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.
I think most GMs and players would agree that humans by and large are Neutrally aligned. Thus any human paladin is a snowflake. PCs are exotic members of the races, whatever their races. Saying a PC doesn't match the norm for its race is like saying rain falls from the sky. Basically I'm saying this is a pretty weak reason.
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.
We'll have to disagree. I think making a drow take an extra 2 LA on top of the standard +2 LA would be doing what you are saying. I don't deceive my players, I tell them straight up this is how LA and racial HD work. You want to play a monster race, you have to deal with this. It is there for game balance reasons (whether they are truly effect at it is another issue).
I have played monster races with racial HD and LA. I wasn't upset with the GM for following the rules laid out in the game. All I ask from a GM is respect and to be given a fair shake. But like I said in the spoiler, I do try to mitigate some of the pain, but life is about choices. I'd rather have the choice than not. And I would never have a player deal with something I wouldn't be willing to deal with myself (heck I am often nicer to my players than I expect to be treated by a GM).
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.
"I didn't like the norms of the people who raised me so I ran away to join a group of people I like being with more."
Besides being the backstory for a drow character, that's also the backstory for a human ranger. He didn't like the strict Erastilian community he was raised in so he ran away to become a bandit. What a special snowflake!
Also, what pres man said.
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.I think most GMs and players would agree that humans by and large are Neutrally aligned. Thus any human paladin is a snowflake. PCs are exotic members of the races, whatever their races. Saying a PC doesn't match the norm for its race is like saying rain falls from the sky. Basically I'm saying this is a pretty weak reason.
That is very true. That said, it is still a reason that people don't allow things like drow in their games. It's probably nicer than a straight no in their minds.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you say that all drow are evil without exception, then as a DM, you cannot introduce a non-evil drow NPC
An exception made by the GM here and there, does not mean that the race automatically opens up for a player to use simply because the GM made an exception or two. Chances are, the GM made an exception because he felt it added a cool new twist to the campaign. And depending upon why the exception happened, it does not necessarily mean that the race has changed from "all" evil to "mostly" evil...
Also (concerning racial morality), just because we here in the real world have free will to choose how we view right and wrong, good and evil, does not mean that this is true of races in a world were magic is a tangible force. It might just be a case of you can't change a leopard's spots because on a genetic level (if magic isn't enough of an explanation for you), the race (while humanoid) is not human, and unlike us in the real world, does not have a choice like we do and thus IS pure evil; and nothing short of powerful magic can change that...
Not your style? Fine... The awesome thing is, you like your style, and I like mine, and we are both happy indulging ourselves within it.
Why is it so hard to accept that different people have different views AND expectations of the game? And if you have accepted that, why can't you just move on and enjoy your play-style and let others enjoy theirs?
We'll have to disagree. I think making a drow take an extra 2 LA on top of the standard +2 LA would be doing what you are saying. I don't deceive my players, I tell them straight up this is how LA and racial HD work. You want to play a monster race, you have to deal with this. It is there for game balance reasons (whether they are truly effect at it is another issue).
Eh, I see it as saying no but punishing using them the rules. There are stats for drow or planetouched without their LA and there rules for making LA less painful and more reasonable. If I didn't want them I'd have to be straight. Something mechanical is something entirely different and actually why I prefer custom races to using the ones with LA.(LA is a cool idea, but in practice its hit or miss)
Is the GM not a part of everyone?Because everyone gets a turn.Including the GM?
So that means you think there should be a turn of people playing with all of the campaign strictures intact?
|
|
So that means you think there should be a turn of people playing with all of the campaign strictures intact?Is the GM not a part of everyone?Because everyone gets a turn.Including the GM?
Of course. But since that is how almost every game I have ever seen has been run, I would think that the GM has had more than his share of turns.
Of course. But since that is how almost every game I have ever seen has been run, I would think that the GM has had more than his share of turns.So that means you think there should be a turn of people playing with all of the campaign strictures intact?Is the GM not a part of everyone?Because everyone gets a turn.Including the GM?
