| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem part is I don't want drow as player characters because in my world they are all evil and drizzt doesn't exist.
With that kind of high quality world building (so deep! all drow everywhere are evil) I can see why you refuse to change even the smallest details. Why, having a nonevil drow would be like having a dwarf who doesn't speak in a faux Scottish accent or a half-orc whose backstory doesn't include rape. It would just ruin everything. How can you even play Pathfinder if you can't look at the skin of an NPC to know whether you should kill them?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think my position is that if both PC and DM are on board with sustained communication, then 80% of the time they will arrive at a mutually satisfactory solution without resorting to demands from either side.Try not to force your friends to do what you want to do, you know, unless if you don't get to do what you want to do, then you know, go ahead and force themMan, this sums up both sides of the argument so well it's amazing.Not my side.
Nobody should force anyone to do anything is my position.
95 to 99% of the time.
But what some people are saying is that they can talk to the GM, agree to play in a setting, and then if they propose an idea, the GM asking you to change from that idea is unreasonable.
I think it is reasonable for a player to say they don't want to play in a setting/campaign. And I think if a GM doesn't produce a fun game, it is reasonable for the player to stop coming/ask for a new campaign/GM.
But it is also reasonable for a GM to not want to play each and every concept players can pull out of their behind, in the same way it is reasonable for players to not want to play in every campaign the GM can pull out of their behind.
Everyone has the right to not be forced to play anything they don't want to play.
If you agree with this, can I get a "Hell Yeah!"
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem part is I don't want drow as player characters because in my world they are all evil and drizzt doesn't exist.With that kind of high quality world building (so deep! all drow everywhere are evil) I can see why you refuse to change even the smallest details. Why, having a nonevil drow would be like having a dwarf who doesn't speak in a faux Scottish accent or a half-orc whose backstory doesn't include rape. It would just ruin everything. How can you even play Pathfinder if you can't look at the skin of an NPC to know whether you should kill them?
Here is your problem. You can't accept the fact that just because I can make something fit that I am obliged to do so.
My vision of my campaign differs from yours but I can promise you that my vision is more important seeing as I am the one who is running the game and building the world.
I think my position is that if both PC and DM are on board with sustained communication, then 80% of the time they will arrive at a mutually satisfactory solution without resorting to demands from either side.Try not to force your friends to do what you want to do, you know, unless if you don't get to do what you want to do, then you know, go ahead and force themMan, this sums up both sides of the argument so well it's amazing.Not my side.
Nobody should force anyone to do anything is my position.
95 to 99% of the time.
But what some people are saying is that they can talk to the GM, agree to play in a setting, and then if they propose an idea, the GM asking you to change from that idea is unreasonable.
I think it is reasonable for a player to say they don't want to play in a setting/campaign. And I think if a GM doesn't produce a fun game, it is reasonable for the player to stop coming/ask for a new campaign/GM.
But it is also reasonable for a GM to not want to play each and every concept players can pull out of their behind, in the same way it is reasonable for players to not want to play in every campaign the GM can pull out of their behind.
Everyone has the right to not be forced to play anything they don't want to play.
If you agree with this, can I get a "Hell Yeah!"
Hell Yeah!
The problem part is I don't want drow as player characters because in my world they are all evil and drizzt doesn't exist.@Vivianne
You can't play your drow in my game.
I gave it some thought and it just won't work.
"Hmm... what's the problem/problematic part?"
-Coriat's likely response as a player, presumably after dopplegangering Vivianne or something.
"OK... any suggestions on what I might play to get a similar sort of flavor going? I'm looking for a sort of redeemed warrior from a foul realm flavor, but I'm not married specifically to drow..."
(I am a player who is more interested in riffing off the flavor than in direct cloning)
or,
"OK, I would be totally cool with just going evil, too, if that works for you? Or if you're not on board with evil characters either, is there anything else that looks like drow? Or, maybe I could be an elf who disguises himself as drow to infiltrate them!"
(I'm a player who really just wants the purple skin white hair and tight pants image, it's so cool!)
or,
"What if I could play the very first one? Maybe if a drow somewhere fell afoul of the cursed Helm of Opposite Alignment, and found himself in dire straits... and now he is paranoid about the Remove Curse spell, too!"
