| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is fun to play a duergar, who are racially insane. Your PC arguing with himself in RPing situations is a blast!
I think you are confusing duergar with derro.
The 'breaking' of a stereotype does not have to be token or total. The Dwarf/Scot schtick might be campaign canon, but maybe town/city Dwarves are Cockney? Orcs in our game have redneck accents and we only recently purged the elves of being hippys. Even the same cultural feature can be tweaked; All Dwarves wear armor if they can, but mountain Dwarves hate riding (and prefer the heaviest they can carry), while those Of the steppes are born to the saddle, each only limited by the mount's ability to carry armor.
Did you draw it? They look so cute. You should post them in the «Post your Character Art» thread.
Naw. The Mrs. is the artist (and also the elf/halfling rogue). If you like her stuff, we do this comic thing together:
Handbook of Heroes
I'm checking it for sure. I love the style of the pictures. I am doing some portraits for some of the characters of my group now but I do everything by hand as I don't have a PC
Edit: Added page to favorites to keep track.
Edit 2: The art thread I mentioned.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^You having to post from your phone? I feel your pain . . . Not having to do this now, but did for many months until just a few months ago . . . . Which reminds me of an idea I have been toying with that isn't exactly on-topic here, but is sort of related, being the GM (well, wannabe GM) take on the same question, in a way that could make certain NPCs/monsters more interesting -- imagine if heartstones weren't just soul storage and SLA-casting devices, but actually the eldritch equivalent of smartphones? (This includes limited battery life -- they normally recharge from the bioelectrical fields of their normal owners, but Humanoids don't have enough bioelectrical fields to keep them going.) Vision of a dream-haunting victim mumbling something about "cursed autocorrect" . . . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your characters race is part of what makes him unique and should be incorporated into the way you role play it. I think part of the reason there is a reluctance to play to racial stereotypes is because it makes you seem to be racists. The thing to keep in mind is that in the real world we are all human, but that is not the case with races in the game. A dwarf is not just a short human he is a member of a completely different species. Species would have also been a better choice to use instead of race when describing a character, but race has been used for so long that is not going to change.
Your racial abilities can be broken down into two categories. The first category is the physical differences in your race. These for the most part are present in all members of the race and should have a profound influence on your character. For the most part these are things you cannot change and have always had. To you they don’t feel special they are what you consider normal. The second category is the cultural abilities these are learned behavior that not every member of the race has to have and can are easier to ignore or change.
Using the dwarf as an example their physical abilities are going to be slow and steady, darkvision, hardy and stability. For the most part racial stat adjustment will also be considered physical abilities. Your cultural abilities are going to be defensive training, dwarven weapon training, greed, hatred and stonecunning.
So what does that tell us about dwarves? First is that they are work horses capable of tremendous amounts of work. They are also incredibly resilient and can keep going when other races cannot. They also lack empathy with others and often don’t consider other people’s feelings. They also are comfortable working in dark so night and day are don’t really mean all that much to them. All of this is based on the physical abilities not that cultural. This is kind of the baseline dwarf that all dwarves will be like regardless of where they are raised.
Looking at things from the perspective of a dwarf most other races are slacker that don’t pull their weight. Other races don’t work as hard or as long as a dwarf does. Is it any wonder that dwarves have a reputation of being bad tempered and grumpy.
I used dwarves as an example but a similar breakdown can be done for each race. If you really want to roleplay your character you should do something similar for any race you play. In some cases the physical abilities may influence the cultural ones. The dwarven ability greed could be considered an outgrowth of the baseline dwarf I presented above. When you get together a bunch of hard working people with little empathy for each other they tend to be a little on the greedy side.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I should say is that to me playing a racial stereotype is not the same as playing your races characteristics. An stereotype is a limited and narrow view of a race with few distinctive features aside from the regular ones of the race.
