TheRPGSite

Pen & Paper Roleplaying Central => Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion => Topic started by: RPGPundit on February 06, 2021, 03:50:58 PM

Title: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: RPGPundit on February 06, 2021, 03:50:58 PM
This about sums it up.

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ABn5dkIzZCc/YB8A3GZDNzI/AAAAAAAAGzo/hzLsFqRjOuAgDVEYCnw4-rs6M22YtSWogCLcBGAsYHQ/s800/modernity.png)
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Pat on February 06, 2021, 03:59:37 PM
I wouldn't have picked Raistlin as the opposite of a self-involved narcissist.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 06, 2021, 06:13:56 PM
Considering most of important mythological heroes are half-gods - I take doubt.jpg here.
Adventurers of early D&D strikes me more like a Conan - and Conan is fundamentally anti-mythological libertarian hero.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: BoxCrayonTales on February 06, 2021, 06:25:40 PM
Considering most of important mythological heroes are half-gods - I take doubt.jpg here.
Adventurers of early D&D strikes me more like a Conan - and Conan is fundamentally anti-mythological libertarian hero.
I don’t recall Hercules being covered in three tonnes of seizure-inducing CGI.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Armchair Gamer on February 06, 2021, 07:37:38 PM
I wouldn't have picked Raistlin as the opposite of a self-involved narcissist.

   Picking Dragonlance for the 'Embrace Tradition' side of the meme is replete with ironies.

   1. A good chunk of the OSR points to Dragonlance as where things went wrong with D&D, as I understand it;
   2. Dragonlance as it evolved in the Weis & Hickman novels is very much amenable to the progressive mood and tone.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: jhkim on February 06, 2021, 08:01:28 PM
Yeah, I think Raistlin is a good example of a self-involved narcissist. More generally, being a self-involved narcissist isn't incompatible with myth. Heck, Narcissus himself is a myth.

Then again, I'm not clear how different Raistlin is from early D&D characters like Mordenkainen, Bigby, and so forth. They didn't have novels written about them, but the descriptions of them often sound pretty snowflake-y to me. Take this description of how Mordenkainen and Bigby developed:

Quote
Bigby was created by Rob Kuntz as a low-level non-player character evil wizard in the early dungeons of Greyhawk in 1973. Gary Gygax's character, the wizard Mordenkainen, encountered Bigby. The two wizards engaged in combat; Mordenkainen managed to subdue Bigby using a charm spell, and forced Bigby to become his servant. Kuntz ruled that Bigby would be Mordenkainen's servant as long as he remained under the charm spell, but until Gygax, through roleplaying, had won Bigby's loyalty, the evil wizard would remain a non-player character under Kuntz's control. After a long time and several adventures, Mordenkainen managed to convince Bigby to leave his evil ways behind, and Kuntz ruled that it was safe to remove the charm spell, since Bigby had changed from an enemy to a loyal henchman; therefore Gygax could use Bigby as a player character. For a time after this, Kuntz ruled that all the names of Mordenkainen's future henchmen had to rhyme with Bigby. This resulted in Zigby the dwarf; Rigby the cleric; Sigby Griggbyson the fighter; Bigby's apprentice, Nigby; and Digby, who eventually replaced Bigby as Mordenkainen's new apprentice.

Thereafter, Gygax developed Bigby into a powerful wizard second only to Mordenkainen, and eventually Bigby became one of the original members of Gygax's Circle of Eight, a group of adventurers made up of eight of Gygax's own characters.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greyhawk_characters#B

I know if I had a PC of mine be the most powerful wizard in the world, people would think I was being self-involved.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: BoxCrayonTales on February 06, 2021, 08:19:02 PM
How many D&D settings have major NPCs who were the designers’ PCs?
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: EOTB on February 06, 2021, 08:49:00 PM
I’m not following the narcissist angle with Bigby et al either...why wouldn’t the characters created to play test the game (including high level play) have...high levels?
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Abraxus on February 06, 2021, 09:29:57 PM
Looks like Pundit is drinking the piss again.

