And where did the common farmer learn about what Aasimar and Tieflings are?
They don't have to immediately know their race, their mom,and other interesting facts. All they need to know is something isn't 'right' about that person, that something is off. That can put their hackles up, put them on edge, or make them wary of dealing with the individual.
And where did the common farmer learn about what Aasimar and Tieflings are?
Same place we learnt about Goblins, Minotaurs, etc etc - from bedtime stories and folklore, except unlike mythical creatures (bless their cotton socks) the Aasimar and Tieflings are walking about in broad daylight in their towns villages and cities.
So yeah, its not hard for them to figure it out, it's not like these are rare and unseen/unknown creatures, there's quite a few about.
DC10 is all it takes. The only farmers who don't know are the 8 Int ones.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, the awakened pony wizard was proposed by someone advocating that the GM should be able to accommodate anything.
I forget who named him Steve.
But let me say that again. Somewhere there is someone who thinks the GM who can't work an awakened pony wizard into any possible setting (his words) is the problem.
That happened.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As long as they make their disguise check.
Otherwise they are identifiable as what they are.
This is something I always expend character resources keeping in check. I tend to make some pretty bizarre characters, but I always check with the DM as to what races are the norm in our starting region, and I find a way to make my character "fit in" if need be. If I'm pressed for time or feeling lazy, a simple Hat of Disguise isn't too expensive. I don't usually go as far as full on shape changing, but I always try to keep just enough disguise elements to pass a cursory inspection, or at least slip through a crowd unnoticed.
For example, when I play as an Illumian, I always keep my glowing sigils turned off in towns. This robs that race of their bonuses derived from the sigils, but it's a trade off for not getting a lot of unwanted attention. There's even a feat that allows you to retain your bonuses and keeping your sigil out of sight, which I always take.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue for me is always "Why are you here, doing what you are doing, with this group of people?"
If you can give something that works with what everyone else is doing and what we all want to do, fine.
If you say some variant of "Because I wanna!"...I'm probably going to "forget" to invite you anymore.
The issue for me is always "Why are you here, doing what you are doing, with this group of people?"
If you can give something that works with what everyone else is doing and what we all want to do, fine.
If you say some variant of "Because I wanna!"...I'm probably going to "forget" to invite you anymore.
See, ciretose, I can completely see how, from someone else's point of view, this seems entirely reasonable. I really can! In fact, I'm quite sure you and your buddies are great people to game with!
But, just from the words (given that tone is lacking on the internet, and, you know, I don't actually know you in real life) this sounds (or rather "feels") like a "jerk" statement to me.
Again: I know (or at least I really believe that) it's not. You are (probably) not being a jerk here.
But my immediate emotional response is different than that.
Ultimately, I think the question you ask is one that is always asked by all groups, whether or not they realize it.
Unfortunately, the way you phrased the answer makes me think, "Well why does anyone play anything?" which I know isn't what you meant (and is probably the source of extreme examples, as Slaunyeh noted above).
My guess is that much of the disagreement comes from a communication problem and the comfort level people have with what is implied by other people's statements (again, touching on what Slaunyeh noted above) just as much as it is actual disagreements (though there are those too).
|
|
And I think if you aren't adapting to the group in a group activity, you are the problem.
If you aren't looking around and trying to figure out how to fit in with everyone else, and you expect your wishes to be met, you are apparently expecting everyone else to adapt to you.
And pointing that out may make someone offended, but it doesn't mean it isn't true.
And I think if you aren't adapting to the group in a group activity, you are the problem.
If you aren't looking around and trying to figure out how to fit in with everyone else, and you expect your wishes to be met, you are apparently expecting everyone else to adapt to you.
And pointing that out may make someone offended, but it doesn't mean it isn't true.
See, the first line of this one is far better, in my reading, than your previous post at making the point you wish to in a way that I can, emotionally, agree with.
"If you aren't adapting to the group in a group activity, you are the problem." is, in fact, accurate.
Your previous post lacked that context (to me) in the way you presented it.
The apparent disregard (I don't think you do, but it comes off that way in print) at the end of this post for others in the current group activity (discussing things on the public forum) seems to be exactly the sort of problem-activity you and I both agree isn't for the best: the kind that splits people and makes them unhappy at each other.
