|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen ir repeatedly put forth on a number of forums that players using races that are disliked in an area, be it half-orc, tiefling, drow, or some humanoid out of the Bestiary/Monster Manual, are "free game" so to speak. Often with undertones of "those players are doing it wrong anyway" and that they're being taught a lesson. They range anywhere from "untrusted and ostracized whereever they go" to "lynched/shot in the first session, no exceptions".
Generally, the gist is "make that PC as miserable as possible" often with no real hope of it ever getting better.
Adversity stemming from a player's race choice is fine and dandy, and is a great roleplaying opportunity, but if the world refuses to react to that PCs attempts to overcome adversity it becomes something else. A PC half-orc or harpy being distrusted, feared, and pelted by rocks from villagers that don't know them is one thing. Those same characters getting the same exact treatment after they've risked life and limb for those villagers multiple times is something else. I can speak with experience that it's frustrating and miserable when you've got frequent and static persecution coming your character's way no matter what you do, though this came from another PC rather than the GM(whose world was affected by player actions).
If that player has no real hope of getting the world to react to what they're doing, then why should they bother with the game?
And then there's the first session lynching scenario that some GMs actually brag about using. If the GM isn't going to give the player an honest chance with that character, they shouldn't have allowed it in the first place. Otherwise it serves no purpose but to grief that player. If the GM wants to run a world with that level of haterade for that race and allows such a PC, they have to work with that player to give them a reasonable way to get by. Goblins of Golarion features a helpful baseline to build from in its player advice section, for one canonical example.
There's also the irony that so many who knock "monster PCs" as being angst-ridden as a rule often suggest that they would run their games involving such characters in such a way that non-stop angst is the only reasonable reaction. For all the hate Drizzt gets from these GMs, they certainly seem hellbent on shoehorning monster PCs into that role.
I don't know, it seems frequent online, but how common is it for GMs to set out to make players regret their race choice, regardless of what the players actually do with their characters?
Note that this is not, and some will certainly try to read it this way, a suggestion that such characters' experiences should be all sunshine and rainbows. If the world is set up with them on the outs, they should face challenges because of it. But they should also be able to overcome those challenges and have the opportunity to do so.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, it is, sadly fairly realistic. There is a large minority that will never accept them, whatever they do.
Second, a good percentage of the players choosing those races do it for mechanical advantages (better stats, special abilities and so) and don't really care about overcoming the distrust, they do "good deeds" only because it is what the adventure offer and make it very clear in their behaviour. If the town saviour is a obnoxious individual, prone to outburst of violence and with the habit of threatening people when they don't do what he want he will not be loved even after saving the town. He can get a bit of slack, but nothing more.
Third, most masters don't antagonize their player that way. The kind of GM you describe are fairly rare. Most of the time it is the exactly opposite of what you describe: the players characters do very little to get the population thrust, often only if railroaded in doing that by the adventure, but the master let them interact with the "normal" population with little or no trouble.
In one of the games I'm playing in, there's a kobold sorcerer. When he first left the city he was from, there were can we say 'strong' reactions. Thus his character always kept his form hidden, currently he's pretending to be a gnome. Fortunately our GM is an awesome GM who has the NPCs (and world) react to the actions of the PCs. So he was actually able to earn comradery amongst people of a foreign city (who discovered he was a kobold) even though in a neighboring country kobolds are Kill-on-Sight. Of course, that particular GM has the people react in an organic fashion so if the kobold was just strolling through the streets without caution, then the kobold wouldn't have made it out.
In one of the games I'm playing in, there's a kobold sorcerer. When he first left the city he was from, there were can we say 'strong' reactions. Thus his character always kept his form hidden, currently he's pretending to be a gnome. Fortunately our GM is an awesome GM who has the NPCs (and world) react to the actions of the PCs. So he was actually able to earn comradery amongst people of a foreign city (who discovered he was a kobold) even though in a neighboring country kobolds are Kill-on-Sight. Of course, that particular GM has the people react in an organic fashion so if the kobold was just strolling through the streets without caution, then the kobold wouldn't have made it out.
I also play in a game with a stealth-kobold sorcerer (a feral battle sorcerer at that!) (he's usually disguised as a gnome, as there are 2 other gnomes in the party), and it's pretty much the same way. If he acts all koboldy, things can be bad, but if he acts heroic and not too pyromaniac, he's accepted.
The player still plays the 'kobold', he's a coward but it's wonderful and in character. He's just usually disguised when in foreign cities. Even when the kobold is disguised he still hides and reacts fearfully when people confront him. Also it's hilarious when he talks about kobold things.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, this sort of thing has less to do with what sort of race or class or alignment is 'acceptable' or politically correct this week, but a breakdown in both communication between player and GM and of respect for each other.
If a GM doesn't want to have gnolls or followers of Norgorber or whatever in his game, then he should say no, right up front, rather than passive-aggressively punish the player after the fact.
If the player respects the GMs decision, and doesn't put up a fuss about not being able to play a character of a type that the GM has stated he would rather not, this sort of thing can be avoided.
The GM needs to say no, firmly, rather than try to 'teach a lesson' in-game in a backhanded and cowardly manner.
The player needs to take no for an answer, preferably graciously, and offer up more acceptable character options for the game the GM is running.
Alternately, the player can seek out GMs more interested in that sort of thing, or see if the whole group is willing to do a one-shot 'monster game' or 'reverse dungeon' sort of thing, to scratch their itch to play something different.
IMO, it's all about clear communication and mutual respect. RPGs should be about cooperation, not confrontation (and especially not passive-aggressive crap from someone who lacks the gumption to say 'no' to your face). Not *just* cooperation between players, but also cooperation with the GM to make the experience enjoyable for everyone.