All I am seeing is two different takes on gaming neither is wrong nor right. Different tastes and all that.

I guess it's slow week and Pundit needs to stir up some more controversy.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: RPGPundit on February 07, 2021, 12:58:52 AM
I wouldn't have picked Raistlin as the opposite of a self-involved narcissist.

The difference is that in Dragonlance he's 'corrupt', you could say 'evil' for that.

On the other hand in postmodern sjw stories, being a self-involved narcissist is considered sound. In some cases, stunning and brave.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on February 07, 2021, 02:16:56 AM
A thread about self-involved narcissists? Excellent! I can talk about myself! Count me in!
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on February 07, 2021, 05:02:35 AM
How many D&D settings have major NPCs who were the designers’ PCs?

All of them.

Otherwise whats the point?
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 07, 2021, 05:17:51 AM
Quote
I don’t recall Hercules being covered in three tonnes of seizure-inducing CGI.

Sure Hercules was basically big buff dude, but I'm not talking about how inhuman being looks. There are many mythological beings that looks quite weirdly - consider all asian demigods for instance.

Quote
I’m not following the narcissist angle with Bigby et al either...why wouldn’t the characters created to play test the game (including high level play) have...high levels?

And then were kept as important and iconic part of game?

Quote
All of them.

Otherwise whats the point?

Well you can you know simply design major NPCs to suit setting, and test game on some noname PCs

Quote
The difference is that in Dragonlance he's 'corrupt', you could say 'evil' for that.

On the other hand in postmodern sjw stories, being a self-involved narcissist is considered sound. In some cases, stunning and brave.

But just because players are self-involved narcissists does not means their PCs will be.
TBH considering Critical Role are made in large part of relatively young conventionally attractive celebrities, I'm not really sure that's the point.
If anything it's cattering to weeb-tiefling-tumblr crowd with colourful PCs, more than... compensating. Advertisement method.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Reckall on February 07, 2021, 07:05:22 AM
   1. A good chunk of the OSR points to Dragonlance as where things went wrong with D&D, as I understand it;
How comes? I ran the Dragonlance campaign twice in the 1980s with two different groups of players, and I wrote the "Legends" campaign by myself for one of them. We had a blast every time.

As a long time D&D player, I saw things go wrong starting with 2E. They started to create rules, exceptions, special rules, rules tied to supplements... This may sound hypocritical coming from someone who owns basically everything 3.5E related. Admittedly, 3.5E had more crunch. However, once you grasped 3.5E's fundamentals everything else was readily adaptable to your campaign. More crucially, 2E fluff was anemic. I still consider the 3/3.5E's era fluff as the best D&D ever put out and the source of unnumbered ideas for my games. 2E fluff was the pinnacle of meh.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Godfather Punk on February 07, 2021, 07:46:20 AM
I remember some reader letters in White Dwarf in the 80's, where someone complained about using pregens and following a fixed campaign path.
And Kender.
Otherwise I've got nothing either.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Chris24601 on February 07, 2021, 08:19:55 AM
I remember some reader letters in White Dwarf in the 80's, where someone complained about using pregens and following a fixed campaign path.
Yup, Narrative railroads go all the way back to 1e.

The DL1 module was the first module for D&D my parents ever bought me (at the long defunct Children’s Palace toy store if I recall correctly). I got the rest of the line almost as quickly as they came out.

The Dragonlance modules and the cartoon are probably the main reasons I’ve always preferred Big Damn Heroes style play (even before it was called that). My default idea of the start of campaign isn’t AD&D 1st level... it’s the pregens from DL1 (who ranged from levels 3-6 if I recall).
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Ratman_tf on February 07, 2021, 03:30:14 PM
   1. A good chunk of the OSR points to Dragonlance as where things went wrong with D&D, as I understand it;
How comes? I ran the Dragonlance campaign twice in the 1980s with two different groups of players, and I wrote the "Legends" campaign by myself for one of them. We had a blast every time.