See, the thing is, I agree with your basic premise, as I understand it.
1) Pathfinder is supposed to be a Group Activity. Thus...
2) Find a thing that works within your group and go with that or don't play with that group.
However, it's the way that it comes across that I have a problem with rather than the message.
Having watched you post (and others who know you in real life) on the boards, I can say that you're probably a really great guy in person. I disagree with you often, but you're still probably a great guy.
But that doesn't always come across in discussions like this.
To be clear, I'm not "blaming" you for anything here, so much as pointing out one reason why the discussions might become more hostile than anyone wants them to become.
I apologize if I come off as insulting. I'm really, really not trying to be. Rather, I'm trying to say, something more like,
"You know, ciretose, I think you have a really good point there, but, due to personal quirks, it gets obscured by the words you're using to make it."
... and since I don't seem to be the only one, it's worth considering how we all (me too) phrase things in order to better participate in group activities like forum posting just as much as real-life-gaming (which is a concept I can entirely stand behind).
It's worth noting, however, that "fitting in with a group" does not mean doing whatever they're doing, per se. In one of the other threads about this stuff recently, I re-posted my own history of adapting for weird players. Worked out alright in several of those cases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So yeah, its not hard for them to figure it out, it's not like these are rare and unseen/unknown creatures, there's quite a few about.
DC10 is all it takes. The only farmers who don't know are the 8 Int ones.
In previous iterations of this thread, one reason given for disallowing uncommon races was that humans of the region would fail to identify the uncommon race and think the PC is actually a monster. Hence, everyone would assume the grippli is actually some sort of frog demon and that player should really just play an elf.
Due to how low the DC is on knowledge checks to identify 0 HD races, this isn't a good reason to disallow uncommon races. The reaction to seeing a nagaji PC would be "that's a nagaji! They are rare in this area but they are humanoids just like you and me!" The reaction would not be "that's a monster! Kill it with fire so it doesn't eat us!" You'd have to fail a DC 10 knowledge check to even begin to think that.
Further, this DC 10 thing defeats the argument that playing a nagaji or grippli or whatever is disruptive to the setting. Most NPCs would make the DC 10 knowledge check to identify them. They'd stand out a little, but they wouldn't be something that no one had ever heard of before. It's no more disruptive than having a PC elf in an area where elves aren't very common.
In previous iterations of this thread, one reason given for disallowing uncommon races was that humans of the region would fail to identify the uncommon race and think the PC is actually a monster. Hence, everyone would assume the grippli is actually some sort of frog demon and that player should really just play an elf.
Due to how low the DC is on knowledge checks to identify 0 HD races, this isn't a good reason to disallow uncommon races. The reaction to seeing a nagaji PC would be "that's a nagaji! They are rare in this area but they are humanoids just like you and me!" The reaction would not be "that's a monster! Kill it with fire so it doesn't eat us!" You'd have to fail a DC 10 knowledge check to even begin to think that.
Heh. I like to play my "stock" NPCs as rather insular and ignorant of the world around them, precisely for that reason. My average farmer or townsperson is going to see something that isn't human (or dwarf, elf, or [insert mainstream race here]) and start screaming for the guards. It'll be one of the NPCs with specific knowledge or experience of the outside world (e.g. Ameiko in Sandpoint, a village priest that studies ancient texts, a member of the Pathfinder society, the old grizzled war veteran) that gets to make a knowledge check and helps the PCs to calm them down.
(I'm not saying that's how anyone else should play, just wanted to comment on how I do it)
The check is DC 10. That means it can be made untrained. The only reason it wouldn't be that every NPC is entitled to make a check is if you are houseruling how knowledge checks work. If you do this, it's probably polite to let your players know in advance that you are houseruling knowledge checks with the goal of making NPCs more hostile towards them. Else, a player might assume you are running things by the book.
Edit: did I say DC 10? It can actually be less than that:
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR.