(I'm a player who is pretty in love with his original idea, and so am seeking a solution to the mechanical nature of the GM's problem ("drow are Always Evil"))
or,
"That's OK, I really just want to dual-wield scimitars like a badass. I can do that with a vanilla elf too if that works for you."
(I'm a player who just wants to full attack things with a 15-20 x2 dual wielding threat range)
"You sure? You know me, man, you know I can pull it off and make it cool and not a lame Drizzt clone."
(I am a veteran player appealing to your trust due to a history of producing awesome roleplaying)
Or, etc, depending on what is the important part of the drizz'ty character that I thought was cool enough to inspire me.
(I'm reaching a little bit on the examples because I don't actually know what Drizz't is about beyond good drow with scimitars... never read the books. So, sorry if they are bad... you get the idea though, discussion...)
My vision of my campaign differs from yours but I can promise you that my vision is more important seeing as I am the one who is running the game and building the world.
You might consider letting someone else world build. They might come up with something better than "every single member of the dark-skinned race of underground elves, a society of intelligent, sentient humanoids, is irredeemably evil, to the point where the only solution is to kill every single one you come across. None are capable of developing any sort of moral reasoning, even if they were to be raised in a completely different society."
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
~sigh~
It is weird being caught in the middle on this issue. I am someone who absolutely loves playing exotic races with uniquely interesting backgrounds, very special snowflake like but NOT in the negative way. After all I respect my GMs wishes on what is approved and NOT approved for play. AND I work WITH my fellow players to create something everyone can have fun with, not just me.
The problem part is I don't want drow as player characters because in my world they are all evil and drizzt doesn't exist.@Vivianne
You can't play your drow in my game.
I gave it some thought and it just won't work.
"Hmm... what's the problem/problematic part?"
-Coriat's likely response as a player, presumably after dopplegangering Vivianne or something.
"OK... any suggestions on what I might play to get a similar sort of flavor going? I'm looking for a sort of redeemed warrior from a foul realm flavor, but I'm not married specifically to drow..."
(I am a player who is more interested in riffing off the flavor than in direct cloning)
or,
"OK, I would be totally cool with just going evil, too, if that works for you? Or if you're not on board with evil characters either, is there anything else that looks like drow? Or, maybe I could be an elf who disguises himself as drow to infiltrate them!"
(I'm a player who really just wants the purple skin white hair and tight pants image, it's so cool!)
or,
"What if I could play the very first one? Maybe if a drow somewhere fell afoul of the cursed Helm of Opposite Alignment, and found himself in a desperate jam... and now he is paranoid about the Remove Curse spell, too!"
(I'm a player who is pretty in love with his original idea, and so am seeking a solution to the mechanical nature of the GM's problem ("drow are Always Evil"))
or,
"That's OK, I really just want to dual-wield scimitars like a badass. I can do that with a vanilla elf too if that works for you."
(I'm a player who just wants to full attack things with a 15-20 x2 dual wielding threat range)
Or, etc, depending on what is the important part of the drizz'ty character that I thought was cool enough to inspire me.
(I'm reaching a little bit on the examples because I don't actually know what Drizz't is about beyond good drow with scimitars... never read the books. So,...
This is good and communication! The player is actively asking what else they can do and not just holding their breath until the GM gives in.
In this case, I'd pull out the document I sent everyone in email or handed out prior to the game and help (hopefully before we meet for the actual game, or as quickly as we can otherwise) to guide towards something that is included but is closer to what the player is looking for.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My vision of my campaign differs from yours but I can promise you that my vision is more important seeing as I am the one who is running the game and building the world.You might consider letting someone else world build. They might come up with something better than "every single member of the dark-skinned race of underground elves, a society of intelligent, sentient humanoids, is irredeemably evil, to the point where the only solution is to kill every single one you come across. None are capable of developing any sort of moral reasoning, even if they were to be raised in a completely different society."
And they might instead declare that dark elves are just misunderstood goths who need hugs.
If his players are happy, why do you care?
What I think bothers him is that you fundimentally believe your ideas are gold and he fundamentally believes your ideas are lead.
Personally, I wouldn't want to play in either of your games for very different reasons, but I don't have to.
I think my position is that if both PC and DM are on board with sustained communication, then 80% of the time they will arrive at a mutually satisfactory solution without resorting to demands from either side.Try not to force your friends to do what you want to do, you know, unless if you don't get to do what you want to do, then you know, go ahead and force themMan, this sums up both sides of the argument so well it's amazing.Not my side.