A character that fits perfectly into the standards of a race but has more to offer than a few archetypical features is not an stereotype, just a regular member of a race. And it's not necessarily something bad.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can understand people not wanting to stereotype a race and artificially limit their character, but often this leads to people ignoring their race. Part of the problem is that I think Paizo actually did a really great job when it came to humans. Previous edition going all the way back to D&D always assumed that humans were the baseline and did not have any real racial abilities. In AD&D humans got absolutely nothing expect they could play any class and had no level limits. Other classes were limited in what classes they could play and how high of a level they could achieve.
Humans are incredibly adaptable in real life and now the game reflects this. Every one of the human’s base racial traits is adjustable. You could have identical twin humans that end having different racial traits. Take a set of identical twins one raised by barbarians in the wild and the other raised in a city by a wizard. Assuming identical base stats they will probably have different stats. The twin raised by the barbarians will probably put his stat into STR and his extra feat will probably be either a combat feat or something to help him survive. The second twin will have a higher INT and probably use his extra feat for something related to magic or knowledge. Even the extra skill point will be in a different.
Other races do not have the same adaptability as humans. For the most part every member any other race except human has the exact same abilities. Those that do have different are either changing cultural traits or playing a sub race. Every elf has the same ability adjustments, they also the same vision and bonus to perception. Two elves from different planets will have similar physical abilities despite not being related.
The way I look at it is, is that if you have the racial ability you should factor that into how you roleplay your character. So if you are playing a dwarf with greed that should factor into how you roleplay your character. If you want to ignore part a characters race than you should for the most part trade out the relevant ability. If the ability is a physical one including stat adjustments that cannot be traded out this is something I expect my player to factor into their characters. If the ability is a cultural ability then there is a little more leeway. For example I would not have problem with a dwarf keeping the racial bonus from hatred vs orcs and goblins if he had some sort of a backstory that explained why he no longer hated them. Maybe an orc saved his life or something like that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I'm say, man, is there's, like, a reason halflings like seven meals a day... it rhymes with "the crunchies."
Aw man, now I want something crunchy...
I can understand people not wanting to stereotype a race and artificially limit their character, but often this leads to people ignoring their race. Part of the problem is that I think Paizo actually did a really great job when it came to humans. Previous edition going all the way back to D&D always assumed that humans were the baseline and did not have any real racial abilities. In AD&D humans got absolutely nothing expect they could play any class and had no level limits. Other classes were limited in what classes they could play and how high of a level they could achieve.
On the other hand, this was a really big deal, so unless you were going to play a Thief (what AD&D called Rogues back then) or you knew that the campaign wasn't going to get past the low levels, you really needed to be a Human.
Other races do not have the same adaptability as humans. For the most part every member any other race except human has the exact same abilities. Those that do have different are either changing cultural traits or playing a sub race. Every elf has the same ability adjustments, they also the same vision and bonus to perception. Two elves from different planets will have similar physical abilities despite not being related.
{. . .}
Things changed with recent supplements -- apart from the Half-Human races also being able to put their +2 anywhere they want, all the Core Races and several other races get to trade out various racial traits, including ones that influence vision and perception more generally.
Even though I know not everybody does the same I never choose my race having mechanic benefits in mind, so that has never been something that I really took into consideration.
But I really like how you can adapt so many aspects from your character choosing alternative traits so when you choose a race for pure interpretative motives you can also configurate it so you can also get some benefits from it or even give it more sense from a roleplaying perspective (in my setting there is a whole nation of elves who have lived for years in a frozen land, so giving them racial traits to reflect that is cool).
I still remember a specific concept Dalindra wanted to play in 3.5. His character had to be a Silvanesti elf (-2 CHA) bard because the concept demanded it, and it was such a cool concept. It was also the kind of character that depended a lot on Enchantment spells, so starting with a CHA score of 16 at best hurted. This kind of things can be often avoided now in Pathfinder with the alternative racial traits. In the case of my Changeling Witch I was able to trade my +2 WIS for +2 INT and that was a big improvement.
^Even so, you can't entirely ignore mechanical aspects. For instance, any Orc 9/9 caster(*) is on the verge of being mechanically inviable and any Orc 6/9 caster is hurting pretty badly as well (although I would add that Orcs are at least somewhat hosed for anything that isn't purely physical -- their inherent point buy is lower, with penalties in ALL mental stats . . . which seems especially perverse given that Keen Scent, which is one of their racial feats, requires Wisdom 13).