Thankfully, someone has already done all the typing.

http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/04/how-dragonlance-ruined-everything.html

Personally, I am meh about Dragonlance. I know it has a lot of fans, but I'm not one of them. Neither do I think it ruined D&D. I think the direction Dragonlance took the game was going to happen anyway. Kinda like blaming the messenger instead of the message.

My beef with Dragonlance, is that the tail wagged the dog. Dragonlance was all about the pregenerated characters and the predetermined story. You could replace the pregens with different, player generated characters, and open up the story so that the character's actions had more impact, but the modules really didn't support that.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: TJS on February 07, 2021, 03:38:45 PM
   1. A good chunk of the OSR points to Dragonlance as where things went wrong with D&D, as I understand it;
How comes? I ran the Dragonlance campaign twice in the 1980s with two different groups of players, and I wrote the "Legends" campaign by myself for one of them. We had a blast every time.
How Dragonlance ruined everything.
http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/04/how-dragonlance-ruined-everything.html (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/04/how-dragonlance-ruined-everything.html)
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 07, 2021, 05:05:23 PM
Quote
More crucially, 2E fluff was anemic. I still consider the 3/3.5E's era fluff as the best D&D ever put out and the source of unnumbered ideas for my games. 2E fluff was the pinnacle of meh.

In terms of fluff I have to say both were equally guilty of oversaturating settings with high level NPC.

Quote
My beef with Dragonlance, is that the tail wagged the dog. Dragonlance was all about the pregenerated characters and the predetermined story. You could replace the pregens with different, player generated characters, and open up the story so that the character's actions had more impact, but the modules really didn't support that.

Yeah, while most D&D settings are oversaturated sinkholes without much theme, Dragonlance was always like world for series of novels, where RPG material was totally secondary and scope was limited to beef between two kinda meh pantheons.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Ratman_tf on February 07, 2021, 06:33:47 PM
Quote
More crucially, 2E fluff was anemic. I still consider the 3/3.5E's era fluff as the best D&D ever put out and the source of unnumbered ideas for my games. 2E fluff was the pinnacle of meh.

In terms of fluff I have to say both were equally guilty of oversaturating settings with high level NPC.

Quote
My beef with Dragonlance, is that the tail wagged the dog. Dragonlance was all about the pregenerated characters and the predetermined story. You could replace the pregens with different, player generated characters, and open up the story so that the character's actions had more impact, but the modules really didn't support that.

Yeah, while most D&D settings are oversaturated sinkholes without much theme, Dragonlance was always like world for series of novels, where RPG material was totally secondary and scope was limited to beef between two kinda meh pantheons.

I think the whole thing was really meh. Raistlin was the only really interesting character, and they drove him into the ground, like any standout, fan favorite character.
The rest is a mush of fantasy D&D tropes and really tame, vanilla writing.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Pat on February 07, 2021, 06:43:19 PM
I think the whole thing was really meh. Raistlin was the only really interesting character, and they drove him into the ground, like any standout, fan favorite character.
The rest is a mush of fantasy D&D tropes and really tame, vanilla writing.
Tanis had a beard. A (half-)elf wuth a beard. That was original and deep characterization!
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Omega on February 07, 2021, 06:53:40 PM
Of course Pundit ignores the little fact that even before publication the D&D players were playing everything from a Balrog to a Vampire and all sort of other critters that various "purity" snobs conveniently ignore. The game allowed you to do about anything as long as the DM was on board for it.

Players playing weird races today? Thats so 70s.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Aglondir on February 07, 2021, 08:11:14 PM
Of course Pundit ignores the little fact that even before publication the D&D players were playing everything from a Balrog to a Vampire and all sort of other critters that various "purity" snobs conveniently ignore. The game allowed you to do about anything as long as the DM was on board for it.

Players playing weird races today? Thats so 70s.