Apparently not the games of many in these threads who say that every single structure comes up to a vote ...
|
|
Of course. But since that is how almost every game I have ever seen has been run, I would think that the GM has had more than his share of turns.So that means you think there should be a turn of people playing with all of the campaign strictures intact?Is the GM not a part of everyone?Because everyone gets a turn.Including the GM?Apparently not the games of many in these threads who say that every single structure comes up to a vote ...
Indeed, I am limited to my own experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hypothetical:
GM envisions a gritty, Conan-esque campaign with limited magic, a focus on humans and a story that demands rigorous attention to details to the point of counting arrows and tracking food rations.
All the players agree to this.
Then on game day one player turns up with his character being some version of "My Little Pony", an anime miniature pony with huge eyes, rainbow-colored mane and no hands to manipulate objects with.
Is the GM and the rest of the table justified in saying "no" to this request? Would anyone argue that the GM is being a "dictator" and the table being unfair if the player in question was told to bring a "normal" character or go find another game?
Hypothetical:
GM envisions a gritty, Conan-esque campaign with limited magic, a focus on humans and a story that demands rigorous attention to details to the point of counting arrows and tracking food rations.
All the players agree to this.
Then on game day one player turns up with his character being some version of "My Little Pony", an anime miniature pony with huge eyes, rainbow-colored mane and no hands to manipulate objects with.
Is the GM and the rest of the table justified in saying "no" to this request? Would anyone argue that the GM is being a "dictator" and the table being unfair if the player in question was told to bring a "normal" character or go find another game?
Yes, and sadly yes, people will argue that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, before reading this thread I was kind of proud how I had my Drow race being brewed up for a campaign world that I have been working for a bit.
In essence Drow are Elves affected by a demonic curse which alters their biology and mindset (I.E. always chaotic evil, part of that insanity). Any elf, or those with elvish blood, can be affected by this curse, gradually becoming a Drow elf. Removing the curse causing them to change back to their elvish heritage.
I would be hard pressed to see a "Good" Drow in this setting.
This, again, comes back to communication. In Pathfinder, the default rule about creature alignments isIf you say that all drow are evil without exception, then as a DM, you cannot introduce a non-evil drow NPCIf it is an absolute rule, with absolutely positively no exceptions ever, then yeah, you'd be right. However, an exception made by the GM here and there, does not mean that the race automatically opens up for a player to use simply because the GM made an exception or two. Chances are, the GM made an exception because he felt it added a cool new twist to the campaign. And depending upon why the exception happened, it does not necessarily mean that the race has changed from all evil to "mostly" evil...
Also, just because we here in the real world have free will to choose how we view right and wrong, good and evil, does not mean that this is true of races in a world were magic is a tangible force. It might just be a case of you can't change a leopard's spots because on a genetic level (if magic isn't enough of an explanation for you), the race (while humanoid) is not human, and unlike us in the real world, does not have a choice like we do and thus IS pure evil; and nothing short of powerful magic can change that...
Not your style? Fine... The awesome thing is, you like your style, and I like mine, and we are both happy indulging ourselves within it.
Why is it so hard to accept that different people have different views AND expectations of the game? And if you have accepted that, why can't you just move on and enjoy your play-style and let others enjoy theirs?
Alignment, Size, and Type: While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only...
If we go that route, aren't Drow considered a monster race and require GM approval to play because of balance concerns?
I would be hard pressed to see a "Good" Drow in this setting.
With enough mad science and magic you can do anything!
That said, you probably want evil drow. So a plan involving crazy magical drow clones with the ability to choose their personality might be a little offputting.
Eh, I see it as saying no but punishing using them the rules.
Well to be clear, this was the mindset of the 3.5 rules in this case. It was to make these non-standard choices less desirable. This was to motivate players to choose them for the "right" reasons (roleplaying versus power gaming). It also made the standard races more attractive in comparison. It was a way of saying, "Yes, you can play an unusual race, but from a purely mechanical standpoint, you are probably better off sticking with the standard races." Obviously, I personal have no problem with this approach, within reason.
