I've seen people who say I'm doing it wrong as a DM when I refuse to ban a lot of things they ban or when I'm not slapping those insolent, ungrateful players around when they have the audacity of asking me for small changes like making the Catfolk look more like an anime catgirl than a furry or having a character with a slightly more convoluted backstory that doesn't provide them any extra benefit.
But now I see that the pro-ban folk are all evil and admitting it.
Thank you Paizo forums, I have been shown that I walked the path of the righteous all along!
Jokes aside, I just don't see how a world like Golarion (or many other high fantasy worlds) should really have some races banned or how a half-minotaur race breaks the feel when you have flumphs, half-birds (harpies), kitsune, nagaji, hobgoblins, gnolls etc. all in the same setting as canon. I realized the absurdity of it yesterday when talking with a few players of my own group. "So a half-minotaur breaks the feel your oh-so-serious setting, but the farting alien jellyfish doesn't?"
Jokes aside, I just don't see how a world like Golarion (or many other high fantasy worlds) should really have race limits or how a half-minotaur race breaks the feel when you have flumphs, half-birds (harpies), kitsune, nagaji, hobgoblins, gnolls etc. all in the same setting as canon. I realized the absurdity of it yesterday when talking with a few players of my own group.
Except that not every GM is going to use all those critters just because they appeared in a PF Bestiary. Every instance of Golarion is, in fact, somewhat different from every other one because every GM is different. The absurdity here is making the assumption that just because there are some fantastic creatures in the setting, that there must be all.
Having a Race exist, and allowing it to be played by a PC, are different things.
I know, that's not an issue for me.
And my former DM said back in the day that he's running his Council of Thieves game in Golarion, without real edits or such. Then again, I had stopped expecting anything from him by that part and played a Changeling Sorcerer instead of doing the sin of asking if I can play something else than a human, a taller human with funny ears, a green human or a short human with a thick beard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have never even thought about [race] before but now that you have asked to play it I have decided that my version of Golarion is different from the usual Golarion and is defined primarily by the complete absence or [race] so basically you are trying to ruin my campaign.
the problem isn't the race, it is the player.
banning a race will do nothing here.
And sometimes the problem is the DM.
Proof? People walked out of his table and found a better DM.
The OP solved his issue peacefully already.
We are now discussing how disallowing a race makes you homophobic.
Also, disallowing a class makes you antisemitic.
Disallowing guns makes you a Nazi sympathizer.
If all that is true, does that mean I'm a saint?
Boy do I love checking in on these threads, reminds me why I never try to discuss anything on the internet. Is the OP even paying attention to this anymore? He signed off on like the second page.
How is anti-semitism a false term? o_O
So, I missed the whole Dragonlance thing (yeah, so sue me), so can someone give me the lowdown on the Kender and why they are (apparently) terrible?
Wow so you were actually being serious?
No, but there's a big difference between joking and posting non-seriously/sarcastically, and trolling.
One is meant to make people laugh or be a mused.
The other is a specifically crafted post made to make people angry.
And not allowing Orcs IS racist. Pretty sure they don't allow them since "All Orcs are evil".
Pretty much racist by definition.
So, I missed the whole Dragonlance thing (yeah, so sue me), so can someone give me the lowdown on the Kender and why they are (apparently) terrible?
Well you know the whole "Planet of Hats" trope? Where every race has a "Hat" that defines their race as a whole?
Elves are forest dwelling hippies, Orcs are warmongers, Dwarves are some weird Scottish/Viking hybrid with tunnels, etc,...
The Kender's hat is kleptomania. Which is why 90% of people find them annoying. The one in the novels (Tasslehoff) comes of as endearing and harmless.
Most players can't capture that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay.
If I said "You're Latino, so you can't play a Dhampir", that would be racist.
Now, If I said "I am not allowing anyone to play Dhampir in my game, as they don't fit the Campaign flavor", it would not be racist.
We clear now?
This is getting crazybatsh*t for no reason.
There is some serious misunderstanding as to the core of what is, and is not, discrimination.
But it is discriminatory.