It's past time that we call bullshit on this. Was there a game in the 70s Lake Geneva where someone played a balrog once? Sure, ok. And yes, someone back then played Lord Fang and Gygax loved it so much he tried to kill the character, or invented turning undead, or something.

But to claim that this was representative of anything is nonsense. No one played PC monsters in any of the groups I was in. You choose a race from the option in the PHB, and if you tried any of that garbage no one would game with you.

YMMV, I guess?
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Eirikrautha on February 07, 2021, 09:09:17 PM
Of course Pundit ignores the little fact that even before publication the D&D players were playing everything from a Balrog to a Vampire and all sort of other critters that various "purity" snobs conveniently ignore. The game allowed you to do about anything as long as the DM was on board for it.

Players playing weird races today? Thats so 70s.

It's past time that we call bullshit on this. Was there a game in the 70s Lake Geneva where someone played a balrog once? Sure, ok. And yes, someone back then played Lord Fang and Gygax loved it so much he tried to kill the character, or invented turning undead, or something.

But to claim that this was representative of anything is nonsense. No one played PC monsters in any of the groups I was in. You choose a race from the option in the PHB, and if you tried any of that garbage no one would game with you.

YMMV, I guess?
Truth. If I had asked any group I played with to play a Balrog, I'd have been laughed out of the room.  That's not to say we didn't pull some real shady stuff with high level spells and their vague descriptions (Magic Jar, you magnificent bastard!), but that was at very high levels, where everything was gonzo...
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Ratman_tf on February 07, 2021, 09:22:15 PM
Of course Pundit ignores the little fact that even before publication the D&D players were playing everything from a Balrog to a Vampire and all sort of other critters that various "purity" snobs conveniently ignore. The game allowed you to do about anything as long as the DM was on board for it.

Players playing weird races today? Thats so 70s.

It's past time that we call bullshit on this. Was there a game in the 70s Lake Geneva where someone played a balrog once? Sure, ok. And yes, someone back then played Lord Fang and Gygax loved it so much he tried to kill the character, or invented turning undead, or something.

But to claim that this was representative of anything is nonsense. No one played PC monsters in any of the groups I was in. You choose a race from the option in the PHB, and if you tried any of that garbage no one would game with you.

YMMV, I guess?

YMMV indeed. I've mentioned it before. We played with the conversion rules and put Gamma World, Boot Hill, Marvel Superheroes in our AD&D games. It was nuts and gonzo and really fun for the stage we were at with our gaming.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Aglondir on February 08, 2021, 12:45:40 AM
YMMV indeed. I've mentioned it before. We played with the conversion rules and put Gamma World, Boot Hill, Marvel Superheroes in our AD&D games. It was nuts and gonzo and really fun for the stage we were at with our gaming.

Our D&D parties looked basically looked like LOTR, with the occasional gnome and half-orc. Someone wanted to play a Lizard Man once, and the DM said "No, that's a monster, people will you." We all agreed on that call. Another time a player wanted to play an elf with wings and it was a "No, that's ridiculous."

We were running the classic modules: Against the Giants, Demonweb Pits, Temple of Elemental Evil, etc. Also some homebrew campaigns that were mashups of the fantasy novels of the time: Tolkien, Thomas Covenant, Belgariad, Earthsea, etc. Nothing gonzo.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2021, 01:38:42 AM
YMMV indeed. I've mentioned it before. We played with the conversion rules and put Gamma World, Boot Hill, Marvel Superheroes in our AD&D games. It was nuts and gonzo and really fun for the stage we were at with our gaming.

Our D&D parties looked basically looked like LOTR, with the occasional gnome and half-orc. Someone wanted to play a Lizard Man once, and the DM said "No, that's a monster, people will you." We all agreed on that call. Another time a player wanted to play an elf with wings and it was a "No, that's ridiculous."

We were running the classic modules: Against the Giants, Demonweb Pits, Temple of Elemental Evil, etc. Also some homebrew campaigns that were mashups of the fantasy novels of the time: Tolkien, Thomas Covenant, Belgariad, Earthsea, etc. Nothing gonzo.