I was just about to say the same for unpopular alignments/faiths.
I made a bard priestess/prostitute of Calistria in a game that was supposed to be set in Pitax. Where did my GM and husband dump said character? In a rural community outside Pitax dedicated to Erastil.
Oh yeah, getting called all manner of crude expletives and nearly lynched every time she set foot out the door of the brothel got old pretty quick. And him setting up moral gray scenarios like pushing a sexually repressed inquisitor of Iomedae at her... whooo boy, lemme tell you, that was all sorts of fun.
Let's just say that I am glad that I sacrificed wisdom for superior strength at creation, and have amazing charisma, so that her albeit chaotic goodness endures through the mire of crap my bard has to wade through in that game.
I think both parties have to compromise.
The player playing a monster race has to come up with a good reason when the monster would try to blend in/be accepted into a society that wants to kill it. Also he probably shouldn't make it too obvious if he really chose the monster solely for the stats/abilities and milk every little bit out of it (unless the other players do this as well ^^).
The GM has to allow the player to play his character or disallow the choice altogether if he can't think of a way to make it work. This does not mean to make it easy for the player. But his actions should show some effect and make people's attitude change. At least so far as that they don't wanna kill him anymore.
Or if he goes to the stealth/disguise route not force him to make rolls for every person passing by. A hat of disguise or simply some ranks in the disguise skill can go a long way for allowing a monster to rank up some good Karma before he is discovered.
I recently had just such a chance. In a high level adventure (minimum character was level 10) I made a Troll as I always wanted to try how it would feel to play with the regeneration ability (which is pretty much impossible to get for PCs normally).
He was a scrawny Troll, smaller and weaker than his normal cousins and unusually intelligent. That meant he could not compete with other trolls for territory and thus was shunned into area's without enough food to survive (trolls need lots of that). But as luck would have it he munched upon a bunch of thieves hiding in the forest and one happened to have a hat of disguise. That made him look like an Elf. Using that he went into "civilation" and began working as mercenary. He now had lots of money to buy food and protection from being... well trolled by Trolls :D
And as the party came by they simply hired him as a mercenary. And things went from there automatically. We had lots of great and entertaining moments with his less then perfect disguise and his so very not elfish mannerisms. ^^
|
I have played as GM that is guilty of these exact actions in the past. HOWEVER it was not because of the actual race but because of that player.
The player in question was a very good friend of a very good friend of mine. The player in question was an acquaintance to me. The problem I had with the player was that he cheated.
The quandary I found myself in was my friend tried to defend him, even though he could never account for actual results in the game (seriously how does a level 4 3rd Edition fighter manage to get 3 attacks per round and deal a minimum of about 30 damage per attack and take a move action? AND manage to have a minimum save of +20 on ALL of his saves?) When I expressed plans to nicely (and I do mean that, I wanted to keep things friendly and not antagonistic) confront the cheater my friend grew defensive and said he would leave the game if I did that. GREAT.
So I decided the best solution, rather than canceling the game entirely, was make the cheater's life a nightmare until he decided to quit of his own freewill, allowing my friend the opportunity to stay without "taking sides."
Fortunately the player had chosen a drow. At first racial intolerance never even occurred to me. However, later when I became aware of the rampant cheating, I began to work the racial intolerance into the game. A little here, then a bit more there.
Finally, the end result was the player quit, my friend stayed in the game we replaced the cheater with a new player (who interestingly played a minotaur). The new player was cool, no problems and never suffered racial intolerance (aside from moo-ing and cow pie jokes).
So, yes I have resorted to the tactics described, but not for the same reasons. I have no problem with a player playing a race I allow into a game. There may be some hardships (which will be discussed ahead of time so the player can decide what he wants to do and I can manage the proper amount of intolerance to keep it "real" and balanced with fun), but if I allow the race I won't penalize the player for the race.
As a player I have played a 1st edition drow (OMG I just realized I have played an ELF! *gag*) that was never able to enter a city, town or even the lowliest thorp. While my companions slept in the inn, I slept in the woods. I got my revenge though, because I WAS playing an evil character... hehehe... sweet sweet revenge! Oh then I got lynched. *shrug* it was fun though.
As a DM, my experience is that monster PCs are pretty much one-trick ponies. I guess it comes with the amount of description given in the game. The PC races are established and well-known enough to have spawned not only several archetypes each, but an understanding of their culture and a wealth of presupposed ideas about them. When you delve into monster races, you don't have much to go on, very little experience, and at most one clear archetype. Kobolds who are sneaky and hate gnomes and love traps, anyone? Further, these creatures do not have societies beyond that of the tribe level, which excludes them from the campaign world lore.
It might well be possible that some player can do this well, I just haven't seen it.
|
|
If the GM doesn't want a race to be playable, they need to state it clearly and stick to it (unless the player can sell a really cool story and be able to back it up in roleplay, in which case exceptions can be considered).
If the GM says no to a race than that should be the end of it. If the player insists on playing that race anyway, then I have no sympathy for them.
If the player insists on playing a race that the GM has said no to, I would assume the player is some other game.
If I, as GM, told a player he could not play a certain race, explained why (within reason- "I don't like elves" is not good enough darn it, but "elves are the bad guys in this game" is), and suggested he select a different race, and THEN he decides to show up with the forbidden race anyway... yeah he's NOT playing in that game.
Now I'd still try to be diplomatic about it. Offer to let another person run as GM, or suggest we play a different game altogether (well you want an elf, so let's play Shadowrun instead), or whatever.
But that character in that game won't happen.