(*)Other than Scarred Witch Doctor; this used to have awesome potential for some unusual concepts, but the Errata that said that you can't have a Witch that can't spell made it just passable, while making otherwise conventional Half-Orc Witches really overpowered.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fun fact, I really, really dislike the stat array they gave the orcs for that specific reason.
I'm really not a particular fan of the way Paizo went with orcs at all. I get that they wanted to avoid ripping of one of Blizzard's few good, original ideas, but if you want to use hearkening back to Tolkien as an excuse for making them dumb, one dimensional villains, remember that Tolkien's orcs represented the evils of the industrial revolution, were among the better craftsmen in his setting, and were meant to represent the danger of man's cunning and inventiveness when deprived of restraint and morality.
^Even so, you can't entirely ignore mechanical aspects. For instance, any Orc 9/9 caster(*) is on the verge of being mechanically inviable and any Orc 6/9 caster is hurting pretty badly as well (although I would add that Orcs are at least somewhat hosed for anything that isn't purely physical -- their inherent point buy is lower, with penalties in ALL mental stats . . . which seems especially perverse given that Keen Scent, which is one of their racial feats, requires Wisdom 13).
(*)Other than Scarred Witch Doctor; this used to have awesome potential for some unusual concepts, but the Errata that said that you can't have a Witch that can't spell made it just passable, while making otherwise conventional Half-Orc Witches really overpowered.
Of course I'm not saying you can ignore them or even that you should. I'm just saying that alternative racial traits help customizing the races more to your needs, but the concepts are still limited by the race, and I don't think that is necessarily such a bad thing.
I can understand people not wanting to stereotype a race and artificially limit their character, but often this leads to people ignoring their race. Part of the problem is that I think Paizo actually did a really great job when it came to humans. Previous edition going all the way back to D&D always assumed that humans were the baseline and did not have any real racial abilities. In AD&D humans got absolutely nothing expect they could play any class and had no level limits. Other classes were limited in what classes they could play and how high of a level they could achieve.On the other hand, this was a really big deal, so unless you were going to play a Thief (what AD&D called Rogues back then) or you knew that the campaign wasn't going to get past the low levels, you really needed to be a Human.
Other races do not have the same adaptability as humans. For the most part every member any other race except human has the exact same abilities. Those that do have different are either changing cultural traits or playing a sub race. Every elf has the same ability adjustments, they also the same vision and bonus to perception. Two elves from different planets will have similar physical abilities despite not being related.
{. . .}Things changed with recent supplements -- apart from the Half-Human races also being able to put their +2 anywhere they want, all the Core Races and several other races get to trade out various racial traits, including ones that influence vision and perception more generally.
I understand that with the newer books you can swap out racial traits, but I covered that in my post. Usually when you are trading out a physical trait it is because you are playing a subrace, or have a mixed heritage. That should also be factored into how you role play your character. But even so the fact remains that humans are a lot more adaptable than other races. Half elves for example get an extra feat but is it skill focus not the ability to choose any feat. There are of course exceptions to the rule especially for partially human races. But your race should still influence your character.
I also specify stated that if you don’t want to roleplay an aspect of the characters race it should be traded out. The alternative racial traits are the mechanism that allows this to be done. My whole point is that if your character has the ability on his character sheet it is part of the character and should be factored into how you roleplay the character.
I aggree. If you have a trait you should roleplay it. But the way you do it shouldn't necessarily be the same. Take the usually misunderstood trait of hatred from dwarves. Maybe your character has been taught by his society to mistrust goblins and orcs, but whether if you roleplay it by attacking them at first sight or just by being specially wary about them but being a bit more openminded if you meet one that seems to be different. Taking different approximations to the same treat helps to develope different characters of the same race that aren't all clones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Roleplaying a race? That would be exhausting. It's much easier to roleplay individuals.