Well, I don't agree that an elf with wings is ridiculous or playing a lizard man is so far off the beam for a game about wizards and dragons.
My concern nowadays is, does the character fit the world? Does it break the tone of the setting? That kind of stuff.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Pat on February 08, 2021, 01:48:02 AM
Well, I don't agree that an elf with wings is ridiculous or playing a lizard man is so far off the beam for a game about wizards and dragons.
Gulth appreciates your tolerance.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Spinachcat on February 08, 2021, 04:11:54 AM
I am mixed on the "group of weirdos" trope in gaming groups.

In the 80s, we had RuneQuest where you could be a duck or a troll, Palladium Fantasy 1e where you could be a Wolfman, Orc, or Giant, and Tunnels & Trolls had a supplement all about monsters as PCs. I'd argue that PF1e's success was heavily based on that you had many more PC choices than AD&D.

However, the "humans are boring" issue usually happens due to humans being sub-optimal as a race choice in that edition.

Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 08, 2021, 07:14:09 AM
Quote
It's past time that we call bullshit on this. Was there a game in the 70s Lake Geneva where someone played a balrog once? Sure, ok. And yes, someone back then played Lord Fang and Gygax loved it so much he tried to kill the character, or invented turning undead, or something.

But to claim that this was representative of anything is nonsense. No one played PC monsters in any of the groups I was in. You choose a race from the option in the PHB, and if you tried any of that garbage no one would game with you.

Ah yes glorious anecdotal arguments against MORE anecdotal arguments!

Quote
Truth. If I had asked any group I played with to play a Balrog, I'd have been laughed out of the room.  That's not to say we didn't pull some real shady stuff with high level spells and their vague descriptions (Magic Jar, you magnificent bastard!), but that was at very high levels, where everything was gonzo...

Was there even a balrog in D&D?


Quote
Well, I don't agree that an elf with wings is ridiculous or playing a lizard man is so far off the beam for a game about wizards and dragons.
My concern nowadays is, does the character fit the world? Does it break the tone of the setting? That kind of stuff.

THIS.

Quote
I am mixed on the "group of weirdos" trope in gaming groups.

TBH bunch of weirdoes was my default D&D but I joined D&D in 3,5 era, in university group made mostly of biology students, and let's say jokes about dead fetus dressed as clown in microwave are considered tame in this society. So my first campaign - which died out because there was just too many people - was Far Realms based Lovecraftian nightmare and PC's were weretigers, illithids, drows, three-krins, sentient constructs, tieflings, warlocks, fallen aasimars and so on. Also it was mostly solving puzzles made by DM and PVP mode ;)
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Chris24601 on February 08, 2021, 08:20:38 AM
Since I left D&D early for Palladium (by way of Robotech; where 50’ giants were playable) and moved on to Rifts c. 30 years ago (where DRAGONS and later godlings and cosmoknights were playable alongside human vagabonds), my concept of acceptable for a PC is “will it add something to our campaign?”

I’ve also developed the opinion over the years that, unless you’re actually running your campaign in Middle Earth, then using only the LotR races is depressingly derivative and uninspired. It’s kinda like the Millennials who can’t reference a damn bit of literature outside of Harry Potter and/or Twilight so base all their own writings on basically HP/Twilight knock-offs.

I’d take 4E’s default setting where Humans, Dragonborn and Tieflings (descendants of a human empire who made a deal with the devils because they were losing a war to the Dragonborn empire that resulted in both empires being destroyed and becoming refugees in the human lands) are the dominant species in terms of setting history than any of the hundreds of elf/dwarf/human triads (invariably with ancient elf/dwarf animosity and humans as the young race on the rise).