[sidetrek] though I think it should be written into the rules that GMs should be able to heap misery, agony, and pain on anyone that plays an elf. Just saying... playing a Balor is better than playing an elf... just saying [/sidetrek] *that last was meant to be read tongue-in-cheek... unless you play an elf...* :-)
|
|
As a DM, my experience is that monster PCs are pretty much one-trick ponies. I guess it comes with the amount of description given in the game. The PC races are established and well-known enough to have spawned not only several archetypes each, but an understanding of their culture and a wealth of presupposed ideas about them. When you delve into monster races, you don't have much to go on, very little experience, and at most one clear archetype. Kobolds who are sneaky and hate gnomes and love traps, anyone? Further, these creatures do not have societies beyond that of the tribe level, which excludes them from the campaign world lore.
It might well be possible that some player can do this well, I just haven't seen it.
I can see it working WHEN the GM and player sit down together and hash it out. A VERY well written and detailed back history helps a LOT (helps with ALL characters in fact). But for a non-core class the work needs to be shared between GM and player.
Unfortunately most of the time a player as a "concept" in mind and insists it be that way with no compromise. The GM usually has a "concept" in mind and refuses to compromise to make it fun for the player. Both have to work together, compromise, and strive to create a fun shared experience that will benefit everyone.
|
|
A completely awesome post, in my opinion.To my mind, roughly 75% of the sturm und drang I see around here *points metaphorically at the forums* are directly attributable to breakdowns in communication between GMs and players.
If folks communicated more effectively with one another (and were more graciously when disagreements or differences of opinion cropped up), a lot of difficulties would be ironed out (or at least aired) before they evolved into problems down the road.
LIke Mikaze said, stuff can end up "Misery Porn" if folks aren't communicating with one another.
I made a bard priestess/prostitute of Calistria in a game that was supposed to be set in Pitax. Where did my GM and husband dump said character? In a rural community outside Pitax dedicated to Erastil.Hu5tru, ouch. Your husband (who's also the GM of the game you're playing?) is tossing that your way?
Ouch.
-- Andy
I agree... in my situation my friend hampered communication between me, as GM, and the cheating player. It would be great if we could manage to work out great communications, since after all we are all in this to have fun. But heck in reality husbands and wives can't communicate, parents and children can't communicate, best friends can't communicate...
The reality is bad communication is human (should that be a class ability?). Gonna happen. We can strive for better communications, we can hope for it, but there will always be bad communications. Best we can do is shrug it off and move on I guess... since it is illegal in 49 of 50 states to shoot the annoying a$$ disagreeing with you... God Bless Texas and the "He Deserved Killing" defense... :-)
*Does playing an elf fall under the "He Deserves Killing" defense?* :-)
This has been my take on monster races as PCs, from both a GM and Player of almost every one I've listed.
Kobolds: Outside Halfling and Gnome communities, and the occasional Fey settlement, these little guys aren't going to have too rough a time of it if they're travelling with a mixed group of "heroic" races. They're pretty unassuming. Even kids might follow these guys around and try to play with them.
Goblins: Same as Kobolds, but probably a bit more hated and laughed at. Especially so with Pathfinder goblins.
Orcs: OK, these guys are going to have it rough. Especially when dealing with elves, dwarves and frontier settlements that have suffered at Orc raids. If you roll an Orc, you should probably expect that your life will be miserable for a LONG time. Unlike the common conception of goblins and kobolds, an orc is actually dangerous BY ITSELF.
Hobgoblins: Similar to orcs, but less so. Hobgoblin mercenaries are likely common enough that they will be treated like especially crude regular mercenaries.
1/2 Orcs: Generally a mix of pity and distrust, but unless they look almost fully orcish, they're not going to have too hard a time of it.
Drow: Most common people aren't even aware they exist and are likely to mistake them as a really unusual elf. However in places where the race is known, they will be extremely fortunate not to be killed outright. When players ask to play this race, I let them know from the start that it is going to be VERY tough going.
Dhampir: Emo human, nothing to see here.
Elemental PC races: "Look Ma! That guys hair is on fire." Maybe a little scary to the commoners in small villages, but mostly people think "Look, another weird sorcerer!"
Grippli: LOL! Frog from Crono Trigger.
Aasimar: Nobody cares. Maybe you'll be pestered by the super gullible religious freaks for faith healing, but otherwise, you'll be left alone.
Tiefling: Outside Cheliax, you're not going to have a very good time. It'll be worse the more "Lower Plane" your look is. People will generally be afraid of you and you'll get blamed for everything bad that happens.
Now, these are MY PERSONAL takes on the races as PCs, and yes, I know Kobolds and Goblins CAN be dangerous, but in my worlds, they're generally chumps and commoners aren't REALLY that scared of them on an individual basis.
As a DM, my experience is that monster PCs are pretty much one-trick ponies. I guess it comes with the amount of description given in the game. The PC races are established and well-known enough to have spawned not only several archetypes each, but an understanding of their culture and a wealth of presupposed ideas about them. When you delve into monster races, you don't have much to go on, very little experience, and at most one clear archetype. Kobolds who are sneaky and hate gnomes and love traps, anyone? Further, these creatures do not have societies beyond that of the tribe level, which excludes them from the campaign world lore.
It might well be possible that some player can do this well, I just haven't seen it.
I think that it's this very lack of information that often allows for monster races to be played as PCs. Monster PCs can transform a species from a monolithic stereotype to a species that has a deep and interesting mythos. For one, it's fun and, if handled right, it can add an extra dimension to a species that may populate every continent on the planet, but only have one or two pages written about them in a book.
One of my Kingmaker players recently took Mikmek (a kobold NPC) as her primary cohort with her Leadership feat. (He's a Rogue 3 / Ranger 2)
He likes traps, but could care less about gnomes or halflings. In fact the Sootscales haven't had much of an issue with either race since there wasn't a settlement of either nearby for them to conflict with. They DO hate mites and most other fey though, and this has caused some minor issues.