For any race as common as goblins, the DC will only be 5. Anyone with above animal intelligence is able to make that check just by taking 10.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The check is DC 10. That means it can be made untrained. The only reason it wouldn't be that every NPC is entitled to make a check is if you are houseruling how knowledge checks work. If you do this, it's probably polite to let your players know in advance that you are houseruling knowledge checks with the goal of making NPCs more hostile towards them. Else, a player might assume you are running things by the book.
Yep, we've been playing together so long that everyone knows (and prefers) that we use the rulebook as a doorstop half of the time. The rules get wheeled out for combat, or for "minigame" things like mass combat and running kingdoms. In town we run about 90% freestyled, and sometimes things like that DC check are just impractical for my setting anyway - such as those NPCs being aware of something existing that'd only know from scary bedtime stories - even if they did recognize that thing from a story, they'd still never have seen one before in real life and have no idea whether it's there to help them or eat them.
Everyone at the table is well aware that when I (or anyone in my long-term group, when we rotate around) am GM I'm pretty much running what is good for the story over whatever the rules happen to say. If I need the villagers to be in a panic, I'm not letting a roll of the dice decide it for me - that part begins when someone starts using Diplomacy (or whatever) to calm them down, or when an educated NPC shows up. At that point, of course, it can go either way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even ignoring the rules for identifying 0 HD races, it doesn't take that large of a presence of uncommon races for the average human to not flee in terror at the sight of an undine.
Let's take a relatively remote human village with 100 inhabitants, to have a nice round number for the population. Except, there's not really 100 humans in the village. There's 99 humans and 1 changeling. Every few years, the half-elf tax collector comes through. Most of the guards who travel with her are human, but one is a half-orc. Two years back an adventuring group consisting of a human, a gnome, an elf, and a catfolk stopped by the village to buy all the wands from the village priestess. To this very day the village still sings the songs the catfolk bard taught them. Five years ago a ratfolk caravan passed through, selling alchemical remedies. Twelve years ago a party of gnome explorers passed through. Fifteen years ago a halfling merchant with two oread caravan guards was in town. Thirty-nine years ago an adventuring party with two humans, a kobold, and a tiefling passed through town.
Today, an adventuring party was seen approaching town. They consist of two dwarves, a half-elf, a human, and a grippli. No one in the small village has ever seen or heard of gripplis before. Do they flee in terror at the approaching frog demon who wants to eat their children, or do they assume a human paladin wouldn't be traveling around with a child-eating frog demon?
A common trope in science fiction is an expanding conception of humanity or personhood. Rather than thinking that only members of the same species are persons, that is expanded to alien species, AIs, etc. Usually, it's the first jump that's the most difficult; once you can accept one alien species as fully persons, it's easier to do the same for another. The same can apply in fantasy settings. If you accept that humans, dwarves, elves, gnomes, catfolk, ratfolk, half-orcs, half-elves, halflings, oreads, kobolds, and tieflings are all persons, what leads you to draw the line at gripplis? Even if you only had experience with accepting humans, dwarves, elves, gnomes, half-elves, half-orcs, and halflings as persons, why would you flee in terror at the sight of a sylph?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're assuming the "GM fudge factor" in your favor, though. If I consider aasimars an "uncommon" race, the DC just went to 15. No longer untrained.Yes, it's true that uncommon creatures have an increased DC to identify.
For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR or more.
I think in most settings, aasimars are much, much, much more common than the tarrasque.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even ignoring the rules for identifying 0 HD races, it doesn't take that large of a presence of uncommon races for the average human to not flee in terror at the sight of an undine.
Let's take a relatively remote human village with 100 inhabitants, to have a nice round number for the population. Except, there's not really 100 humans in the village. There's 99 humans and 1 changeling. Every few years, the half-elf tax collector comes through. Most of the guards who travel with her are human, but one is a half-orc. Two years back an adventuring group consisting of a human, a gnome, an elf, and a catfolk stopped by the village to buy all the wands from the village priestess. Five years ago a ratfolk caravan passed through. Twelve years ago a party of gnome explorers passed through. Fifteen years ago a halfling merchant with two oread caravan guards was in town. Thirty-nine years ago an adventuring party with two humans, a kobold, and a tiefling passed through town.