Basically, I’ll give a lot more of a pass to a setting that isn’t just another Tolkien rip-off and definitely respect ones that have decided to be human only so that the focus can be on the different human cultures in the setting.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Ghostmaker on February 08, 2021, 08:30:01 AM
I hope Maliszewski's gotten over his fart-sniffing addiction, because that rant about Dragonlance was about as convincing as Paris Hilton insisting 'I'm a real gamer too!'.

He complains about how 'story' became more important and how 'modules' were deemphasized. Well, excuse me, I'm so terribly sorry I expressed interest in having a game with more plot depth than a parking lot puddle.

If he had complained about the actual plot arcs in DL (especially War of the Lance), then sure, I can admit the worldbuilding and plotline could use some tightening up. But crying about 'how dare people want more than just dice rolls and stats' is just plain stupid.

And my favorite character was Flint. Fight me.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Eirikrautha on February 08, 2021, 09:24:43 AM
Was there even a balrog in D&D?

... but I joined D&D in 3,5 era...

Oh, look, another Millennial that doesn't know what they are talking about, but expects their opinion to matter.

Our "anecdotal" evidence happens to be based on our experience from when the game was much smaller, and the internet didn't exist.  So there is no other kind of evidence available, with the exception of what showed up in fan magazines, Dragon, and in the rulebooks themselves (Gary had a bit to say about playstyles in the 1e DMG).  I played with people that gamed up-and-down the East Coast.  Can I say what every group in the US was doing?  Nope.  But I can tell you what the consensus of the people I knew was.  Which is a hell of a lot more than you know about it.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Eirikrautha on February 08, 2021, 09:31:37 AM
I am mixed on the "group of weirdos" trope in gaming groups.

In the 80s, we had RuneQuest where you could be a duck or a troll, Palladium Fantasy 1e where you could be a Wolfman, Orc, or Giant, and Tunnels & Trolls had a supplement all about monsters as PCs. I'd argue that PF1e's success was heavily based on that you had many more PC choices than AD&D.

However, the "humans are boring" issue usually happens due to humans being sub-optimal as a race choice in that edition.
Well, see, that's the thing.  My groups played all kinds of weird characters, too... in other games.  When TMNT came out in '85 (looking up at my 1st printing book on the bookshelf above my computer right now), we played all kinds of gonzo craziness.  But that never bled over to D&D.  When we went looking for off-the-wall characters, we played them in different games.  So I don't think the fact that other games had weird archetypes does anything for the argument that D&D was played with a similar weirdness.  When we wanted weird, we switched games.  Not everyone might have, but I can only speak to what I observed...
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Pat on February 08, 2021, 10:08:35 AM
Was there even a balrog in D&D?
Yes.
Quote from: OD&D wood-grained box, Men & Magic
There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Balrog would have to begin as let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee.
Later printings replaced balrog with dragon in the above sentence, as they purged all explicit Tolkien references from OD&D. Similarly, the balrog monster got changed into the type VI demon. I believe Mike Mornard (Gronan) has said he played a balrog in Greyhawk. There's also a similar quote about balrog characters in at least one early printing of the Holmes' blue box Basic Set.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Zalman on February 08, 2021, 10:09:57 AM
It's past time that we call bullshit on this. Was there a game in the 70s Lake Geneva where someone played a balrog once? Sure, ok. And yes, someone back then played Lord Fang and Gygax loved it so much he tried to kill the character, or invented turning undead, or something.

But to claim that this was representative of anything is nonsense. No one played PC monsters in any of the groups I was in. You choose a race from the option in the PHB, and if you tried any of that garbage no one would game with you.

YMMV, I guess?
Yeah, my mileage didn't vary. Even half-orcs were met with nothing but utter disdain at every single table I played at prior to at least 1990. Between '77 and '90, I estimate the myriad D&D groups I played in consisted of 80% human characters, 10% halflings, 7% elves, and 3% dwarves.

It doesn't surprise me too much that folks who started playing D&D post -1990 have a different perception. But just because people played 1st and 2nd editions of D&D a certain way post-1990 , doesn't mean that any significant sector played D&D like that prior to 1990.