In this particular game, the players have relocated the Sootscales to the gold mine and the kobolds are allowed to mine and trade directly with the PCs budding kingdom at the Stag Lord's old home and the nearby villages that have spawned. The villagers and guards know the black-scaled kobolds on sight and there isn't any hostility at all, but the kobolds are still a bit nervous around the big pinkskins.
A bit more on the kobold cohort, he was retooled with a slightly higher int and chr and is VERY interested in knowing about history and local customs as well as learning more about animals and nature. (The poor guy completely sucks at mining though.) He is LN, but has a bit of a temper and still likes to occasionally poke small things until they stop moving. Otherwise he is generally pleasant to be around.
|
|
Agreed on compromise and communication being of utmost importance. I'm not sure if it came across in the OP, but a player shouldn't be brute-forcing his race choice if it isn't welcome in the game to begin with(better to find a compromise or another game). I'm just not really seeing how it can get past that point if the GM truly didn't want it in the game though, save for caving under peer pressure followed by unhealthy passive-aggressiveness or outright griefing.
Excepting Krome of course. ;)
Second, a good percentage of the players choosing those races do it for mechanical advantages (better stats, special abilities and so)
I guess I may have been lucky in that area. I can't speak to exact percentages or anything but whenever players go for monster options in our group(including guys like tieflings and aasimar) it's always been about actually getting to play that race rather than the mechanics. I took that trait that nerfed my tiefling abilities, the gnoll player used a cut down stat-modifier line, and so forth. If I wanted to play a harpy, I'd be the first to suggest having the flight abilities stripped down until the appropriate levels, I'd still be playing a harpy. Changed the orc ability modifiers to the more balanced +2,+2,-2 range as well.
Then again I don't know how close to the norm we are.
I think that it's this very lack of information that often allows for monster races to be played as PCs. Monster PCs can transform a species from a monolithic stereotype to a species that has a deep and interesting mythos. For one, it's fun and, if handled right, it can add an extra dimension to a species that may populate every continent on the planet, but only have one or two pages written about them in a book.As a DM, my experience is that monster PCs are pretty much one-trick ponies. I guess it comes with the amount of description given in the game. The PC races are established and well-known enough to have spawned not only several archetypes each, but an understanding of their culture and a wealth of presupposed ideas about them. When you delve into monster races, you don't have much to go on, very little experience, and at most one clear archetype. Kobolds who are sneaky and hate gnomes and love traps, anyone? Further, these creatures do not have societies beyond that of the tribe level, which excludes them from the campaign world lore.
It might well be possible that some player can do this well, I just haven't seen it.
Monoculture has always bugged the hell out of me, and even the standard player races get hit with it in some settings. Anything that kicks that to the curb and fleshes out those races beyond the hat they wear is welcome in my book. A player and GM jamming together on developing and expanding cultures could make for an awesome worldbuilding opportunity.
Pretty much had to start developing a new culture for orcs after the player's guide for orcs didn't feature any cultural range helpful to players wanting to fit into a standard party. Almost the same for gnolls, but Hamunaptra was a lifesaver there.
Personally for kobold PCs, I'd figure taking the "live for the tribe, die for the tribe" mentality and applying it to the party that took him/her in would be a solid starting point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monoculture has always bugged the hell out of me, and even the standard player races get hit with it in some settings. Anything that kicks that to the curb and fleshes out those races beyond the hat they wear is welcome in my book. A player and GM jamming together on developing and expanding cultures could make for an awesome worldbuilding opportunity.
I've always thought of RPG's as collaborative story telling told by both the GM and players. A group that can work together towards the goal of telling a great story can pretty much handle any race/species thrown into the mix. A group that has a more adversarial dynamic between the GM and players; not so much.
...
The reality is bad communication is human (should that be a class ability?). Gonna happen. We can strive for better communications, we can hope for it, but there will always be bad communications. Best we can do is shrug it off and move on I guess... since it is illegal in 49 of 50 states to shoot the annoying a$$ disagreeing with you... God Bless Texas and the "He Deserved Killing" defense... :-)
*Does playing an elf fall under the "He Deserves Killing" defense?* :-)
Krome, help me out. Who said that? One of the funniest comedy bits I've heard and I can't remember who it was.
My game world was created in the mid-60s, converted to D&D in the 70s and benefits from the numerous 'race balancing' systems of 3.X. Humans are a bare majority at best, with a veritable menangerie of other races. Currently bearing down on 20 player ready races with a total of 26 plannned, I think most players can find one they want to play.
Each race has an extensive Fluff sections and I warn that 'I PLAY FLUFF', so people treating Goblins as underclass in urban areas and vermin in rural is understood. Half-Orcs don't exist due to Orcs being souless semi-dimensional monsters. Gargoyles are ripped from the GURPS Fantasy Folk book, best treated as stray dogs (armored, flying, lazy, corrwardly mongrels). Elves are a single race, sub-races being a choice made at character creation (Lots more complicated than just that).
Mikaze, I read the thread just because I expected porn, I can't see it :p (j/k)
My experience: I don't do this as DM, but it happens, for different reasons.
* One of my friends thinks that any non-human (that includes elfs, demielfs, etc..) creature should be killed in the most horrible way, but that's prolly because he used to be as racist as the devil and thinks that anyone in a medieval setting should be a racist xenophobic redneck bastard. So, every time he DMs (thanks god 1 time per year) we forget about choosing races.
* When RPGs were utterly unbalanced and provided little or no advice to DMs we used racism to balance broken races (i.e. drows as shown in some AD&D2 accesory), the habit is still here.
* We have a player that chooses human every time we make a campaign for alternative races, alternative races every time we start a campaign for humans, wizards when we play a low-magic campaign, etc. now everyone makes jokes about his characters because of the player.