Today, an adventuring party was seen approaching town. They consist of two dwarves, a half-elf, a human, and a grippli. No one in the small village has ever seen or heard of gripplis before. Do they flee in terror at the approaching frog demon who wants to eat their children, or do they assume a human paladin wouldn't be traveling around with a child-eating frog demon?
That example, I may agree with you. Mine would have been far less likely to have had that catfolk or ratfolk. The tiefling, kobold, and the half-orc were likely never allowed through the gates (and were probably lucky to be roaming the land freely in the first place), so the majority never even saw them. That's just our current long-term campaign, of course. If we were in Golarion or a similar world then I'd have to increase the likelyhood of non-human/elf/dwarves being more of an everyday thing.
The thing is, that DC check doesn't really work for me in my current situation, as it assumes the same level of knowledge by NPCs in every game world. Mine are intentionally more ignorant, and less exposed.
Also, I rule that the same way as if I want a character's sword to get stolen in the night - I'm unlikely to roll at any point for it, they'll just wake up with the sword mysteriously stolen (or whatever alternative item I choose if they went as far as putting it under their pillow or having someone on guard), as that's going to be the trigger for the next adventure. In the example above, I'm godmode-ing the panic in order to give them a situation to deal with. Same if I'm running a shipwreck adventure - I'm not giving out any rolls to save the ship however good sailors they happen to be, they're going to start that adventure washed up on the beach in the wreckage, as that's the setup for the scene.
Another way to look at it, I guess:
I might give my NPCs that DC10 roll if one of the players hits on the idea of telling them "Please wait! This is a grippli, she's with us! She's friendly! Look, I'm holding her weapons now, she's safe!" to see if they can recall having heard the name at some point. It's still only going to convince NPCs that happen to make their roll, of course, but I need that trigger for the NPC to consider even trying to remember.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except the scenario spoken of earlier in the thread wasn't that the villagers run and scurry or get out the pitchforks because someone is a half-whatever or playing an unusual or exotic race. The examples provided stated that the character could disguise their otherworldly traits and no one would be the wiser, because they were several generations removed or just looked closer to a "normal" human than those depicted in the guides.
Certainly many villages and towns, not to mention cities, would be more worldly and deal better with the out of the ordinary. But by the same token, aren't they less likely to fall for the "no,really, I'm as human as any of you."
If your group is good with handwaving it, so be it. Others may not as easily allow that without the feats to back it up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That example, I may agree with you. Mine would have been far less likely to have had that catfolk or ratfolk.
I edited my post some to address the possibility that only core races are common enough to be seen at all. If you accept as fully persons creatures half your height with blue hair (gnomes), you should be able to do the same thing with creatures your height with blue hair and skin (undines). The difficulty is in accepting that creatures don't have to look the same as you to be persons, not in accepting that this specific creature is a person.
The tiefling, kobold, and the half-orc were likely never allowed through the gates (and were probably lucky to be roaming the land freely in the first place), so the majority never even saw them.
The tiefling and kobold were part of adventuring groups, so I don't think it's unreasonable to assume there's someone in the group who can diplomacize. It makes sense to me that the PCs wouldn't be the only adventuring party in the world. The kobold could always have taken this archetype and be able to make diplomacy checks in 6 seconds. That should be sufficiently quick to be able to get through the gates. The half-orc was assumed to be part of the guards who came with the tax collector. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume, even in a land filled with ignorant racists, that some half-orcs end up in the state's military. The half-orc wasn't turned away because you don't turn away the queen's tax collector unless you want her to come back with a small army.
The point I'm getting at is, uncommon races don't have to be common for the average NPC to not run away in terror if they see someone that looks different from them.
Except the scenario spoken of earlier in the thread wasn't that the villagers run and scurry or get out the pitchforks because someone is a half-whatever or playing an unusual or exotic race. The examples provided stated that the character could disguise their otherworldly traits and no one would be the wiser, because they were several generations removed or just looked closer to a "normal" human than those depicted in the guides.
That is correct. The whole thing about disguise came in reaction to claims that unusual races would look too different and hence not be playable. However, you cannot have it both ways. If these races are sufficiently easy to identify that the average person won't assume the aasimar is a weird-lookign human, then the average person should not be violently racist towards the aasimar. They made the easy check and hence know that aasimars aren't monsters.