There are stats for drow or planetouched without their LA and there rules for making LA less painful and more reasonable.
I wouldn't mind looking at homebrewed versions that were balanced against other +0 LA races.
If I didn't want them I'd have to be straight.
I think you took my comment about "sucking on that!" (or whatever I said) a little too serious. I would love to have players play drow in my games. I just think if someone sticks with a standard elf, they should get a bit of an edge. I mean SR is nothing to sneeze at. If a player really didn't want the LA, we can saw off all the extra bits that are putting it over the edge and make some kind of "lesser" drow that was balanced with a standard +0 LA.
Honestly, none of my players that wanted to play non-standard races ever complained about the racial HD or LA. They were just so happy to actually get to play it, that they were willing to deal with a bit of underpoweredness, because it was really about the roleplaying, not the rollplaying.
To be fair, I give my 3.5 players "commoner" levels in place of LA. Still sucks pretty bad, worst saves, ba, skills, etc. But makes it a little easier to deal with the suck-a-tude, and makes Level = HD so no confusion of when you get feats, max ranks, what spells do, how does leadership work, etc.
I like this idea. I remember in 3.5 one of the biggest problems I experienced with LA was hitpoints. If the party is level 4 and you have a LA of 2, then you have about half the hitpoints of everyone else and are really squishy. Commoner levels don't give a lot of hitpoints, but it's much better than nothing.
|
|
Green Ronin suggested using NPC levels to replace the +1 LA for aasimars and tieflings in one of their books. It definitely is superior to just being X levels behind the rest of the party. Had a Savage Species eladrin character in one game, and the HD loss was pretty painful for him as they got further up in level.
To be fair, I give my 3.5 players "commoner" levels in place of LA. Still sucks pretty bad, worst saves, ba, skills, etc. But makes it a little easier to deal with the suck-a-tude, and makes Level = HD so no confusion of when you get feats, max ranks, what spells do, how does leadership work, etc.I like this idea. I remember in 3.5 one of the biggest problems I experienced with LA was hitpoints. If the party is level 4 and you have a LA of 2, then you have about half the hitpoints of everyone else and are really squishy. Commoner levels don't give a lot of hitpoints, but it's much better than nothing.
I thought LA buyout worked pretty well for the Low LA adjustments in my experience, but that while to catch up could hurt and not everyone knew what the buyout was. Remove Spell Resistance and/or non humanoid type and you got rid of the LA(and other problems) for a good number of them.
We're talking about 3.5 now... Did we go off subject?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You guys sure get prolific while I sleep. This might be wastly outdated by now, but just the same:
Why is a setting which doesn't have room for good drow a problem with the player who wants to play a good drow, not a problem with the setting? It sounds like the easiest way for everyone to get what they want is to drop the implausible and unrealistic restriction that all drow must be evil and cannot travel above ground.
I am not sure this is a serious question, but I'll treat it as such nonetheless:
- Because if every game is RIFT, you might eventually grow tired of playing RIFT?
- Because special and unique characters are cool and playing in a setting where everything is common and mundane gets boring?
- Would Drizzt even had been an interesting character if every drow had been a good-aligned dual wielding surface dwelling ranger? No, much more likely Drizzt's evil greatweapon-wielding cousin Draz'zt who refuses to live on the surface would have been the star of the show. (an evil drow?? o.O)
- I'm sure I could come up with more reasons.
Either way, you will notice how in the 'implausible' and 'unrealistic' restriction doesn't actually exist since, you know, Drizzt is a good aligned drow that travels above ground. What makes Drizzt 'special and unique' is that his 'condition' is exceptionally rare. Hence the word 'unique' ('Special' could just be his favourite cereal brand).
That sure is a bunch of words condemning a lot of people and making up facts about their psychology.