* "Realism", IMO the worst concept you can introduce in a RPG after "Metagaming".
I used to play and run a fair amount of WFRP(stopped because their isn't a community of WFRP players here in colchester). I still run and play Call of Cthulhu, with a focus on the 1920s.
In WFRP, when I play a non-human, I expect institutional racism against my character and often treat humans who have not proven themselves worthy of respect like uppity children. Because that is the way the setting works. Race in WFRP is an issue, and I would be selling the setting short not to treat it as such, both as a player and as Games master. Almost al the keen WFRP fans I have played with, have felt the same.
Call of Cthulhu is the same, though it takes a slight backseat as my games tend to focus on the UK, rather than the US. I don't keep the in setting bigotry to racism either, gender, sexuality, mental illness and disability are up for grabs too, because it is set in the 1920's, because sufferage, the rise of fascism and pre-civil rights movement race issues are part of the bread and butter of the age, and make a nice counterpoint to the horrors of the mythos. If I play a gay, female or black character in such a setting, I expect to have that character be the subject of prejudice at some point, not only from the NPCs, but quite possibly the other PCs. It helps maintain the Verisimilitude of the game. I am very lucky to have a group who feel as I do on this subject, and who rise to the challenge playing characters alienated from their own lives.
If that player has no real hope of getting the world to react to what they're doing, then why should they bother with the game?
Not all roleplayers set out to 'win'. I have always had the most fun in games about fighting the good fight despite the lemons the world throws at you. In which the way you fail and the small victories you achieve upon the way, are worth it, because they buy a few more happy blessed days for the ignorant masses. One need only look at delta green for a setting where the PCs cannot win. Where the very conspiracy which give the setting it's name is doomed to failure, and death, along with humanity as a whole.
Some setting are set up in such a way, that if your telling the stories the setting was designed for, PCs are going to be the subject of hate, and that can be Hella fun. If your not into it, I can understand that(atleast on an academic level), but frankly I don't have the slightest interest in playing in games or settings where you play 'duddly do right' white hat hero loved by everyone, who never suffers set back, who never has to compromise on his morals (or for that matter suffer, suffer to maintain them), and who never see's his accomplishments come to nought.
I can think of nothing more boring, and it grates.
|
|
And I can think of nothing more depressing than a game in which my characters actions never improve anything, and always end up making it worse for the people he is trying to help.
But then, no one is arguing for such a game (are you ZN?), the same as no one is arguing for a 'Dudley-Do-Right hero always wins' game. (At least, I'm not.)
In fact, rereading Mikaze's post, he straight up says 'yes I want the PC to suffer setbacks. But when there is no chance to overcome those setbacks, I feel cheated'. So I'm not sure what you're arguing against.
Note that this is not, and some will certainly try to read it this way, a suggestion that such characters' experiences should be all sunshine and rainbows. If the world is set up with them on the outs, they should face challenges because of it. But they should also be able to overcome those challenges and have the opportunity to do so.
I mean, that certainly doesn't sound like 'I want to be loved by everyone and never challenged' does it?
And I can think of nothing more depressing than a game in which my characters actions never improve anything, and always end up making it worse for the people he is trying to help.
But then, no one is arguing for such a game (are you ZN?), the same as no one is arguing for a 'Dudley-Do-Right hero always wins' game. (At least, I'm not.)
In fact, rereading Mikaze's post, he straight up says 'yes I want the PC to suffer setbacks. But when there is no chance to overcome those setbacks, I feel cheated'. So I'm not sure what you're arguing against.
I mean, that certainly doesn't sound like 'I want to be loved by everyone and never challenged' does it?Note that this is not, and some will certainly try to read it this way, a suggestion that such characters' experiences should be all sunshine and rainbows. If the world is set up with them on the outs, they should face challenges because of it. But they should also be able to overcome those challenges and have the opportunity to do so.
No, I'm not. Even delta green, and wraith, two of the most doom laiden game I can think of need small victories.
That said it does sometimes feel, despite what Mikaze said in your quote, that there is a strong trend amongst many Pathfinder players to want to avoid any kind of tough choice or repercussion for their build choices based upon setting(or even mechanics).
Just see what happens if someone suggests rest disruption, spellbook attack and Hit and run tactics, as a balancing technique to the wizards god like powers, or the inclusion of moral choices with only negative outcome (and/or situtations where the opposition is to powerful to attack, and the best way to overcome there advantage is to compromise your morality in some way.)
All I am really saying is that:
At the end of the day, some settings have racism as an element, and some don't. In those that don't, their is not need to include it as a regular thing. In those that do include it, making it an element, and run with it.
It should be that simple.
...or the inclusion of moral choices with only negative outcome (and/or situtations where the opposition is to powerful to attack, and the best way to overcome there advantage is to compromise your morality in some way.)....The reason this gets called out is that it's entirely too easy to do it solely to pick on the party Paladin. Challenging players is fine, singling out A player is pretty poor form on the whole.
And you sign up for it when you play a paladin. The whole narrative purpose of the paladin is to be faced with the choice between sticking to your guns, and being and exempler of goodness and suffering for it in some way, or falling from grace.
In the heroes journey it can fit in at either the "The Road of Trials" or "Woman as temptress".
It isn't singling them out. It is providing them one of the high points of their characters story arch.
I was running a Tiefling Aristocrat 1/Witch 5 in STAP. I didn't really get much crap for my race choice in Sasserine or any Olman villages. But, alas, he has perished as of last evening. I have replaced him with a Red Shirt NPC on the Isle of Dread (who is a goblin in disguise and hiding) but he let the party in on his race as soon as he got fed up and joined the fight.