I usually try and figure out how my characters grew up. Was it among their race exclusively? Was in in a cosmopolitan city? Were they an only child? Were they an orphan? What things happened to them?
Culture affects a person. In some ways they conform and in other ways they reject it. Adventurers tend to be outcasts and rebels.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Culture affects a person. In some ways they conform and in other ways they reject it. Adventurers tend to be outcasts and rebels.
Interestingly, in my head cannon the reason why half races are rare as individuals but are common as adventuers is because they, in many cases can't help but being outcasts to some degree. So while they make up 1% of the population, 50% of all half breeds are adventuers.
Race is an influence, as is culture, as are notable events in one's life. To roleplay a race means to simply play the racial traits which are behavioral.
Dwarves as a race have bigotry and greed built into them. It's part of their mechanics.
Gnomes have bigotry and an obsession with a craft/profession built into them.
Orcs are ferocious and socially aggressive (Intimidating, Orc Ferocity).
Halflings are fearless.
So to RP your race, simply include these traits in your RP. My Lawful Good Dwarf is all too eager to use violence against Orcs and Goblins, and will always find them repulsive and vile. He'll always be greedy. But it's obvious that these are only small components of a personality.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the problem/benefit with playing non core races (such as Catfolk) is that there is often little concrete information on their culture or how they behave. Granted this can also be a benefit, instead of having to stick to stereotypes (such as Dwarfs/Elfs) a non common race can give a creative person the opportunity to come up with some very interesting character role play ideas. Who can tell you how to play a Catfolk when there are not any cannon examples of Catfolk to reference?
Indeed, the freedom to have your character display whatever sort of behavior you want, and justify it as a racial or cultural thing, because the setting hasn't really gone into the race deeply yet, is a wonderful thing.
But even the 'common' races, like elves and dwarves, often have uncommon groups among them, like the Pahmet dwarves, or the elves who live in the Mwangi Expanse, Mordant Spire or Crown of the World regions, so you can once again have a very non-'traditional' elf or dwarf from one of these outlier cultures.
For the exotic (and less pigeonholed, canonically) races, like catfolk, it's great that you can also explain that 'my tribe/clan/pack is different' and that your own catfolk's quirks, such as mating for life or a funky honor code or animist beliefs that regard elemental creatures as fragments of the divine, might be normal for *your character,* but have no bearing on whatever sort of catfolk culture the game setting introduces later, with more 'catty' hedonistic free-loving traits.
And, while it's just going in a contrary direction and *still* allowing the setting's stereotypes to define your character, it's sometimes fun to play a stereotyped race in an opposing manner, such as a dwarven Sarenite who eschews materialism and dresses plainly, keeps an open mind about races that other dwarves regard as enemies (such as willingly associating with half-orcs) and shaves his face, believing that dwarven pride, greed and race-hatred are some of the things holding his people back.
Elven samurai, or otherwise hierarchal militaristic elves (such as those from Spelljammer), are also a popular subversion of the tree-hugging free-wheeling fey elves seen more commonly.
Elven samurai, or otherwise hierarchal militaristic elves (such as those from Spelljammer), are also a popular subversion of the tree-hugging free-wheeling fey elves seen more commonly.
On Golarion, the elves of Jinin adopted the way of the Samurai.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is so insightful.
Personally I find that it's good to take things like race and culture into account when building a character, but also allow your character to grow past those aspects to an extent. So yes, this Aasimar's wealth of personality and deep empathy for others will have affected her life, but she is not perhaps defined by those concepts; perhaps she becomes an adventurous explorer, relying on her social acumen and natural wisdom to get her out of scrapes, or a scholar who may never be as knowledgeable as her Elven colleagues but is the best teacher they have. Let a character's race inform their personality, but do not let it define them... unless that creates an interesting character in its own right.
Just my opinion though.
Fun fact, I really, really dislike the stat array they gave the orcs for that specific reason.