If you use the DC 10 knowledge check stuff, then NPCs should recognize uncommon races and not react xenophobically towards them. If you don't use the DC 10 knowledge check stuff, then NPCs shouldn't be able to easily distinguish between humanesque uncommon races and humans.
What is it that makes people dump real world politics into these threads?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't it possible to run the setting in a variety of ways and no one way is right?
I always thought it was a base assumption planetouched and grippli and the like could walk around with relative ease. Relative being a key word. The idea that everyone grabs the pitchfork if you look different being a houserule.
What is it that makes people dump real world politics into these threads?
I think it has something to do with personal worries and woes and possibly Godwin's Law.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't it possible to run the setting in a variety of ways and no one way is right?
I always thought it was a base assumption planetouched and grippli and the like could walk around with relative ease. Relative being a key word. The idea that everyone grabs the pitchfork if you look different being a houserule.
Or indeed, just a feature of a specific homegrown setting ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some things just need to happen to set up the story. If the story is "The PCs find themselves in town, and have to work out how they're going to deal with the fact party member X has horns and a tail." then it's going to be a very short game today if the villagers just nod politely and say "Mornin!" We may even go as far as having the game proper start with the party recovering from being beaten up by the guards and thrown in jail. Everything before that was just part of the lead-in.
The question then is, why tell this story? Why not tell a story where the conflict doesn't center around the yokel provincialism of the townsfolk? As I've explained and you've not disputed, it's not necessary for the believability or verisimilitude of the game world for the average NPC to have this reaction. Now, I don't think that it's bad to give NPCs unsavory views. That can certainly make for a fun game. Rather, what I've been trying to argue is that it is a deliberate design decision to make a world where these sorts of attitudes are common. It's not an inevitable fact about the game world.
Earlier in the myriad threads on this subject, this sort of NPC provincialism was mentioned as a reason to not allow uncommon races. "You cannot play a tiefling because then all the NPCs would react violently towards you." Related to this, I have seen some complaining about players who want to play races like tiefling while avoiding all the townsfolk having violent, negative attitudes towards them. As these attitudes don't have to be common in the world, I don't think this is a very strong argument.
Looking back at your past few posts, you don't appear to be arguing that certain races should be banned because of these views of townfolk in the game world. Rather, you just prefer to kind of roleplaying this sort of world can lead to. I appear to have mixed you up with the people who were arguing that these views of NPCs mean certain races should be disallowed. For that, I apologize.
What is it that makes people dump real world politics into these threads?
Real world ideas pop up because how we view the real world affects what fantasy worlds we can imagine. I'm not sure what specifically prompted Vincent Takeda's ramble, but real world ideas have been present in these threads for a long time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And where did the common farmer learn about what Aasimar and Tieflings are?
They don't. But you don't need profession: torch and pitchfork mob to know that somethin ain't right about a guy with horns or a halo on their head.
Earlier in the myriad threads on this subject, this sort of NPC provincialism was mentioned as a reason to not allow uncommon races. "You cannot play a tiefling because then all the NPCs would react violently towards you." Related to this, I have seen some complaining about players who want to play races like tiefling while avoiding all the townsfolk having violent, negative attitudes towards them. As these attitudes don't have to be common in the world, I don't think this is a very strong argument.
Looking back at your past few posts, you don't appear to be arguing that certain races should be banned because of these views of townfolk in the game world. Rather, you just prefer to kind of roleplaying this sort of world can lead to. I appear to have mixed you up with the people who were arguing that these views of NPCs mean certain races should be disallowed. For that, I apologize.
The argument, at least from my side, is that you can play a tiefling or whatever with wings and a tail and horns or whatever and the NPCS may have SOME reaction -- be it good, bad, or indifferent -- to you. You are not a baseline human. You got a race and that comes with good and bad parts, or perhaps more appropriately distinct and indistinct parts. If someone wants all the perks of a race but wants to be unable to be perceived as anything other than a regular human, I'd ask for some disguise magic or a feat or something. Other than that, play a whatever and enjoy the world, just don't ask that the world doesn't notice you as what you may be.
