I have recently moved and started a new game group. I have a campaign I've worked on for some time and I feel it is a good introductory campaign that can run a long level range if the group works out. I just wanted to check if I was being unreasonable and get some advice if I was.
It is a pretty standard campaign taking place in a remote spot on a trade route.
One player wants to be a class/race combo which would never be able to even pass in a civilized setting (monster race/horribly evil non standard class.) The setting allows for evil characters, no problem, but not overt unholy/menacing ones.
I always encourage people to make their own little back story so I can create a subplot/personal quest for each player. However, one player's plot was very cliche and singular in a way that it would alienate any other player from participating in his plot/quest.
I took both in stride and worked with them to make it consistent with the campaign/setting and able to be played through within a group.
I provided a lot of material about the setting so they weren't in the dark during character creation.
It's a new game group. That's your problem right there. My guess is that the players don't know you, don't know your style, and might not even know each other.
Communicate more, and play a few games. Then allow for a rebuild/rethink, once they really understand your style and the campaign that they are in.
And listen. A great campaign idea isn't much without players.
I'm not sure I understand what you are asking.
Did you say that you already accommodated the player asking to play the monstrous unholy/menacing evil character? Or are you still debating whether to do so or not?
If it's a new gaming group, you really have to make sure that their alignments and priorities are in line. The social dynamic within the party, both in and out of character, makes or breaks a gaming group.
For example, putting a Paladin and an evil monster race in the same party is gonna create a lot of friction, which could be fatal to a new group. It's also gonna be massively annoying to other players if they constantly have to deal with the NPC reactions to the monster race guy, as well as the problems with his reactions to those NPCs.
For a new group, I'd argue for Core races only and CRB, UC, UM and APG classes only.
Adaman Dragon, I didn't disallow anything. I asked what he liked about race/class (he liked being monster-esque and having a class that had an animal/mount at some point.) I suggested a half orc druid, paladin, or ranger. He was very receptive.
I tend to agree TQBBNBB. Most of the group knows each other well so I doubt there will be an issue with player relations. I don't necessarily think the paladin and monster race would be a problem alone. It is the class he was bucking for that would've been the issue, but I do agree with more traditional races first go around.
That player actually has latched onto the idea of a druid. He thought to get a mount/pet the easiest way was some specific class geared towards it. I explained it actually narrows your options where the aforementioned classes may allow but not confine you to solely that role/play style.
It actually soubds like you are being too leneint. If you don't start with a strong foundation and a group that can work together then you are going to have problems.
Allowing OP material from outside the core books and giving special allowances to whiny players is never a good idea. Set down the rules and if soneone can't deal, then they don't belong in your group.
Usually I only think a GM is being harsh if they try tk shut down options that come straight from the core books.