I'm pretty sure that didn't actually happen.
*rereads*
No, that definitely didn't happen.
Too true! Not only are the people who play characters I don't like selfish and mean, they are also unimaginative to boot! They truly are the worst kind of people! /s
Well. All right. At this point I'm pretty sure you're just reading your own personal agenda into what people are saying. Maybe you should take a long, deep breath, go do some work in the garden, then come back and try again.
None of what you object to actually happened.
What did happen was three things:
- I suggested that playing within the constraints of the game the GM is running is the respectful thing to do. If you don't like those constraints, you can either discuss it with the GM, excuse yourself from the game, or run your own game. Getting angry about it isn't going to be particular constructive.
- I claimed that enjoying rare and special things is fine, and that there should certainly be room for that. Likewise, a clear campaign definition is helpful for those who likes to have a framework to build their character within, and some GMs might find it easier to build their campaigns on that kind of foundation. Enjoying restrictions is also okay, and there should certainly be room for that as well.
- I suggested that if you find yourself in a game with certain constraints, and you can't either convince people to lift some of those constraints, or excuse yourself from the game, then instead of getting bitter about it, try to see it as an opportunity for trying something different. You like different, right? If you just sit in a corner steaming about not playing a star elf vampire (half), no one is going to have a good time. Guaranteed. If you embrace the opportunity, you might end up having a good time (and if you don't, then at least you know).
As a final note, I want to add to my above points, that sometimes the GM might want to run a game that you're just not interested in. When/if that happens, it's your responsibility, as a player, to decide whether you want to play more than you want your 'special and unique' character concept. The GM is not evil for suggesting something you disagree with, and you're not wrong for saying "I don't think that works for me, sorry."
Sometimes that's just a choice you have to make.
I just think it is the right approach.~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.
Thank you ciretose!
Sometimes people need to hear how a real snowflake behaves (or should behave) and not all these straw snowflakes vs straw authoritarian GMs.
Am I a straw snowflake? :P
I just think it is the right approach.~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.
Thank you ciretose!
Sometimes people need to hear how a real snowflake behaves (or should behave) and not all these straw snowflakes vs straw authoritarian GMs.
I think I'd have to argue that in this example, you're not a special snowflake as you're willing to work with the GM and players to fit in.
The definition of the special snowflake, as far as I understood it, was the player that turns up and insists they must play this particular character, no matter how outlandish, no matter how many objections, no matter what attempts to compromise or discuss alternatives were made of them. (I'd also suggest re-reading the OP and the previous thread if you don't agree with this definition, in which it was made pretty clear the player has turned up with something that simply doesn't even begin to fit in and is arguing they have a right to demand the campaign be changed so it can fit, no matter what anyone else wants.) Anyone else is just a normal player with a unique, exciting, interesting concept :)
Hence why "special snowflake" is seen in such a negative manner - it isn't a "GM vs Player" issue, it's a "Player that flatly refuses to find a way to fit into the campaign when offered help to do so." It's also pretty safe to assume from the discussion that the campaign can be stretched somewhat to accept unexpected strange characters, but would pretty much have to be broken to take that particular character as-is.
Yes, there are also GMs who refuse to work with their players, and that can be an issue too. When Special Snowflake player meets Special Snowflake GM (if either truly exist), sparks are really going to fly.
And yes, I'll also happily accept that pretty much every hypothetical example has been a straw example. I've never personally run into a player or GM that wasn't willing to compromise and co-operate. Heck, perhaps our "special snowflake" doesn't really exist other than as people trolling the boards pretending to be them?
I don't see the "but thou must" thing as being part of the Special Snowflake label.
To me, it just seems like a demonization that people here use to make the DM seem sympathetic*.
* = Even though in some cases he/she is NOT the person to be rooted for, as is the case with my former DM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see the "but thou must" thing as being part of the Special Snowflake label.
To me, it just seems like a demonization that people here use to make the DM seem sympathetic*.