(At what point does mounting "anecdotal" evidence become statistical?)
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Abraxus on February 08, 2021, 10:16:19 AM
When it cam to D&D we pretty much stuck with core though removed the level restrictions for Demi-Humans. The whole "if we don't screw over Demi-Humans no one will bother taking humans". How about not making humans boring beyond no level limits they really are and were in older editions. We ended up giving humans an extra weapon and non-weapon to compensate for it if I remember correctly. If the levels were enforced then we played human and only human because why limit the character if race XYZ only allows level 5 Cleric.

In any case I don't see an issue with playing with other races beyond the core as long as it's not too game breaking say a Balrog. Otherwise it's not my damn business or anyone else to tell other gamers they are doing it wrong or how and what to play at their tables. I also don't care how long a person has been in the hobby as it it gives no one in any way shape or form how people should be having fun in the hobby. Absolutely non-negotiable or up for any form of debate. Before some tries to call me some kind of millennial or other similar bullshit I started playing mid to late 1980s. Neither side young or old should be telling each other they are doing it wrong.

As long as one is having fun and everyone else is let others enjoy the hobby. Pundit keeps getting worse and worse and seems to be as bad as the SJws he claims to despise as he keeps seeming enemies and something to be offended at in every and any area of the hobby. 
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: RandyB on February 08, 2021, 10:19:36 AM
It's all in the difference between "gonzo" and "snowflake". BITD, it was gonzo. These days, it's snowflakes, with the emphasis on "flakes".
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Abraxus on February 08, 2021, 10:29:22 AM
Wanting to play non-core is not being a snowflake most of the time it's wanting to play something different.

If a DM has set the rules on what races are allowed and a player insists on wanting to play something different than accuses the DM and/or the rest of the group as being gatekeepers and restricting his "creative freedom" then I would say a snowflake. Wanting to play something different does not automatically make one a snwoflake. If I am in the mood for vegetarian pizza once in awhile and everyone else meat lovers I'm a snowflake give me a fucking a break.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Eirikrautha on February 08, 2021, 10:40:54 AM
When it cam to D&D we pretty much stuck with core though removed the level restrictions for Demi-Humans. The whole "if we don't screw over Demi-Humans no one will bother taking humans". How about not making humans boring beyond no level limits they really are and were in older editions. We ended up giving humans an extra weapon and non-weapon to compensate for it if I remember correctly. If the levels were enforced then we played human and only human because why limit the character if race XYZ only allows level 5 Cleric.

In any case I don't see an issue with playing with other races beyond the core as long as it's not too game breaking say a Balrog. Otherwise it's not my damn business or anyone else to tell other gamers they are doing it wrong or how and what to play at their tables. I also don't care how long a person has been in the hobby as it it gives no one in any way shape or form how people should be having fun in the hobby. Absolutely non-negotiable or up for any form of debate. Before some tries to call me some kind of millennial or other similar bullshit I started playing mid to late 1980s. Neither side young or old should be telling each other they are doing it wrong.

As long as one is having fun and everyone else is let others enjoy the hobby. Pundit keeps getting worse and worse and seems to be as bad as the SJws he claims to despise as he keeps seeming enemies and something to be offended at in every and any area of the hobby.
Show one quote from this thread where anyone (other than maybe Woodpecker) is telling anyone that they are playing "wrong."  Just one.

So get off your high horse.  We are telling those who weren't there how we played.  As opposed to how people seem to think we played.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Steven Mitchell on February 08, 2021, 10:48:14 AM
I am mixed on the "group of weirdos" trope in gaming groups.

In the 80s, we had RuneQuest where you could be a duck or a troll, Palladium Fantasy 1e where you could be a Wolfman, Orc, or Giant, and Tunnels & Trolls had a supplement all about monsters as PCs. I'd argue that PF1e's success was heavily based on that you had many more PC choices than AD&D.

However, the "humans are boring" issue usually happens due to humans being sub-optimal as a race choice in that edition.