Edited to add: The reason is because if you get away with it for free when it isn't important, you'll want to get away with it for free when it is.
The question then is, why tell this story? Why not tell a story where the conflict doesn't center around the yokel provincialism of the townsfolk? As I've explained and you've not disputed, it's not necessary for the believability or verisimilitude of the game world for the average NPC to have this reaction. Now, I don't think that it's bad to give NPCs unsavory views. That can certainly make for a fun game. Rather, what I've been trying to argue is that it is a deliberate design decision to make a world where these sorts of attitudes are common. It's not an inevitable fact about the game world.
Well, most of what I've said last few posts has been about the homegrown world I use from time to time (and am at the moment). I also use Golarion, Mystara, and occasionally Forgotten Realms (and probably a few others I've not touched for so long I've simply forgotten) - in this case it's just an example of something I might set up for a specific adventure, and that I like to feel free to do that without having to adhere to the rulebook saying "but that might not happen!"
As I mentioned, the rulebook may also talk about vehicle damage, or how much you need to hit a wall for it to fall down, but if I need it to happen to set up the adventure I'll simply have it happen.
And yeah, I may well not tell that particular story, but something entirely different. To a degree it depends where the party are roaming - I have areas in this particular world that react differently. The borderlands areas tend to have all kinds of races wandering in, as well as all kinds of conflicts, while the heartlands are very similar to ... I guess imagine The Shire but with Humans instead of Hobbits. Quiet, peaceful, and at the slightest thing out of the ordinary people are going to start quaking in fear.
Alternatively, they may well travel to a neighboring kingdom where humans are in the minority - or if they travel far enough, to a place where humans haven't even been seen before (or maybe they have hundreds of years ago, and are listed in the history books as being vicious marauding barbarians.)
I try to ensure the game world has enough variance that if the players tire of something, they can travel elsewhere for a change of pace and scenery (one of the things I like about Golarion, too)
Earlier in the myriad threads on this subject, this sort of NPC provincialism was mentioned as a reason to not allow uncommon races. "You cannot play a tiefling because then all the NPCs would react violently towards you." Related to this, I have seen some complaining about players who want to play races like tiefling while avoiding all the townsfolk having violent, negative attitudes towards them. As these attitudes don't have to be common in the world, I don't think this is a very strong argument.
For me, it comes down to the world, and the campaign feel being aimed for. Sometimes that fits just fine, sometimes it doesn't. I don't have any particular feelings one way or the other, it'll be a decision based upon whether the player has come up with a back story that can work with that world and feels right for the campaign. What doesn't work this month may well work in something I'm running in a couple of months time, and vice-versa.
Looking back at your past few posts, you don't appear to be arguing that certain races should be banned because of these views of townfolk in the game world. Rather, you just prefer to kind of roleplaying this sort of world can lead to.
Not even that, really. My tastes tend to go all-over-the-place. Right now I'm enjoying a "dark medieval" feel to things with anything more than a pair of pointed ears being reason to call out the guards. Another time I'll be enjoying a game in a cosmopolitan mish-mash of cultures like Sigil. I just get bored if I do the same thing for too long :)
I appear to have mixed you up with the people who were arguing that these views of NPCs mean certain races should be disallowed. For that, I apologize.
No worries :) I'm of the opinion that sometimes there's a case for "no" (preferably "no, but lets talk about what sort of character you want to play and find something that works"), sometimes not. If the race can exist there, and doesn't feel too silly by the campaign standards (note - occasionally I've been known to run an intentionally silly campaign), and the player has come up with a back story that fits, I'm likely to say yes. If the NPC attitude is a problem, I'll warn them of that so they know what they'll be letting themselves in for, but it's unlikely to be a blocker on the character. Mostly though I like to think I'm as flexible on character choice as the player in question is willing to be... :)
And where did the common farmer learn about what Aasimar and Tieflings are?They don't. But you don't need profession: torch and pitchfork mob to know that somethin ain't right about a guy with horns or a halo on their head.
No, but you do need ranks in Profession: Torch and Pitchfork Mob to properly create, lead, or perform in a torch and pitchfork mob.