Nobody should force anyone to do anything is my position.
95 to 99% of the time.
But what some people are saying is that they can talk to the GM, agree to play in a setting, and then if they propose an idea, the GM asking you to change from that idea is unreasonable.
I think it is reasonable for a player to say they don't want to play in a setting/campaign. And I think if a GM doesn't produce a fun game, it is reasonable for the player to stop coming/ask for a new campaign/GM.
But it is also reasonable for a GM to not want to play each and every concept players can pull out of their behind, in the same way it is reasonable for players to not want to play in every campaign the GM can pull out of their behind.
Everyone has the right to not be forced to play anything they don't want to play.
If you agree with this, can I get a "Hell Yeah!"
Y'know, there was a post I deleted (wherein I said HELL YEAH!!, just like that), but after a couple of minutes of consideration I had wonder: Do you think it's reasonable for some nameless douche-bag of a player who's been playing at the same table for months (if not years) to request a campaign that accounts for their special snowflake? 'Cause that seems like an entirely reasonable request to me.
I'm really asking for your opinion of that situation.
|
|
I think my position is that if both PC and DM are on board with sustained communication, then 80% of the time they will arrive at a mutually satisfactory solution without resorting to demands from either side.Try not to force your friends to do what you want to do, you know, unless if you don't get to do what you want to do, then you know, go ahead and force themMan, this sums up both sides of the argument so well it's amazing.Not my side.
Nobody should force anyone to do anything is my position.
95 to 99% of the time.
But what some people are saying is that they can talk to the GM, agree to play in a setting, and then if they propose an idea, the GM asking you to change from that idea is unreasonable.
I think it is reasonable for a player to say they don't want to play in a setting/campaign. And I think if a GM doesn't produce a fun game, it is reasonable for the player to stop coming/ask for a new campaign/GM.
But it is also reasonable for a GM to not want to play each and every concept players can pull out of their behind, in the same way it is reasonable for players to not want to play in every campaign the GM can pull out of their behind.
Everyone has the right to not be forced to play anything they don't want to play.
If you agree with this, can I get a "Hell Yeah!"
Y'know, there was a post I deleted (wherein I said HELL YEAH!!, just like that), but after a couple of minutes of consideration I had wonder: Do you think it's reasonable for some nameless douche-bag of a player who's been playing at the same table for months (if not years) to request a campaign that accounts for their special snowflake? 'Cause that seems like an entirely reasonable request to me.
I'm really asking for your opinion of that situation.
Well then that player can patiently wait for another member of the group to run a game that will allow the snowflake. It just won't be mine unless I am running a game that allows it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My vision of my campaign differs from yours but I can promise you that my vision is more important seeing as I am the one who is running the game and building the world.You might consider letting someone else world build. They might come up with something better than "every single member of the dark-skinned race of underground elves, a society of intelligent, sentient humanoids, is irredeemably evil, to the point where the only solution is to kill every single one you come across. None are capable of developing any sort of moral reasoning, even if they were to be raised in a completely different society."
Are you trying to make this into a civil rights issue again?
Represent the monsters, their skin is not the cause of evil?
Because it isn't, whether they are black drow or green orcs, they are the enemies to be slain because they are evil nutters that cause nothing but pain and suffering. This necessitates the heroes being there to deal with them. If you want to take that away, sure, you go and do that. Some people here, aren't interested in such changes, the drow are not suddenly the good guys, they don't care to change it or make everything playable because they are all civilised and never vile in the extreme.
I've seen a dm try to walk this line. The kobolds are not really evil, they have families too. That is nice, we just came from their raid and massacre grounds. You expect us to hold back and question our purpose here when the corpses are outside, and the loot they stole is inside? What is this relativism garbage? What are you playing at dm?
Said's Orientalism had some fine criticisms, but there is no need to bring it into other peoples' games. If you want to, you use it. Or are you saying what they are doing, running drow and orcs and the like as evil as they are described, is badwrongfun?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, there was a post I deleted (wherein I said HELL YEAH!!, just like that), but after a couple of minutes of consideration I had wonder: Do you think it's reasonable for some nameless douche-bag of a player who's been playing at the same table for months (if not years) to request a campaign that accounts for their special snowflake? 'Cause that seems like an entirely reasonable request to me.