I'm really not a particular fan of the way Paizo went with orcs at all. I get that they wanted to avoid ripping of one of Blizzard's few good, original ideas, but if you want to use hearkening back to Tolkien as an excuse for making them dumb, one dimensional villains, remember that Tolkien's orcs represented the evils of the industrial revolution, were among the better craftsmen in his setting, and were meant to represent the danger of man's cunning and inventiveness when deprived of restraint and morality.
Tolkien also had Orcs be corrupted Elves.
I would credit Blizzard with having more than just a few good, original ideas . . . .
Orcs are kind of low on Race Points anyway even according to the broken Race Builder of the Advanced Race Guide, so it wouldn't hurt to just get rid of your choice of any one of the mental stat penalties. Also give them a wider range of alternate racial traits.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What should be roleplayed is the trait not the title of the trait. For example the dwarf trait hatred gives you +1 to hit vs orcs and goblins. This is due to the training that dwarves are given not necessarily actual hatred. While most dwarves probably do hat orcs and goblins this is not true for all of them. But someone with the trait has received extra training on fighting them so will usually be a least a little suspicious of them. If you want to completely ignore it then trade it out for something else.
The same is true with other traits. The trait greed does not necessarily mean you are actually greedy. For one thing it only applies to nonmagical goods that contain precious metal or gemstones. It simply grants them a +2 on appraise checks to determine the value of the goods. What this implies to me is that dwarves value these types of goods above others. So a dwarf given the choice between a wood carving and a gold ring is going to go for the gold ring. The wood carving may actually be more valuable but to the dwarf the ring is ring is better.
I think that looking over your racial traits and figuring out why you have them makes for a lot better roleplaying than just ignoring them and only using them when the relevant situation come ups. Each player may have a different interpretation for any particular racial trait and this is fine. I may play my dwarf’s greed as valuing precious metal and gems, where someone else may interpret it as actual greed. Both are valid ways to roleplay.
Not just that both are valid. They add diversity too as you are coming to different approaches to the same thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whilst talking about stereotypes I think there is a risk that racial anomalies can become clichéd. Humans raised by dwarves or elves seems to be overdone, as does the ubiquitous good aligned drow. The danger is that these become just as one dimensional as the stereotypes they're breaking. Instead of getting under the skin of the race, you actually park all that to one side and don't engage with anything.
I'm not saying these concepts can't work. Just that they aren't inherently better. Tension is good for storytelling, but I like variety I also like to see character backgrounds reflect their racial choices. There is a lot of material there for people to work with and not every adventurer needs to be an iconoclast.
I am making a new character and looking at the Advanced Race Guide. I realized that I don't really roleplay my character's race very much.
My dwarves feel like humans who took potion of Darkvision with a chaser of Slow Person (and a few other buffs/nerfs). Their personalities are set mostly by class and the background I wrote up.
"I am dwarf, I am gruff!"
"I am a halfling/gnome, I am short!"
"I am a half-orc, I am ugly"
"I am an elf, I am like a human but prettier"In some campaigns, playing a Core race can affect the plot if you run across a group of elves/gnomes/etc. But this seems exceedingly unlikely with the Advanced Races. Playing a catfolk seems like it would mostly cause a few tavern owners to say "you look a little strange" as they hand you your beverage.
How do you use your race to influence your role-playing?
Alternately, as a GM, what do you do differently if a player is an uncommon race?
For me, there are two main points I try to cover....
1) I'm totally Pro-stereotypes. Normal Races in Pathfinder are MEANT to be stereotypes.
Dwarves? They get +2 Con and Wis and -2 Chr. They are meant to be tough and hard to like. They are meant to have bonuses against Giants. They are meant to have bonuses to noticing fine details in Stonework and a bonus to knowing value of gems and metals... They have a hatred of Orcs and Goblins and are familiar with the axes and picks that Dwarves are known for.
To some that may be a stereotype... but it's also the core mechanics. If your not interested in THAT type of dwarf, be sure to switch out the abilities you don't want to roleplay. There is flexibility there, but the core is pretty much designed as a stereotype.
My point is Roleplay your abilities. If you get bonuses against a monster, RP why you hate them and how you learned it. Your mechanics and skill choices are the core of who your character is.