* = Even though in some cases he/she is NOT the person to be rooted for, as is the case with my former DM.
Which is fine, we can accept that not all "special snowflakes" are special snowflakes, and that it can be a case of the GM making them out to be one when they're making a perfectly reasonable request
It isn't a black and white thing, there are shades of gray and there are cases where the problem lies elsewhere.
One of the major problems is that we can't really come up with a fair definition of what constitutes "a perfectly reasonable request." I think one of the issues is that it can be a different thing to different people, and can vary both from GM to GM, Campaign to Campaign, and from Player to Player.
Now, this thread pretty much sprang out of a specific example of a player wanting to play an Awakened Pony Sorcerer when told such a thing wouldn't be welcome in a game, with a refusal to even discuss it other than a GM that cant fit them in is obviously either too inexperienced or too incompetent to do so.
Personally I can think of half a dozen practical reasons to disallow that particular example before I even get into how it would completely change the flavor of the particular game, or that such a thing would make me sick to my stomach to run that game a day a week for a year or more (and if that's a problem with me I'm quite willing to accept it and certainly am not interested in finding a "cure".) I'd probably question anything that doesn't at least have some kind of hands to manipulate items with, while in most games I'm willing to go with pretty much anything vaguely humanoid (which I tend to feel makes me fairly relaxed, restriction-wise.) Likewise, if playing a game intended as a constant comedy session, I'd disallow stuffy, serious characters (unless actually intended to play the straight man role), or if playing a game intended as ultra-serious fantasy I'd disallow anything that felt like cartoon characters.) The flavor of the game matters as much as the setting to me.
During the above discussion, we came across perfectly reasonable people on both sides of the argument that were willing to find a way to meet in the middle, but were left with the issue of "What do you do when you get someone like that?" - hence this thread, really.
We also came across people at both extremes, from "Players should always pick something that fits perfectly", to "GMs should always make any changes necessary to fit everyone in with whatever they want to play." I'd say both of those extremes are far too inflexible to force any group to adhere to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A straw snowflake IS the one who must ONLY play that ONE character, the game be damned. Straw because I don't believe real snowflakes (who are very creative people) would limit themselves to just ONE character option. And only BAD snowflakes would limit themselves by NOT working with others the GM especially.
A straw snowflake IS the one who must ONLY play that ONE character, the game be damned. Straw because I don't believe real snowflakes (who are very creative people) would limit themselves to just ONE character option. And only BAD snowflakes would limit themselves by NOT working with others the GM especially.
As I've said, I agree with that. The only "must be this, must be this" person I've ever even seen was a specific poster in the previous thread that pretty much sparked the hostility we've seen here :)
I've been saying all along that I don't see any issue as long as both sides are willing to discuss things and find an idea that works for everyone.
As soon as you get either a GM that refuses to discuss how to make something work, or a Player that refuses to accept anything except that one character, you're asking for trouble (and personally I'd walk away from a game that had either of them as they're obviously not "plays well with others" people)
I'm sorry. I don't want to run a world where anyone plays a drow...
Sounds good. I'll be a summoner... My eidolon will look like.... A DROW!
Replace 'drow' with anything at all. Warforged, MLP, taunton, clockwork, Christopher Walken, cammy white, captain caveman, *ocknocker, gray render, dalek, naruni repobot, the noid, Ma Fratelli, master yoda, master chief, a 1967 pontiac gto, miley cyrus, snuffalupagus, nupperibo, nancy pelosi, David Tennant, Greedo (only in campaigns with guns though)... Taylor Swift, John Boehner, Johnny 5, beholder, iron man, were badger, soundwave, grimlock, grimmace, Gary Busey, Hermione Granger, Honey Boo Boo, Beetlejuice, Vladimir Harkonnen, legolas, legothulhu, pancakethulhu, cannon golem.. GLASS cannon golem...bacon golem... SNOWFLAKE golem...
Or go evolutionist summoner and CHANGE IT EVERY DAAAAAAAY.