I'm really asking for your opinion of that situation.
Sure. It's why I became a GM. I wanted to play certain things certain ways the main GM didn't, and I didn't like some of the stuff he was running and so I started my own game and play the concepts them as NPC's in a setting where they made sense.
I think there is to much belief by some on here that the GM is a service position. Other seem to think it is authoritarian.
I personally think the GM is a player that people put in charge for awhile, so long as they do a good job.
If your GM doesn't want to run something, you may have to GM yourself. You may also have to find a GM who does want to run what you want.
But no one exists to serve your needs in their leisure activity.
~sigh~
It is weird being caught in the middle on this issue. I am someone who absolutely loves playing exotic races with uniquely interesting backgrounds, very special snowflake like but NOT in the negative way. After all I respect my GMs wishes on what is approved and NOT approved for play. AND I work WITH my fellow players to create something everyone can have fun with, not just me.
Is that a middle ground? Feels a little off in space compared to what's been talked about.
Can't say I'm much different though, though 9/10 characters I make are human.
|
|
~sigh~
It is weird being caught in the middle on this issue. I am someone who absolutely loves playing exotic races with uniquely interesting backgrounds, very special snowflake like but NOT in the negative way. After all I respect my GMs wishes on what is approved and NOT approved for play. AND I work WITH my fellow players to create something everyone can have fun with, not just me.Is that a middle ground? Feels a little off in space compared to what's been talked about.
Can't say I'm much different though, though 9/10 characters I make are human.
I just think it is the right approach.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mostly play humans too. I have always been able to make them interesting and memorable to others and I. Sometimes a little grating (rogues), but with some depth.
Uniqueness doesn't evaporate because you chose "human".
Y'know, there was a post I deleted (wherein I said HELL YEAH!!, just like that), but after a couple of minutes of consideration I had wonder: Do you think it's reasonable for some nameless douche-bag of a player who's been playing at the same table for months (if not years) to request a campaign that accounts for their special snowflake? 'Cause that seems like an entirely reasonable request to me.
I'm really asking for your opinion of that situation.
Sure. It's why I became a GM. I wanted to play certain things certain ways the main GM didn't, and I didn't like some of the stuff he was running and so I started my own game and play the concepts them as NPC's in a setting where they made sense.
I think there is to much belief by some on here that the GM is a service position. Other seem to think it is authoritarian.
I personally think the GM is a player that people put in charge for awhile, so long as they do a good job.
If your GM doesn't want to run something, you may have to GM yourself. You may also have to find a GM who does want to run what you want.
But no one exists to serve your needs in their leisure activity.
Well, let me just say, I don't think GM is a service position. Just keep in mind that, up until you're getting paid for it, it's your leisure activity, too. :)
Edit: Not that you seemed to need that advice or anything. :P
Are you trying to make this into a civil rights issue again?
No, it's an issue of having believable morality in the game world. You're focusing on just one word in my post. (I do think the topic of how real-world racism has bled into fantasy racism is interesting, but I'll refrain from discussing it here for the obvious reasons.)
A world where an entire race of people are uniformly evil is just not believable. Nor an entire race of uniformly good people. Never in the real world has such a thing happened. There's been groups that have committed terrible atrocities, but it's never been the case that an entire race of people have been so similar that they'd all end up with the same alignment. If there are a group of people who completely lack the ability to make their own moral choices, to disagree with others, then in what sense are they sapient?
The only reason to have such a thing is to have people it's okay for the PCs to wantonly killed conveniently color-coded.
Y'know, there was a post I deleted (wherein I said HELL YEAH!!, just like that), but after a couple of minutes of consideration I had wonder: Do you think it's reasonable for some nameless douche-bag of a player who's been playing at the same table for months (if not years) to request a campaign that accounts for their special snowflake? 'Cause that seems like an entirely reasonable request to me.
I'm really asking for your opinion of that situation.
It's reasonable, sure. And if other folks at the table are interested in the same sort of thing, we can set up a time to run a game of that sort either under me or someone else can GM. I have generic worlds that I don't keep track of that we can ramble around and tear stuff up on. That said, I'd appreciate if folks are interested in doing that, they let me know before I prepare things for a certain adventure in a certain world -- you know, a few days before the game would be great. That way we can all have a good time, and if I am not GMing I can get a character ready as well.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
An entire race being totally evil isn't too far beyond the believable in a world where your God and/or their personal representatives can make a personal appearance and reprimand, personally, those that defy their edicts you can get a large number of them to bend to a certain alignment.