2) This is my big one here... Act your Age!! ESPECIALLY the longer lived races. I LOOOOOVE those. I have a Dhampir right now who's starting age was around 120. He was around before Aroden died. He remember what happened and how it shook the world. This adventuring party he is in? This is not his first party. He has had mentors, friends, enemies, lovers, who he has lost years in the past. He didn't live in just one place... He started with 3 languages, so he was born in Ustalev, moved to Kyonin and then made his way to Osirion (all in the search of various research and learning to explain his stats), all before he started his adventure as a Pathfinder in Absalom.
This is RICH background RP fodder. Whenever something interesting comes up, it can remind you of a person or a place you visited before. You may have known another PCs grandfather... You may remember when this city was run differently... You can pull out all sorts of fun things that make THIS character feel completely different from the LAST character you played. Just remember your characters didn't start when you meet the current old man in the Tavern with your new friends... He's had a TON of experiences that led him and formed who he is.
I totally aggree with the advice of not overdoing the character's background. Making your character bizarre won't make it more interesting, only weird.
A simple concept with a well developed background that fits the story and the setting is best. A few special elements can work, but if you give your character too many differences you risk making your character odd just for the sake of being odd.
Still, I remark the difference between a regular member of a race and an stereotype. An stereotype is a cliched character without not too much to offer. When you are saying that stereotypes are not bad you are probably referring to typical members of a race, but those are not necessarily stereotypes.
Playing up the longer-lived races' longevity is a cool idea, but opens the can of worms of why they are still 1st level? What, were they playing World of WarCraft all this time, or just dense?
Best I can come up with is that everybody progresses to their level of incompetence, but sometimes people put in strange situations will have a logjam break, thus letting them rise to (eventually) a new level of incompetence . . . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Playing up the longer-lived races' longevity is a cool idea, but opens the can of worms of why they are still 1st level? What, were they playing World of WarCraft all this time, or just dense?
Best I can come up with is that everybody progresses to their level of incompetence, but sometimes people put in strange situations will have a logjam break, thus letting them rise to (eventually) a new level of incompetence . . . .
Much like many other things in a game... Don't get too hung up on the idea of 'levels'.
At level 1 your character is better then the average level 0 npcs who need saving from the goblins... or the occasional bandit.
When you're level 10, your character is still threatened by whatever the current threats are. The world always seems to grow with you. If you get attacked by pirates at level they're low CR, if you get attacked at higher level, they have more class levels and are higher level. On paper it isn't very believable, but the reality is that everything scales.
Another aspect to think about, is if you don't use it, you lose it. You can be a soldier for 10 years... and a civilian for 15 and if you weren't practicing every day... those skills degrade. I had plans to play an old retired texas ranger in a Ravenloft 1890's game that was going to be shocked at how 'slow' he'd gotten since he retired 20 years ago... That old phrase "I've forgotten more about fighting then you'll ever know..." I can't tell how frustrating it is to go back to college and have trouble with Math that just a decade ago I passed with flying colors... or mess up history dates and names that I absolutely knew before...
But regardless... don't forget how awesome level 1 characters actually are. Fighters proficient in every Martial weapon... all the armors... extra feat... Skill ranks in all those 'trained only' skills... Stuff that the average shopkeeper and librarian just don't have. Even at first level they are the ones that the local constable or bereaved father is asking for help from.
Still, I remark the difference between a regular member of a race and an stereotype. An stereotype is a cliched character without not too much to offer. When you are saying that stereotypes are not bad you are probably referring to typical members of a race, but those are not necessarily stereotypes.
There's a fine line between 'typical' and 'cliche'.
cliche = a very predictable or unoriginal thing or person
Typical = normal, average, stock, usual.
Sometimes people like to split hairs, but if you take a step back... there's not much difference. One person's typical is quite easily some else's cliche'. Usually relating in how often that person's seen it.
I know. I am only saying that the word stereotype that has a negative connotation that I don't think it necessarily depicts a typical member of a race. It can be a stereotype or not, depending on how well developed the character is aside of the most archetypal characteristics of a race.