Against Orcs.
In-setting it's quite racist.
The problem can be solved by playing with the kind of flavor that doesn't force you to suddenly ban things your players might happen to like.
It's worked for me as a DM every darn time, and a campaign can still be serious even if you have things that aren't human as playable characters.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But it is discriminatory.
Against Orcs.
In-setting it's quite racist.
Then disallowing any monster is racist.
You conclusion makes all DMs Racists.
This is a logic that makes the game itself a mass of discrimination.
There is no way to not be, other than not play.
But it is discriminatory.
Against Orcs.
In-setting it's quite racist.
Then disallowing any monster is racist.
You conclusion makes all DMs Racists.
This is a logic that makes the game itself a mass of discrimination.
There is no way to not be, other than not play.
No, disallowing a monster because they're supposedly all evil and uncivilized is racist in-setting.
That's why they're banned from PFS (again, if I recall correctly), because NPCs have racial prejudices against Orcs (which would disrupt play in such a rigid setting).
|
|
But it is discriminatory.
Against Orcs.
In-setting it's quite racist.
Then disallowing any monster is racist.
You conclusion makes all DMs Racists.
This is a logic that makes the game itself a mass of discrimination.
There is no way to not be, other than not play.
No, disallowing a monster because they're supposedly all evil and uncivilized is racist in-setting.
That's why they're banned from PFS (again, if I recall correctly), because NPCs have racial prejudices against Orcs (which would disrupt play in such a rigid setting).
So, we are all racist. Everyone. Even you.
Discrimination abounds, and we are horrible people.
We can't even do anything about it.
We have no choice, as every choice is a form of unjust discrimination.
There is no end.
Now you understand, of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nah, let's just detonate all the nukes and hope we all die.
Problem solved!
There will be no choices when everyone is dead. I might damn myself, but it is the price to pay to free others from damnation.
As a GM ,I use the following method..
When starting a campaign or introducing a new player, I set the rules on what is allowed, and do not, under any circumstances, back down from it. If you don't want Kitsune in your campaign for any reason, explain the reason and don't back down. As a GM, you have that right.
If you allow him to play a Kitsune with the intention of having a mob later capture him and pick him apart for study or purging him with fire for being a demon, that, in his eyes, is just plain mean.
Also, if you let him have something out of place, soon, other players will want out of place stuff too, and you won't be able to tell them no for reasons of apparent favoritism and the good old "why can he have it and I can't?".
Nip it all in the bud and tell him, sorry, no Kitsune in this setting. Deal with it.
That shows a lack of trust for people, which will definitely hamper proper communication in any table. One player wanted to play a Catfolk in my Kingmaker game, and I let him. The others still played Humans and Dwarves, even when the other options were in plain sight. They didn't suddenly demand I let them play Nagaji and Suli or something ludicrous like that. Why? Because I trust them. They haven't let me down, and we're already in book 5.
That shows a lack of trust for people, which will definitely hamper proper communication in any table. One player wanted to play a Catfolk in my Kingmaker game, and I let him. The others still played Humans and Dwarves, even when the other options were in plain sight. They didn't suddenly demand I let them play Nagaji and Suli or something ludicrous like that. Why? Because I trust them. They haven't let me down, and we're already in book 5.
Ludicrous is in the eye of the beholder. Suli exist in my world. No problem. But no Half-orcs. Problem?
I dunno, it throws up a small logical error since apparently creatures not even from the same plane of existence can get it on and have a little half-breed child, but two humanoids (Orcs and Humans) can't.
I dunno, it throws up a small logical error since apparently creatures not even from the same plane of existence can get it on and have a little half-breed child, but two humanoids (Orcs and Humans) can't.
I meant no Half-orc PCs. Also: No Lizardfolk sorcerers (but they can be anything else). And there are 4 different types of elves to choose from.
Ludicrous is in the eye of the beholder. Suli exist in my world. No problem. But no Half-orcs. Problem?