An entire evil race isn't even the hardest thing to believe. Entire cultures that never, in thousands of years, advance beyond a certain tech level for example. A hurricane that goes on forever? A crack in the world? I mean, I guess you pick and choose your battles in this.
But, as far as special snowflakes go, advancing that you must be a good representative of a race that is usually evil, or a beautiful representative of an ugly race, or the only male version of a usually female race and so on are pretty high up on the special snowflake scale.
It's reasonable, sure. And if other folks at the table are interested in the same sort of thing, we can set up a time to run a game of that sort either under me or someone else can GM. I have generic worlds that I don't keep track of that we can ramble around and tear stuff up on. That said, I'd appreciate if folks are interested in doing that, they let me know before I prepare things for a certain adventure in a certain world -- you know, a few days before the game would be great. That way we can all have a good time, and if I am not GMing I can get a character ready as well.Y'know, there was a post I deleted (wherein I said HELL YEAH!!, just like that), but after a couple of minutes of consideration I had wonder: Do you think it's reasonable for some nameless douche-bag of a player who's been playing at the same table for months (if not years) to request a campaign that accounts for their special snowflake? 'Cause that seems like an entirely reasonable request to me.
I'm really asking for your opinion of that situation.
Can I ask, in your, like, world building approach, does it have to be another world? Personally, I just like to leave enough empty space on my world map that I've got a Limbo to exile disruptive characters to, or have the special snowflake builds come from, but it's all on the same planet, if you see what I mean. Long story short, I've drawn out the entire world map, but left plenty of blank spaces on it.
|
|
My world building approach varies from campaign to campaign.
Our group usually bounces ideas for setting/concepts around by e-mail until we pick one.
Then the GM puts out a more detailed outline of starting location (generally 1st level) and everyone chats with each other for motivations to be in this place and to be a party with each other, with the GM chiming in as to what things discussed sound better or worse and making suggestions. Most people have many ideas, so a veto here or there is no biggie.
Then it goes from there.
Outside of home games, I don't do that after seeing the FLGS open games and hearing about all the "interesting" things that happen.
Can I ask, in your, like, world building approach, does it have to be another world? Personally, I just like to leave enough empty space on my world map that I've got a Limbo to exile disruptive characters to, or have the special snowflake builds come from, but it's all on the same planet, if you see what I mean. Long story short, I've drawn out the entire world map, but left plenty of blank spaces on it.It's reasonable, sure. And if other folks at the table are interested in the same sort of thing, we can set up a time to run a game of that sort either under me or someone else can GM. I have generic worlds that I don't keep track of that we can ramble around and tear stuff up on. That said, I'd appreciate if folks are interested in doing that, they let me know before I prepare things for a certain adventure in a certain world -- you know, a few days before the game would be great. That way we can all have a good time, and if I am not GMing I can get a character ready as well.Y'know, there was a post I deleted (wherein I said HELL YEAH!!, just like that), but after a couple of minutes of consideration I had wonder: Do you think it's reasonable for some nameless douche-bag of a player who's been playing at the same table for months (if not years) to request a campaign that accounts for their special snowflake? 'Cause that seems like an entirely reasonable request to me.
I'm really asking for your opinion of that situation.
Depending on the concepts presented, yes. Unlike .. I think it was Kirth? .. I don't reset things after each group on most of my home brews, so what has come before can influence what comes after. Some of my worlds I have elements that I do not allow, like gun powder on one of them.
So, for me, it is easier to use a separate world setting that I don't worry about disrupting history or leaving behind elements from one game that I'd not allow otherwise. It keeps it tidier in my head and having it on something that I care less about allows me to allow the players more freedom in letting their freak flag fly, so to speak.
Edit to add: Pretty much for me, it's like letting everyone play in the basement where they can't break anything upstairs that I might care about. Toss things about, scream and yell and do what you want down there. Upstairs, we try not to knock things off shelves and conform to a different set of etiquette and manners.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is just too rich. I love these threads that become a sort of cathartic unintentional self-therapy session. I find them very educational and entertaining.
So thanks everyone!