The argument, at least from my side, is that you can play a tiefling or whatever with wings and a tail and horns or whatever and the NPCS may have SOME reaction -- be it good, bad, or indifferent -- to you. You are not a baseline human. You got a race and that comes with good and bad parts, or perhaps more appropriately distinct and indistinct parts. If someone wants all the perks of a race but wants to be unable to be perceived as anything other than a regular human, I'd ask for some disguise magic or a feat or something. Other than that, play a whatever and enjoy the world, just don't ask that the world doesn't notice you as what you may be.
Edited to add: The reason is because if you get away with it for free when it isn't important, you'll want to get away with it for free when it is.
Are you inferring that the classes have to be good or bad and that part of that balance is a roleplay balance? Can't balance mechanics with roleplay and I usually use settings where planetouched are okay, though occasionally someone wants something different and that's always up for discussion. Its not a bad thing if you play otherwise, but I'm pretty sure its not assumption that it has to be grab the pitchforks when your half-orc walks into town or that every half-orc is an ugly monster.(btw, who's asking to be perceived as human always and forever? I thought the point of playing a tiefling was to have cool wings/horns!)
Personally, I'm just not that interested in playing Villages and Lynchmobs. I like an urban adventure, just not my thing to go in depth into things like racism, sexism, and the like I guess. A big thing is that I feel like the whole "Omg your different!" thing gets old quickly, so I only bring it up rarely rather than dwell on it as a theme. Again though, its always up for discussion if someone wants it, but I'd rather avoid laying on something someone isn't interested in than add something they aren't.
Are you inferring that the classes have to be good or bad and that part of that balance is a roleplay balance? Can't balance mechanics with roleplay and I usually use settings where planetouched are okay, though occasionally someone wants something different and that's always up for discussion. Its not a bad thing if you play otherwise, but I'm pretty sure its not assumption that it has to be grab the pitchforks when your half-orc walks into town or that every half-orc is an ugly monster.(btw, who's asking to be perceived as human always and forever? I thought the point of playing a tiefling was to have cool wings/horns!)
Personally, I'm just not that interested in playing Villages and Lynchmobs. I like an urban adventure, just not my thing to go in depth into things like racism, sexism, and the like I guess. A big thing is that I feel like the whole "Omg your different!" thing gets old quickly, so I only bring it up rarely rather than dwell on it as a theme. Again though, its always up for discussion if someone wants it, but I'd rather avoid laying on something someone isn't interested in than add something they aren't.
No, I'm not saying anything about classes needing to be good or bad. I was speaking about the examples earlier by the player who wanted to be elemental-kin or half-another race and be undetectable. And in those examples, the player was speaking about mostly staying hidden so they appeared to be weaker than they are.
And no, not every example would be Villages and Lynchmobs. As I said, there could be any of a number of reactions; my contention is that you don't get something for nothing -- if you wanted to be not-human but always hide or decrease every descriptive point in the book to be so human as to be indistinguishable, it sets off flags for me.
As far as it goes, anything could attract good or bad attention besides race: extraordinarily good or bad looks, ostentatious displays of wealth, and so on. For our table, it depends on where you are and what you are doing. A cosmopolitan city reacts differently than an isolated village. It's all relative to the way you like to play and what your players are interested in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't it possible to run the setting in a variety of ways and no one way is right?
Of course, but that concept isn't where the tensions are arising from.
What these threads are really concerning themselves with is the divergence of views between groups, and what happens when Special Snowflake wants to roll into one of the 'other groups'.
Lumiere can play all the Steampunk Lolligoth characters in the world, no one cares, where the problems kick up is when one arrives at a different table and expects it to be business as usual. Not everyone is on board with this, we don't all favour the handwave, and we don't like it when people try change RAW as they see fit (to benefit themselves) in a game where 'the math' matters.
What all these arguments above are really slated at is shooting down the 'rationalisations' used by Snowflakes when they come across and don't get their way.
You can see they are being Sad Pandas when they put up lines like "GM's aren't able to cope with the challenge/advanced play/yada yada" - that's when we start pulling apart your idea and exposing it not as 'advanced' but as somewhere between 'twee' and 'juvenile' and almost always completely lifted from the latest anime of the day.