Just make sure you remind your gm that the reason you're now travelling through his fabulously themed world with a 7 foot jet black cross between a terminator and wall-e by your side is because he didn't want you to play a drow.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just make sure you remind your gm that the reason you're now travelling through his fabulously themed world with a 7 foot jet black cross between a terminator and wall-e by your side is because he didn't want you to play a drow.
That's the kind of passive-aggressive provocation I'm glad I've never seen in the real world. Reacting this way to a specific setting speaks of a strangely antagonistic relationship between players and GM.
Going out of your way to sabotage the campaign is not a very constructive approach.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vincent Takeda does not play well with others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is this freakshow still going? Wehaa. So what is the score?
Are the Lawful Evil GM's of Snowscape 1 : Return of my-way-or-the-highway winning, or have the Chaotic Neutral My Special Snowflakes stolen their thunder?
What about the moderate "let's all agree communication is the key, we've been saying it since even before the beginning of the last thread" Lawful Neutral guys?
My money's on the Locked-thread Dragon coming to burn down the place....
PSSST. Agree or not. There is no "try".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry. I don't want to run a world where anyone plays a drow...
Sounds good. I'll be a summoner... My eidolon will look like.... A DROW!
Replace 'drow' with anything at all. Warforged, MLP, taunton, clockwork, Christopher Walken, cammy white, captain caveman, *ocknocker, gray render, dalek, naruni repobot, the noid, Ma Fratelli, master yoda, master chief, a 1967 pontiac gto, miley cyrus, snuffalupagus, nupperibo, nancy pelosi, David Tennant, Greedo (only in campaigns with guns though)... Taylor Swift, John Boehner, Johnny 5, beholder, iron man, were badger, soundwave, grimlock, grimmace, Gary Busey, Hermione Granger, Honey Boo Boo, Beetlejuice, Vladimir Harkonnen, legolas, legothulhu, pancakethulhu, cannon golem.. GLASS cannon golem...bacon golem... SNOWFLAKE golem...
Or go evolutionist summoner and CHANGE IT EVERY DAAAAAAAY.
Just make sure you remind your gm that the reason you're now travelling through his fabulously themed world with a 7 foot jet black cross between a terminator and wall-e by your side is because he didn't want you to play a drow.
Then we run back into that dreaded word: "No." Make sure to remind the player that no means no. This is why some folks shouldn't play with each other.
Then we run back into that dreaded word: "No." Make sure to remind the player that no means no. This is why some folks shouldn't play with each other.I'm sorry. I don't want to run a world where anyone plays a drow...
Sounds good. I'll be a summoner... My eidolon will look like.... A DROW!
Replace 'drow' with anything at all. Warforged, MLP, taunton, clockwork, Christopher Walken, cammy white, captain caveman, *ocknocker, gray render, dalek, naruni repobot, the noid, Ma Fratelli, master yoda, master chief, a 1967 pontiac gto, miley cyrus, snuffalupagus, nupperibo, nancy pelosi, David Tennant, Greedo (only in campaigns with guns though)... Taylor Swift, John Boehner, Johnny 5, beholder, iron man, were badger, soundwave, grimlock, grimmace, Gary Busey, Hermione Granger, Honey Boo Boo, Beetlejuice, Vladimir Harkonnen, legolas, legothulhu, pancakethulhu, cannon golem.. GLASS cannon golem...bacon golem... SNOWFLAKE golem...
Or go evolutionist summoner and CHANGE IT EVERY DAAAAAAAY.
Just make sure you remind your gm that the reason you're now travelling through his fabulously themed world with a 7 foot jet black cross between a terminator and wall-e by your side is because he didn't want you to play a drow.
My answer is usually 'no, but ...'
As in 'no, but here is the closest thing I can think of that DOES exist here.'
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.
Ha! Not believable?
What about a race that eagerly pursues the enslavement of other races and wars against their neighbours.
Seems pretty believable to me.