I actually find myself somewhere in the middle in this whole debate. I think GMs should try to accommodate players requests as far as they feel comfortable, and I think players should respect the boundaries a GM feels are necessary to fulfill the campaign's story goals.
I know that's a hard, hard sell to most people, but that's just sort of how we do it in our group.
Seems to work.
When my GM starts talking about boundaries I bring out the Gimp.
Do I want to ask what you keep under those robes?
I actually find myself somewhere in the middle in this whole debate. I think GMs should try to accommodate players requests as far as they feel comfortable, and I think players should respect the boundaries a GM feels are necessary to fulfill the campaign's story goals.
I know that's a hard, hard sell to most people, but that's just sort of how we do it in our group.
Hmm... I don't know if your allowed to sound that reasonable around here.
When my GM starts talking about boundaries I bring out the Gimp.Do I want to ask what you keep under those robes?
No.
Because everyone gets a turn.
Including the GM?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why not just rely on the fact most groups are simply going to ditch their GM if they don't like how they're running things, while those that are doing a good job will retain their players?
I'd like to address this. I think there is value in hashing stuff like this out even if it doesn't directly effect anyone's game.
1. It exposes us to different, perhaps very foreign, mindsets.
2. There is always room for improvement. Just because your players aren't abandon you as a GM, that doesn't mean you are the best GM you could be. Or if you are player, just because the GM doesn't boot you from the game doesn't mean you are the best player you could be. You don't have to agree with someone's position to at least recognize when it comes up in your dealings with other people.
A player could realize from this conversation that maybe they have backed a GM in a corner from time to time, making the GM feel obligated to make changes they wouldn't have been entirely comfortable with. A GM could realize that there have been times they blew off a player's request that maybe wasn't really a big deal and wouldn't have hurt the game to allow it. You can see either in your dealings with people without accepting a premise that the player always gets what they want or a GM should never be questioned.
In the real world, there is only one race, by the D&D definition: Humans.
It's not a large sample. Generalizing from one single example to "It's not believable for a whole race to be evil" is stretching.
And that's ignoring magic, demonic/godly influence, intentionally created races, etc, etc.
There's still the fact that the idea of an always chaotic evil race makes a complete mockery of the concept of moral choice.
Also, your possible explanations don't seem powerful enough to account for every single member of the race, without exception, being evil, no matter their circumstances. Magic can be dispelled or suppressed. Are there demons or deities who have the power to ensure that every member of a large group spread out across the world and planes does exactly what they want? If a race is intentionally created, does that mean that all members of that race forever have no choice on their outlook?
Any explanation for why all drow are evil not only has to account for the typical drow, but also the rare exceptions. It has to explain why the following must be evil:
- The orphan drow raised by [insert good-aligned church here] who has never met another member of their race and was raised in a place consecrated to a good-aligned deity.
- The group of drow adventurers who were all tricked into putting on helms of opposite alignment.
- Any descendents of the group of drow adventurers who put on the helms of opposite alignment.
- The descendents of the drow archwizard who created a large permanent demiplane and moved her family there. The magic of the demiplane provides all of their needs and they haven't left the demiplane for seven generations.
- The young drow who was slated to be punished by being transformed into a drider but ran away and escaped to the surface.
Any explanation of why all drow are evil must also explain why this always evil nature doesn't apply to other races. For example, if I were an evil deity who had a surefire way to make all members of a large group of people evil, I'd be searching for ways to apply it to more people.
Golarion tried to explain why all drow are evil with the spontaneous-transformation-due-to-being-super-evil thing, but that sort of explanation can only explain why the first drow were evil, not why all their descendents forever must be evil.
My point is, it is rather a lot to say that all drow without exception are evil. Just saying that the overwhelming majority of drow are evil is much more believable. From a world-building perspective, this also has the advantage of being much less constraining. If you say that all drow are evil without exception, then as a DM, you cannot introduce a non-evil drow NPC. On the other hand, if you just say that most drow are evil, then you can. You get a more believable world, you get more options as DM, and your players get more options.
This is a reason I like 3.5. You want to play a drow. Cool. Here is a +2 LA* you have to suck on. Oh yeah, no getting level adjustment variant. Not so cool anymore? Ok. But remember you had the choice.
Never say no. Just make saying yes a bit distasteful.
Never say no. Just make saying yes a bit distasteful.