I have to admit that I made a goblin Rogue 2/Fighter 4 with a spiked chain just to prove that a small sized crappy PC race can still be a good melee character. So far he's been fun to run.
If the GM isn't going to give the player an honest chance with that character, they shouldn't have allowed it in the first place.
This is probably the most important part of your post.
If there was a monster character in our game, he/she would likely get lynched/killed immediately. Our solution? None of us are to play monsters.
For us, this is a very good thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...or the inclusion of moral choices with only negative outcome (and/or situtations where the opposition is to powerful to attack, and the best way to overcome there advantage is to compromise your morality in some way.)....The reason this gets called out is that it's entirely too easy to do it solely to pick on the party Paladin. Challenging players is fine, singling out A player is pretty poor form on the whole.And you sign up for it when you play a paladin. The whole narrative purpose of the paladin is to be faced with the choice between sticking to your guns, and being and exempler of goodness and suffering for it in some way, or falling from grace.
In the heroes journey it can fit in at either the "The Road of Trials" or "Woman as temptress".
It isn't singling them out. It is providing them one of the high points of their characters story arch.
Being a Paladin is like walking into a Western town and putting on that star when you accept the offer of being the Town Sheriff. It's a voluntary decision to place yourself square in the cross hairs of evil and chaos, and occasionally the forces of neutrality as well.
IF you're not willing to accept that target mark.... it's a character type you should NOT be playing.
Let me point out how your argument, and by extension that of Zombieneighbors', is a steaming pile of rancid aboleth excrement.
A paladin is not merely some guy putting on a tin star and picking up a gun in hopes of being on equal footing with them there black hats. Yes, they are mortal, same as (mostly) any others around them that might have taken up the trinket, firearm, and put on a charming white chapeau. A paladin is one of the devoted, one of the chosen - that they bear the gifts of their faith as they do is proof beyond reproach that they are one of the Good Guys™. While people with daddy issues and those with a perpetual hard-on for antiheroes may chafe and seethe at what they do, this does not mean that their perception of the paladin as Sir Lawful Anal are the reality - they simply have a code of honor to maintain, and while they are made that much more offensive to those who oppose them, such as the aforementioned forces of evil and chaos in tandem, one would be wise to remember that if the paladin were not in good standing with their faith and doing their utmost to uphold those ideals, they would not be granted the powers to face the opposition. In any setting where the Divine is real and magic is a tangible force, a paladin is imbued with the means to perform above and beyond their fellows - and it doesn't matter if they're a human, dwarf, kobold, half-orc, or awakened jackass. Theirs is a sacred sanction, and played properly this is a demonstration of earned ability, not a license to be a butt muppet or for the GM to be a petulant assclown because the shiny hero wounds their precious grimderp sensibilities.
Yes, there will be uniquely challenging problems for a paladin. That's not an excuse to single him out extraordinarily or seek every attempt to metagame a fall at every opportunity. Hate all you want, but at the end of the day, they are blessed, they are gifted for their service, and they don't need extra antagonistic aggravations thrown on top of them - they should, more often than not, be going out of their way to take point on trouble, and doing their part to help the team succeed. They're the ones out to do the impossible, and see the invisible.
If the only conflict you, generally speaking, as a DM can come up with is 'Make the Pally Fall' out of all of the infinite possibilities out there, you are both terribly uncreative and as likely a petty vindictive pissant.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hot damn I'm a future prophet.
As TOZ pointed out toward what was pointed out in the OP, this is not about wanting to "win at D&D" or wanting an easy/charmed life for their character.
What was being argued for:
GM: You know that the locals have a lot of bad history with others of your race, and your kind are met with distrust at best and sometimes outright violence.
Unusual PC: Fine, I'll keep my head down and keep fighting the good fight even for those that fear and hate me. Row row fight the power.
GM: Many of the locals distrust you still. Most are still greatly uncomfortable around you. But bit by bit a grudging respect has been growing in the community for you. A few open-minded and curious individuals even offer you genuine if awkward welcome. Also this is all heavily compressed for the purpose of space.
What was being argued against:
GM: The locals hate you and will kill you on sight.
Unusual PC: Fine, I'll keep my head down and keep fighting the good fight even for those that fear and hate me. Row row fight the power.
GM: The locals hate you and will kill you on sight.
Unusual PC: Whatever, I'm going to keep fighting for what's right and be a Big Damn Hero.
GM: The locals hate you and will kill you on sight.
Unusual PC: Wow, even after saving all of their children and giving the mayor the antidote I needed as well?
GM: The locals burn your body in a ditch and spit on the ashes.
No one was asking for an easy ride for half-orcs/tieflings/monster characters or, and let's go ahead and roll this argument in here because they're really similar when you get down to it, paladins. Those characters present challenges and we want those challenges. However, there's a world of difference between fighting for people that distrust and in some cases hate you and having them react to what you're actually doing or paladins facing tough moral and ethical dillemas...and non-stop misery porn: Lynch-mobs/Kill-on-sight/persecution no matter what you've managed to do to prove yourself and constant "eat this baby or these orphans all go to Hell!" make-the-paladin-fall crap.
Should the monster character deal with persecution and other social problems? Should the paladin have to face really tough decisions along their path? Yes. But they should be able to have some victories as well that they've managed to accomplish. Monster character needs to have a genuine chance to win some people over. Paladin needs to be able to redeem some people without having every attempt blow up in his face.
If the GM isn't going to give the player an honest chance with that character, they shouldn't have allowed it in the first place.This is probably the most important part of your post.
If there was a monster character in our game, he/she would likely get lynched/killed immediately. Our solution? None of us are to play monsters.
For us, this is a very good thing.