Also look up the Assyrians when you get a chance. In summary, they were major d**ks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I think there really is a disconnect between what "unique" and what "special snowflake" means.
If the uniqueness is not particularly out of the realms of "cohesion" for the campaign/GM then it isn't a special snowflake, it's just unique.There have been plenty of examples of human characters that demanded to be the centre of attention/story, and equal examples of mundane freakazoids that were moderate and not at all "special" apart from their physical appearance.
Just a thought. Though I think anyone who declares they "must be" [insert any character from core race/class to mutliclassed 3PP template laden half shark half crocodile half man-bear pig] is less "special snowflake" and more "unwavering idiot".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also look up the Assyrians when you get a chance. In summary, they were major d**ks.
Nor, looking at our combined history of human agency, are they alone in that regard. I'd say even today, there are many organized groups of people that I would classify as major d**ks.
Though, if I recall the Assyrian's did do a nice line in five-legged mythological creature statues for the sake of universal perspective. Weirdos.
Yep, I agree, but if you were just talking about a fantasy race that was like and has only been like the Assyrians at their di**ish best, you are dealing with heavy and consistent monochrome evil.
Told a friend about the drow issue above, surely they can't be evil, relativism class. He laughed, said it's not because they are black, it is because they "drink blood" and something about torture, then we cracked up.
|
Is the GM and the rest of the table justified in saying "no" to this request? Would anyone argue that the GM is being a "dictator" and the table being unfair if the player in question was told to bring a "normal" character or go find another game?1. Yes.
2. Yup.
It actually happened in another thread.
It actually happened in another thread.Is the GM and the rest of the table justified in saying "no" to this request? Would anyone argue that the GM is being a "dictator" and the table being unfair if the player in question was told to bring a "normal" character or go find another game?1. Yes.
2. Yup.
This makes me sad.
|
|
I don't see the "but thou must" thing as being part of the Special Snowflake label.
To me, it just seems like a demonization that people here use to make the DM seem sympathetic*.
* = Even though in some cases he/she is NOT the person to be rooted for, as is the case with my former DM.
I envision your former GM as Bowser and anyone who actually likes how he runs as Goombas.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I personally think the effort to be "Unique" is overrated and often a crutch for people who think weird = creative, that is a completely different issue than "Special Snowflake" because the defining characteristic of special snowflake comes from them believing that what they create is amazing and special and wonderful and anyone saying otherwise is oppressing them.
|
|
This makes me sad.It actually happened in another thread.Is the GM and the rest of the table justified in saying "no" to this request? Would anyone argue that the GM is being a "dictator" and the table being unfair if the player in question was told to bring a "normal" character or go find another game?1. Yes.
2. Yup.
It makes most of us sad.
Anybody notice they have a Bowser (part 1) in the Bones II Expansion Set 1 along with some Goombas (part 3). Combine these with the Koopas you now get in the core set (Swamp Things), and you could have yourself a cool Super Mario RPG thing going on.
It's important to remember that at the end of the day, you aren't gaming for the sake of gaming: you are gaming to have fun with friends. If you can't adjust your character to facilitate that goal, you won't reach it.
I agree. It's important to remember that at the end of the day you aren't gming for the sake of gming; you are gming to have fun with friends. If you can't adjust your campaign to facilitate that goal, you won't reach it.
Well on Super Mario Kart, you can't play a Goomba (IIRC), but you can play a Koopa. I assume when most players are using the Koopa character, they aren't sitting there thinking, "Alright, now I am a BAD guy!"
I agree. It's important to remember that at the end of the day you aren't gming for the sake of gming; you are gming to have fun with friends. If you can't adjust your campaign to facilitate that goal, you won't reach it.
It's important to remember that at the end of the day, you aren't gaming for the sake of gaming: you are gaming to have fun with friends. If you can't adjust your character to facilitate that goal, you won't reach it.
So wh is the onus on the gm to change the already created setting rather than the player to change the not yet created character?
And nice way to totally ignore what I typed.