Shadow and Elemental: A chance for less heroic races - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Shadow and Elemental: A chance for less heroic races

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
astute
Apr 02, 2010 15:58:35 Both shadow and elemental can be considered, well, less than "good". Shadow is obvious, and elemental possesses an affiliation with the Elemental Chaos, which is entropic at best.

Thus, instead of adding some more increasingly obscure races, PH4 could capitalize on an antiheroic theme and introduce genuinely playable orcs, goblins, lycanthropes, and the like. They could, like minotaurs, be whitewashed as savage but quasi-valorous races, or they could be allowed to remain as generally villanous species.

This idea occurred to me when I realized that, in PH3, three of the four new races were completely specific to D&D - and these races were added when more familiar races, such as the above, still exist.

What say you, forumgoers? Possible, or has the idea of evil races fallen by the wayside for mainstream play?
#2
Eisenritter
Apr 02, 2010 17:45:19 Depends on the races. Githyanki, for example, are apparently not to be PC'd ever. ;_;
#3
Neutronium_Dragon
Apr 02, 2010 18:20:03 Two issues:

The Shadow and Elemental sources aren't necessarily evil-leaning, nor do races like goblins and werewolves have any particular connection to them - you'd be more likely to see an Azer than a hobgoblin if you're working on an elemental theme.

Those races are already mixed-outlook as well - their culture doesn't preclude heroic individuals (the ones you see in the MM are typical antagonists, not all-inclusive), and we already have a semi-valorous goblin NPC who has shown up in two adventures (Splug - Keep on the Shadowfell and Dark Awakenings).

Likewise, while the PHB3 minotaur represents the heroic sort, and there are plenty of minotaur communities that are civilized, there are as many or more that are demon-worshiping ravagers. The other hand, the same is true of humans - they're hardly all heroic.

Now, I don't oppose the idea of those races showing up in a PHB (though I'm highly doubtful that we'll get official lycanthropes since WotC seems to have decided to push shifters instead), but for those two reasons I don't think it'll be done based on the power source or for the sake of presenting them as villains when used as PCs.
#4
_Mithreinmaethor_
Apr 03, 2010 3:06:33 The Mearls said when speaking about why Githyanki were not written up stated that they wont stat out for Players use any more evil races.

So to answer your question based on that....I would say no.
#5
foreverslayer
Apr 03, 2010 6:25:18
The Mearls said when speaking about why Githyanki were not written up stated that they wont stat out for Players use any more evil races.

So to answer your question based on that....I would say no.

And that is why in my opinion 4th edition will fail. Not everyone likes to be the hero.
#6
Marandahir
Apr 03, 2010 8:05:05 You don't need a villainous race to be a villain.

But D&D is a lot harder to play villains, since the game requires teamwork, and evil and chaotic evil characters don't work together well at all.

You could make it work.

But the game is heavily geared towards heroicism. This is true of ALL editions of D&D, not just 4e. It's just made more explicit that that's the intention here.
#7
ceiling90
Apr 03, 2010 10:36:01 You could always play an off sect of the Evil races. After all, look at the Gnolls. Serioulsy, they're supposed to be insane eat your enemies evil. But we have them as a player race. I think they just didn't want to deal with the Githyanki this early, when they just finished the Githzerai. Also, they probably refrained, since they the Githyanki seemed to be heavily re-fluffed. Personally, fluff should never take a hold on possible mechanics, since as DM, I'd love to have a game where the world is run by kind, gentle, if little clumsy Goblins, and have the Elves be the one true source of evil. Personally, the excuse Mearls gives is circumspect and smacks of just being a quick getaway versus being an actual reason for not having the Githyanki written up as a player race.
#8
Neutronium_Dragon
Apr 03, 2010 11:44:07 > stated that they wont stat out for Players use any more evil races.

This isn't strictly correct - it was that they don't want to lose any more iconic villains to PC-hood.