That shows a lack of trust for people, which will definitely hamper proper communication in any table. One player wanted to play a Catfolk in my Kingmaker game, and I let him. The others still played Humans and Dwarves, even when the other options were in plain sight. They didn't suddenly demand I let them play Nagaji and Suli or something ludicrous like that. Why? Because I trust them. They haven't let me down, and we're already in book 5.
I don't find any race ludicrous. I find banning races to be so when the reason is "just because" or when the "it doesn't fit the campaign" argument is used as an excuse instead of a reason. I'll refer to that Flumph instead of Holstaur argument once more, if it is still around.
Existing and allowing, are two different things.
If it exists as a viable PC race choice, does not break the feel of the setting and a player wants to play it, I see no reason to disallow it from him. If it might break the setting, I can always weave and work the setting to accomodate this small change. Why would I create so static a setting that one minor piece of change would cause it to crash harder than LZ 129 Hindenburg in the first place if I were a competent DM?
If it exists as a viable PC race choice, does not break the feel of the setting and a player wants to play it, I see no reason to disallow it from him. If it might break the setting, I can always weave and work the setting to accomodate this small change. Why would I create so static a setting that one minor piece of change would cause it to crash harder than LZ 129 Hindenburg in the first place if I were a competent DM?
O.k. I'll allow a half-orc, but you should be warned that EVERY settlement will attack first, and then might stop to ask questions of the rest of the party why they are in the company of a monster.
|
|
Existing and allowing, are two different things.If it exists as a viable PC race choice, does not break the feel of the setting and a player wants to play it, I see no reason to disallow it from him. If it might break the setting, I can always weave and work the setting to accomodate this small change. Why would I create so static a setting that one minor piece of change would cause it to crash harder than LZ 129 Hindenburg in the first place if I were a competent DM?
You misunderstand.
Some here are putting the existence of a race, and the allowance of a race as a PC, as if they were the same thing.
So, for some, disallowing a race to be played by a player, means that they do not exist. That's not true.
O.k. I'll allow a half-orc, but you should be warned that EVERY settlement will attack first, and then might stop to ask questions of the rest of the party why they are in the company of a monster.
If it exists as a viable PC race choice, does not break the feel of the setting and a player wants to play it, I see no reason to disallow it from him. If it might break the setting, I can always weave and work the setting to accomodate this small change. Why would I create so static a setting that one minor piece of change would cause it to crash harder than LZ 129 Hindenburg in the first place if I were a competent DM?
That'd be punishing the player for playing something you don't want them to play, which is just plain petty.
You'd be better off telling him he can't BECAUSE that'd happen. It's a different story if he insists on playing one anyway.And if the PCs are of good alignment, they sure as hell will Diplomacy and Bluff their friend to safety and win over the people's trust!
Existing and allowing, are two different things.If it exists as a viable PC race choice, does not break the feel of the setting and a player wants to play it, I see no reason to disallow it from him. If it might break the setting, I can always weave and work the setting to accomodate this small change. Why would I create so static a setting that one minor piece of change would cause it to crash harder than LZ 129 Hindenburg in the first place if I were a competent DM?You misunderstand.
Some here are putting the existence of a race, and the allowance of a race as a PC, as if they were the same thing.
So, for some, disallowing a race to be played by a player, means that they do not exist. That's not true.
I know that's not true in all cases, but it can be in some. What is the issue here, then? Because I suspect simple miscommunication at work here...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
O.k. I'll allow a half-orc, but you should be warned that EVERY settlement will attack first, and then might stop to ask questions of the rest of the party why they are in the company of a monster.
If it exists as a viable PC race choice, does not break the feel of the setting and a player wants to play it, I see no reason to disallow it from him. If it might break the setting, I can always weave and work the setting to accomodate this small change. Why would I create so static a setting that one minor piece of change would cause it to crash harder than LZ 129 Hindenburg in the first place if I were a competent DM?That'd be punishing the player for playing something you don't want them to play, which is just plain petty.
You'd be better off telling him he can't BECAUSE that'd happen. It's a different story if he insists on playing one anyway.
I know that! That's why I say No half-orc PCs. And yet people insist on telling me I'm an evil, entitled GM for saying it.