And that's fine if that's what works for your group. The problem is when a monster character(or a paladin) is allowed to go ahead and then griefed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DESTINY COMBINING! JUST WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK WE ARE?!
....filled with a startling amount of racial harmony at that...
....this just made me imagine everything from that thread with Kamina glasses pasted on everyone's faces. I honestly don't know how I should feel about that.
Yeah, there was certainly plenty of combining going on. ;)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
THIS DRILL IS MY SOUL! ALSO A METAPHOR! FOR SOMETHING ELSE!
Go figure the yaoi fans passed him over in favor of Seltyiel and Alain.
Especially when they could have had HARSK.
That they were almost right on target with Merisiel and Kyra before the hints came out is funny though.
edit-How the hell does a thread about playstyle get derailed into Gurren Lagann and porn?
...oh, right.
grimderp
I don't know if you just coined that term or not, but you just added it to my lexicon. :)
As TOZ pointed out toward what was pointed out in the OP, this is not about wanting to "win at D&D" or wanting an easy/charmed life for their character.
What was being argued for:
/snip/
What was being argued against:
/snip/
Such a thing actually happens?
THIS DRILL IS MY SOUL! ALSO A METAPHOR! FOR SOMETHING ELSE!
Go figure the yaoi fans passed him over in favor of Seltyiel and Alain.
Especially when they could have had HARSK.
That they were almost right on target with Merisiel and Kyra before the hints came out is funny though.
edit-How the hell does a thread about playstyle get derailed into Gurren Lagann and porn?
...oh, right.
I think it's a measure, to be on topic and to unify the tangents, of how the differing expectations between players and GMs over what is acceptable on the character concept front can result in such vastly disparate thresholds of enjoyment and immersion - perhaps as ur-examples, there are those who have drank deeply of the haterade and think that any manner of monstrous humanoid playing individual is indulging in 'SPESHUL SNOWFLAEK SYNDROME' and feel such is justification for perpetually peeing in the player in question's breakfast cereal, along with engaging in meta-bigotry on an unprecedented scale without regards for action and deed and actual in-world (what's the word? not realism, close to plausibility) intrinsic interactions. On the other end are the players who don't do it for the angst/miseryporn/wallowing, but as a chance to genuinely explore a perspective that isn't entirely in line with your typical set of murder hoboes, with the intent being not to be all 'woe is me' and believe in themselves, but to instead believe in their friends and allies who believe in them.
Some might call such a thing Transcendent Bro-nicity, but I'm usually loathe to indulge that whole 'bro' thing unless ironically and in a sort of quasi-hipster fashion of near-mocking. That said, it rather fits.
grimderpI don't know if you just coined that term or not, but you just added it to my lexicon. :)
I recall seeing it in /tg/ in reference to the 40Kverse, which I'll admit made me chortle 'cause I'm not big on the WARHAMS. However, feel free to purloin! It's too good a word to hoard.
|
|
Such a thing actually happens?
If various posts on this and other forums over the course of the past decade are to be believed. Part of why I asked "how common is this really?" up top.
(what's the word? not realism, close to plausibility)
Verisimillimiresitude?
And good point. Come to think of it, most of the postings online mentioned above did smack of being reactionary against "special snowflakes", however they chose to qualify the term. Drow-hate was the most common flavor, followed by paladin-hate.
|
|
GM: You know that the locals have a lot of bad history with others of your race, and your kind are met with distrust at best and sometimes outright violence.
Unusual PC: Fine, I'll keep my head down and keep fighting the good fight even for those that fear and hate me. Row row fight the power.
GM: Many of the locals distrust you still. Most are still greatly uncomfortable around you. But bit by bit a grudging respect has been growing in the community for you. A few open-minded and curious individuals even offer you genuine if awkward welcome. Also this is all heavily compressed for the purpose of space.
And some time later when he goes to another community without an escort he gets killed on sight or chased out of town by gang of violent miscreant youths.
Because they may or may not have heard of the likable half-ogre "Jimmy Irontoe" doing great deeds from a few towns over, they just know that before every winter the Bloody Tusk ogres come down from the hills to rape and pillage.
Sorry, you want to play an exceptional case or unusual race - you may encounter racism your whole life.
Of course YMMV depending on the DM and how torn he is on letting you play your vision vs. the reality of his game world. If it's cooperative design or super-high fantasy, no problem. If the DM likes a little more reality or realistic reactions/emotions (even in a fantasy world) in his game then, yeah your half-lizardman/goblin/Tauren Fighter/oracle/Mystikal Blacksmith might be in trouble.
I agree that expectations should be upfront - and I let all my players know how brutal the level of immersion/cause-effect is going to be pre-game.
|
|
And some time later when he goes to another community without an escort he gets killed on sight or chased out of town by gang of violent miscreant youths.
Because they may or may not have heard of the likable half-ogre "Jimmy Irontoe" doing great deeds from a few towns over, they just know that before every winter the Bloody Tusk ogres come down from the hills to rape and pillage.
Sorry, you want to play an exceptional case or unusual race - you may encounter racism your whole life.
1.
Note that this is not, and some will certainly try to read it this way, a suggestion that such characters' experiences should be all sunshine and rainbows. If the world is set up with them on the outs, they should face challenges because of it. But they should also be able to overcome those challenges and have the opportunity to do so.
2. Word should also start getting around at some point about this exceptional ______, with all the good(church officials looking into these strange rumors) and bad(big game hunters) that come with it.
Sorry, you want to play an exceptional case or unusual race - you may encounter racism your whole life.
Of course YMMV depending on the DM and how torn he is on letting you play your vision vs. the reality of his game world. If it's cooperative design or super-high fantasy, no problem. If the DM likes a little more reality or realistic reactions/emotions (even in a fantasy world) in his game then, yeah your half-lizardman/goblin/Tauren Fighter/oracle/Mystikal Blacksmith might be in trouble.