Githyanki are unquestionably iconic villains, but goblins no longer really hold that status, especially since the release of the Eberron setting.
#9
chanter_hound
Apr 04, 2010 18:10:59
You could always play an off sect of the Evil races. After all, look at the Gnolls. Serioulsy, they're supposed to be insane eat your enemies evil. But we have them as a player race. I think they just didn't want to deal with the Githyanki this early, when they just finished the Githzerai. Also, they probably refrained, since they the Githyanki seemed to be heavily re-fluffed. Personally, fluff should never take a hold on possible mechanics, since as DM, I'd love to have a game where the world is run by kind, gentle, if little clumsy Goblins, and have the Elves be the one true source of evil. Personally, the excuse Mearls gives is circumspect and smacks of just being a quick getaway versus being an actual reason for not having the Githyanki written up as a player race.

In Van Von Hunter, the goblins were very cheery individuals who hosted bake sales. They were also the only "evil" minons who never fail at what they are good at. (Enslaving nations with the sweet taste of brownies.)

Gnolls had a write up since 2nd edition as well, which pretty much said the same thing as the 4e gnolls.
#10
tavenknaughtlin
Apr 04, 2010 20:32:52 I would like it if they fleshed out a few more races that were never really evil to begin with, like Lizardfolk, Centaurs, and Satyrs.

And I don't think that Dragonborn are 'reptilian' enough to forbid the inclusion of Lizardfolk, anymore than Eladrin, Elves and Drow are 'elvy' enough to exclude the others. One's an honorable, tough-as-nails dragon descendant, the other is a tribal survivalist at home in the swamps and rivers.

Centaurs may have a problem with size, but you could always make them Medium size, with perhaps an epic destiny to have them grow to their full potential (druids already have the ability to be Large permanently at epic level, so I see no balance problems).

I don't see any problems with satyrs, other tha the fact that the horned-guy theme is done by the Tiefling and the Minotaur, and the digitograde, primal race has been done by the Wilden. Bith are minor problems at best.