That sounds mean to be honest. That said, I can hardly blame someone for making life a little rough on an always evil race, but I'd hope they at least warn them before hand and they were clear about it. LA without buyoff is bleh, especially since many LA were overpriced. Also means your caster/whatever levels suffer.
There's still the fact that the idea of an always chaotic evil race makes a complete mockery of the concept of moral choice.
Also, your possible explanations don't seem powerful enough to account for every single member of the race, without exception, being evil, no matter their circumstances. Magic can be dispelled or suppressed. Are there demons or deities who have the power to ensure that every member of a large group spread out across the world and planes does exactly what they want? If a race is intentionally created, does that mean that all members of that race forever have no choice on their outlook?
Any explanation for why all drow are evil not only has to account for the typical drow, but also the rare exceptions. It has to explain why the following must be evil:
- The orphan drow raised by [insert good-aligned church here] who has never met another member of their race and was raised in a place consecrated to a good-aligned deity.
- The group of drow adventurers who were all tricked into putting on helms of opposite alignment.
- Any descendents of the group of drow adventurers who put on the helms of opposite alignment.
- The descendents of the drow archwizard who created a large permanent demiplane and moved her family there. The magic of the demiplane provides all of their needs and they haven't left the demiplane for seven generations.
- The young drow who was slated to be punished by being transformed into a drider but ran away and escaped to the surface.
Any explanation of why all drow are evil must also explain why this always evil nature doesn't apply to other races. For example, if I were an evil deity who had a surefire way to make all members of a large group of people evil, I'd be searching for ways to apply it to more people.
Golarion tried to explain why all drow are evil with the spontaneous-transformation-due-to-being-super-evil thing, but that sort of explanation can only explain why the first drow were evil, not why all their descendents forever must be evil.My point is, it is rather a lot to say that all drow without exception are evil. Just saying that the overwhelming majority of drow are evil is much more believable. From a world-building perspective, this also has the advantage of being much less constraining. If you say that all drow are evil without exception, then as a DM, you cannot introduce a non-evil drow NPC. On the other hand, if you just say that most drow are evil, then you can. You get a more believable world, you get more options as DM, and your players get more options.
Even with the drow being "mostly evil" or "overwhelmingly evil", for the purposes of this thread, needing to come up with a convoluted reason why you aren't a totally evil demon worshiping member of this race tends to put the character concept into the special snowflake category.
In some games, there are some GMs and player groups that do not care for having "monster" races as player options. Goblins, full orcs, drow, Minotaur and so on rub them the wrong way. If that is the group you run across, you may find yourself with limited choices. If you GM or someone else does and you can show the first GM and players how these monster races could be neat, then perhaps that would carry some weight.
Never say no. Just make saying yes a bit distasteful.That sounds mean to be honest. That said, I can hardly blame someone for making life a little rough on an always evil race, but I'd hope they at least warn them before hand and they were clear about it. LA without buyoff is bleh, especially since many LA were overpriced. Also means your caster/whatever levels suffer.
Well LA buy off is a variant. Unless that is something your group usually uses, you shouldn't really expect to get it. Frankly, you want to play a non-standard race, you got to be willing to pay the price a bit (a bit, I don't see slapping additional difficulties on top of the standard ones). I'd much rather be told that I would have to deal with the racial HD and LA of a lizardfolk, then be told I couldn't play one ever. You then have to judge how worth it to you is it.
Well LA buy off is a variant. Unless that is something your group usually uses, you shouldn't really expect to get it. Frankly, you want to play a non-standard race, you got to be willing to pay the price a bit (a bit, I don't see slapping additional difficulties on top of the standard ones). I'd much rather be told that I would have to deal with the racial HD and LA of a lizardfolk, then be told I couldn't play one ever. You then have to judge how worth it to you is it.Never say no. Just make saying yes a bit distasteful.That sounds mean to be honest. That said, I can hardly blame someone for making life a little rough on an always evil race, but I'd hope they at least warn them before hand and they were clear about it. LA without buyoff is bleh, especially since many LA were overpriced. Also means your caster/whatever levels suffer.
Doesn't really do well for me. It strikes me a bit as not being straight with someone. If you really don't want the class then don't let them play it, don't make it less fun and drop hints, you know? I'd much rather try and make something more appealing and usable than less myself.