeval or as anachronistic as the dungeon master and players (through the gods) see fit.
-Fantasy world =/= ours. Remember the lessons of Alternate History, and the ideas of keith Baker. The worlds of D&D are not ours. It can NOT be a clone of medieval times or such, and there can be alternate flows of history and tech - like Eberron.
In my world, by example... if the world pass the Dusk Age, the EAST will lead the technological course (inspired by how China in Song and Ming Dynasties passed some possible opportunities). Maybe.
Chiba Monkey, you are in deny that clearly, ALL mortal races are not 'all an alignements' and that nuture is clearly implied there.
And fantasy =/= reactionary thrivel on how evil is 'inbreed'.
What is 'unbelievable' in orcs not born evil, and that can be as a whole neutral or GOOD, like my greenies?
And don't use the 'it's a GAME' arguemnt - no, games like D&D can be deep, mature things, and explorate such stuff.
-Except that D&D always had OBJECTIVE notions or Good and Evil. Or AS WELL.
-Fantasy world =/= ours. Remember the lessons of Alternate History, and the ideas of keith Baker. The worlds of D&D are not ours. It can NOT be a clone of medieval times or such, and there can be alternate flows of history and tech - like Eberron.
Yes, this has been my point as well
Chiba Monkey, you are in deny that clearly, ALL mortal races are not 'all an alignements' and that nuture is clearly implied there.
And fantasy =/= reactionary thrivel on how evil is 'inbreed'.
What is 'unbelievable' in orcs not born evil, and that can be as a whole neutral or GOOD, like my greenies?
And don't use the 'it's a GAME' arguemnt - no, games like D&D can be deep, mature things, and explorate such stuff.
Your use of the language makes your point confusing. But I think the bottom line is that you don't understanmd what I said.
Nothing in my post says that I devalue anyone else's ideas, including your 'greenie' orcs. To the contrary, I think that works fine. I don't find orcs born not evil as unbelievable, I personally believe in Nurture > Nature. Orcs as a society are evil, an orc born outside that society would not be.
HOWEVER...
It's a fantasy world, and if someone ELSE wants to make 'all-evil' races, I say let them. I maintain only that fantasy need not adhere to real-world norms. Whether we are talking about flying carpets, time-travelling brain-eating aberrations, or our notions about the nature of free will. The bigger issue, from my perspective, is that no one has the right to tell someone who DOES choose that route "you're doing it wrong, races CAN'T be all-evil". Screw you, yes they can, it's FANTASY. Real world rules need not apply.
But by no means am I discounting the contrary. If I defended the opposite and attack that stance, I would be hypocritical, because, byb the same standards, it's FANTASY, and if you, the DM/writer CHOOSE a more realistic view of races, then that is your freedom, too. Hell, MY writing involves mortal races having free will and choice.
But if they learn a totally egoistic, whithout solidarity, is doomed to destroy itself (by no overcome any crisis) and they isn´t true honor without respect of dignity of person... they can start to be no so evil.
Of course always there will be some rotter who thinks he can be a wolf among stupy sheeps.
---
If WotC coud "plagiare" a race or archetype of fay race from rpg "Changeling: the dreaming" (by White Wolf publishing)...what would you like? I like the "knockers"/tinker gnomes from Dragonlance. Blue (psionic goblin) could be interesting. Shide could be like "alien elf" different from eladrin and wood elves. Why not a second giant PC race like the AD&D firbolg and wood giant? Or a oni (=mage ogre)-blood.
Heroes of the Ravaged Lands could be a great book. Goblins, Kobold, Orcs, Bug Bears Yuan-Ti and Hobgoblins. With a few sub classes, Ravager/Fighter, Reaver/Barbarian, Demon Whisperer/Warlock, Gruumsh Rider/Paladin, Medicine Man/Cleric.
I would also like the sub-races to be fleshed out too. Human, Dragonborn and Goliath have potential for some sub-classes, I guess all the races do,
Also a new race would be nice, someone try to make something D&D iconic that hasn't been done before.
Basically no one is right or wrong in this thread so far. It's all fertile ground to build on.
Who do I have to give my credit card number to in order to make this happen?