Here's hoping for a special Dragon supplement along the line of Savage Species. It would work great, since they wouldn't have to worry about having to sell a physical book (and disrupt their PHB, MM, DMG, Power scheme), and people of less classical fantasy tastes would be satisfied.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 astute Apr 02, 2010 15:58:35	Both shadow and elemental can be considered, well, less than "good". Shadow is obvious, and elemental possesses an affiliation with the Elemental Chaos, which is entropic at best. Thus, instead of adding some more increasingly obscure races, PH4 could capitalize on an antiheroic theme and introduce genuinely playable orcs, goblins, lycanthropes, and the like. They could, like minotaurs, be whitewashed as savage but quasi-valorous races, or they could be allowed to remain as generally villanous species. This idea occurred to me when I realized that, in PH3, three of the four new races were completely specific to D&D - and these races were added when more familiar races, such as the above, still exist. What say you, forumgoers? Possible, or has the idea of evil races fallen by the wayside for mainstream play?
#2 Eisenritter Apr 02, 2010 17:45:19	Depends on the races. Githyanki, for example, are apparently not to be PC'd ever. ;_;
#3 Neutronium_Dragon Apr 02, 2010 18:20:03	Two issues: The Shadow and Elemental sources aren't necessarily evil-leaning, nor do races like goblins and werewolves have any particular connection to them - you'd be more likely to see an Azer than a hobgoblin if you're working on an elemental theme. Those races are already mixed-outlook as well - their culture doesn't preclude heroic individuals (the ones you see in the MM are typical antagonists, not all-inclusive), and we already have a semi-valorous goblin NPC who has shown up in two adventures (Splug - Keep on the Shadowfell and Dark Awakenings). Likewise, while the PHB3 minotaur represents the heroic sort, and there are plenty of minotaur communities that are civilized, there are as many or more that are demon-worshiping ravagers. The other hand, the same is true of humans - they're hardly all heroic. Now, I don't oppose the idea of those races showing up in a PHB (though I'm highly doubtful that we'll get official lycanthropes since WotC seems to have decided to push shifters instead), but for those two reasons I don't think it'll be done based on the power source or for the sake of presenting them as villains when used as PCs.
#4 _Mithreinmaethor_ Apr 03, 2010 3:06:33	The Mearls said when speaking about why Githyanki were not written up stated that they wont stat out for Players use any more evil races. So to answer your question based on that....I would say no.
#5 foreverslayer Apr 03, 2010 6:25:18	The Mearls said when speaking about why Githyanki were not written up stated that they wont stat out for Players use any more evil races. So to answer your question based on that....I would say no. And that is why in my opinion 4th edition will fail. Not everyone likes to be the hero.
#6 Marandahir Apr 03, 2010 8:05:05	You don't need a villainous race to be a villain. But D&D is a lot harder to play villains, since the game requires teamwork, and evil and chaotic evil characters don't work together well at all. You could make it work. But the game is heavily geared towards heroicism. This is true of ALL editions of D&D, not just 4e. It's just made more explicit that that's the intention here.
#7 ceiling90 Apr 03, 2010 10:36:01	You could always play an off sect of the Evil races. After all, look at the Gnolls. Serioulsy, they're supposed to be insane eat your enemies evil. But we have them as a player race. I think they just didn't want to deal with the Githyanki this early, when they just finished the Githzerai. Also, they probably refrained, since they the Githyanki seemed to be heavily re-fluffed. Personally, fluff should never take a hold on possible mechanics, since as DM, I'd love to have a game where the world is run by kind, gentle, if little clumsy Goblins, and have the Elves be the one true source of evil. Personally, the excuse Mearls gives is circumspect and smacks of just being a quick getaway versus being an actual reason for not having the Githyanki written up as a player race.
#8 Neutronium_Dragon Apr 03, 2010 11:44:07	> stated that they wont stat out for Players use any more evil races. This isn't strictly correct - it was that they don't want to lose any more iconic villains to PC-hood. Githyanki are unquestionably iconic villains, but goblins no longer really hold that status, especially since the release of the Eberron setting.
#9 chanter_hound Apr 04, 2010 18:10:59	You could always play an off sect of the Evil races. After all, look at the Gnolls. Serioulsy, they're supposed to be insane eat your enemies evil. But we have them as a player race. I think they just didn't want to deal with the Githyanki this early, when they just finished the Githzerai. Also, they probably refrained, since they the Githyanki seemed to be heavily re-fluffed. Personally, fluff should never take a hold on possible mechanics, since as DM, I'd love to have a game where the world is run by kind, gentle, if little clumsy Goblins, and have the Elves be the one true source of evil. Personally, the excuse Mearls gives is circumspect and smacks of just being a quick getaway versus being an actual reason for not having the Githyanki written up as a player race. In Van Von Hunter, the goblins were very cheery individuals who hosted bake sales. They were also the only "evil" minons who never fail at what they are good at. (Enslaving nations with the sweet taste of brownies.) Gnolls had a write up since 2nd edition as well, which pretty much said the same thing as the 4e gnolls.
#10 tavenknaughtlin Apr 04, 2010 20:32:52	I would like it if they fleshed out a few more races that were never really evil to begin with, like Lizardfolk, Centaurs, and Satyrs. And I don't think that Dragonborn are 'reptilian' enough to forbid the inclusion of Lizardfolk, anymore than Eladrin, Elves and Drow are 'elvy' enough to exclude the others. One's an honorable, tough-as-nails dragon descendant, the other is a tribal survivalist at home in the swamps and rivers. Centaurs may have a problem with size, but you could always make them Medium size, with perhaps an epic destiny to have them grow to their full potential (druids already have the ability to be Large permanently at epic level, so I see no balance problems). I don't see any problems with satyrs, other tha the fact that the horned-guy theme is done by the Tiefling and the Minotaur, and the digitograde, primal race has been done by the Wilden. Bith are minor problems at best. Here's hoping for a special Dragon supplement along the line of Savage Species. It would work great, since they wouldn't have to worry about having to sell a physical book (and disrupt their PHB, MM, DMG, Power scheme), and people of less classical fantasy tastes would be satisfied.