I'm not sure I would call that "realistic". In a world where shape changing is fairly common: anything from a disguise self, alter self, polymorph spell to a druid shape shifting or using their thousand faces ability. Or even a dragon changed to look like a humanoid. Suggesting that people are going to jump on the band wagon to attack anyone that looks different seems pretty short sighted and those folks wouldn't live very long to reproduce. Jump a mature shape shifted dragon and you're likely to find yourself in its claws looking down on the ruins of your village just before it drops you.
Cautious, nervous, untrusting sure, but actively hostile on any unusual creature especially before you know their capabilities, that doesn't seem very "realistic" to me.
|
|
I'm not sure I would call that "realistic". In a world where shape changing is fairly common: anything from a disguise self, alter self, polymorph spell to a druid shape shifting or using their thousand faces ability. Or even a dragon changed to look like a humanoid. Suggesting that people are going to jump on the band wagon to attack anyone that looks different seems pretty short sighted and those folks wouldn't live very long to reproduce. Jump a mature shape shifted dragon and you're likely to find yourself in its claws looking down on the ruins of your village just before it drops you.
Cautious, nervous, untrusting sure, but actively hostile on any unusual creature especially before you know their capabilities, that doesn't seem very "realistic" to me.
There is a flip-side to the Monstrous player argument -since the frequency is greater than rare that alone means that towns and skilled/level npcs have dealt with similar "things" in the past. If the monstrous player is anomalous due to his alignment/good nature then what does it say about all the other freaks and half-breeds in the world? To me it says that most if not all were evil, so with that in mind NPCs knowing monster capabilities would be consistant.
But most of this argument is defined by world/game expectations. If your shapeshifting dragon or monsters-in-town is your standard experience or assumption then you are talking high fantasy. I would go back to the original incarnation of AD&D where monsters encountered in the city were hidden, or they did their best to keep their nature unknown to people (wererats, vampires, etc) so they could hunt and not be hunted. If the player is writing the world, or it's a co-op effort and the default is troll merchants/orc heroes, then playing a monstrous character shouldn't be a problem.
The further you move away from high fantasy (monsters mixed with humans) the more you move towards skilled church inquisitors, paladins, and good wizards tasked to root out evil (or abominations, or freaks).
Your premise assumes that all humans only have access to the Commoner NPC class and poke things with sticks. I go the route of earlier editions with towns having low, to mid level defenders who are not there to get trounced by shape-shifting infiltrators or to endure forced tolerance for every monster player which comes down the main road. Because this Drow might be different from all the other Drow and might actually have a good heart (right!).
By denying racism, persecution, racial hardships or hatred of monsters, you are also denying fear, distrust, anger (or desire for revenge against said race), disgust and a whole range of other emotions. All just so a guy can play a Minotaur or Half-giant with minimal in-game problems and an guaranteed feel-good-hit-of-the-summer feeling at the end of the road if he does his hard work.
Nothing remotely intelligent or consistent works like that, not even in fantasy movies (only fantasy rpgs). Human(oid) attention spans are crap - the monstrous player could save the whole nation on in front of everyone and 10 years later there will be those who question his real motives or his nature as it relates to his race.
Most intelligent creatures:
-Distrust or hate things that are different
-Act in their best interest to defend their homes - this may lead to overreaction and paranoia
-Realizing the nature of the world (and now we have to decide if there are shape-shifting dragon in every mountain range, hilltop or forest, or are they very rare in human controlled lands and do their best not to be detect (even if attacked)) NPCs will react/be prepared appropriately. They don't all of a suddenly forget about troll regeneration because that would be inconvenient to the Troll PC.
So it comes down to the prominence or frequency of fantasy/creatures in a game. There is no wrong or right in this, just preferences but even the PFRPG default is centered on humans and human kingdoms (even if high fantasy). Majorities may oppress minorities, divine distrusts the arcane, etc....or it can be all sunshine and rainbows, everything and everyone co-exists.
Bottom line - if there is a compact between GM and the player the GM shouldn't punish the player for a choice in a series of passive/aggressive situations. He shouldn't also have monstrous crab/kenku PCs foisted on his game if he doesn't like it. The rule of fun applies to everyone at the table, DM included.
|
|
2. Word should also start getting around at some point about this exceptional ______, with all the good(church officials looking into these strange rumors) and bad(big game hunters) that come with it.
And how would that help 1/2 Ogre Jimmy Irontoe once he leaves the environs of Hommlet? Will a merchant caravan (with guards and casters in tow) see this tall creature in the distance and not attack first? And if they did, would they be wrong?
A troll/lizardman may look like a troll or lizardman, and get mistaken as such (you all look alike) and the reaction will be appropriate.
I do believe in rep and every other game I run has a rep system (86 ed Gamma World for one, a game of freaks), so I get that. The problem is that it's VERY regional and unless there is a decree to not attack X creature or that creature with this symbol our monster hero is always going to be in danger, even if unintended. If he stays in his town from level 1-20, cool - I can see the people even grow to love their local monster adventurer. Once he has to travel to X town for Y module he is in trouble, and the DM (again, depends on the the world) would be in his rights to give him grief if the circumstances dictate. And where you and I differ, I feel that the grief (theoretically) could go on forever.
Nothing remotely intelligent or consistent works like that, not even in fantasy movies (only fantasy rpgs). Human(oid) attention spans are crap - the monstrous player could save the whole nation on in front of everyone and 10 years later there will be those who question his real motives or his nature as it relates to his race.
Hmmm, I guess I must have missed that version of both the book and movie where the men of Rohan kill Legolas as soon as they see him because of their fear of the elves and the "evil lady of the woods".