"Group of weirdos" is different when its your group of weirdos.  No really, not in an hypocritical way but in actual play at the table.  Some weirdos fit and some don't.  I had one case where we were definitely playing a group of weirdos--with the lone human stranger than most.  A new player suggested some character ideas and the group collectively said "No!" on one of them before I could even chime in. In isolation it wasn't "too weird" for that group by some external measurement of strange , but it was a bad fit.

Ducks in RQ are a good example of that.  Are you playing a RQ campaign that doesn't ban ducks?  OK, then here is an acceptable way for you to play a weirdo.   Sometimes in D&D the weirdo is a paladin played straight.  Sometimes, that's too strange.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: BoxCrayonTales on February 08, 2021, 11:32:07 AM
If you want a real freakshow, then read the travelogues of Mandeville. They make D&D’s bazillion snowflake races look downright unremarkable.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Chris24601 on February 08, 2021, 12:14:50 PM
(At what point does mounting "anecdotal" evidence become statistical?)
When you conduct an actual study that doesn't involve a self-reporting sample population. Particularly a self-reporting sample population on a board that skews heavily OSR.

As the famous political quote goes “I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” - Pauline Kael, New Yorker film critic

If you asked my circles you would find almost no one who played in the manner you described... so my anecdotal compilation of dozens of players would be that playing just humans, elves, dwarves and halflings is a bizarre anomaly.

Half a dozen posters on an OSR-fan board doesn't prove anything other than half-a-dozen OSR fans who post here prefer the default OSR options.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 08, 2021, 12:59:06 PM
Quote
Basically, I’ll give a lot more of a pass to a setting that isn’t just another Tolkien rip-off and definitely respect ones that have decided to be human only so that the focus can be on the different human cultures in the setting.

I'd agree, but then I'm still waiting for a D&D variant where dwarves are based on Semitic civilisations like in Tolkien, not on Scottish Miners like in all RPGs around ;)
(That's why in my last effort to forge D&D setting I gave Dwarves Int bonus. ;)

Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Eirikrautha on February 08, 2021, 01:01:37 PM
(At what point does mounting "anecdotal" evidence become statistical?)
When you conduct an actual study that doesn't involve a self-reporting sample population. Particularly a self-reporting sample population on a board that skews heavily OSR.

As the famous political quote goes “I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” - Pauline Kael, New Yorker film critic

If you asked my circles you would find almost no one who played in the manner you described... so my anecdotal compilation of dozens of players would be that playing just humans, elves, dwarves and halflings is a bizarre anomaly.

Half a dozen posters on an OSR-fan board doesn't prove anything other than half-a-dozen OSR fans who post here prefer the default OSR options.
Totally incorrect.  Anecdotal evidence is perfectly fine to refute a categorical statement.  And that is how it was used above.  People keep asserting that D&D was frequently played with large numbers of exotic races, even from the beginning.  Many of us, some who had a pretty large circle of gaming friends and/or a frequent presence at conventions, never observed this.  So the categorical is called into question by the observations of those people.   
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2021, 01:02:53 PM
I hope Maliszewski's gotten over his fart-sniffing addiction, because that rant about Dragonlance was about as convincing as Paris Hilton insisting 'I'm a real gamer too!'.

He complains about how 'story' became more important and how 'modules' were deemphasized. Well, excuse me, I'm so terribly sorry I expressed interest in having a game with more plot depth than a parking lot puddle.

If he had complained about the actual plot arcs in DL (especially War of the Lance), then sure, I can admit the worldbuilding and plotline could use some tightening up. But crying about 'how dare people want more than just dice rolls and stats' is just plain stupid.

And my favorite character was Flint. Fight me.

Oh, get your panties out of your buttcrack. Even for a self-admitted hyperbolic rant, Mazilewski isn't shitting on plot in RPG. He's specifically criticizing Dragonlance's scripted plot.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Chris24601 on February 08, 2021, 01:53:06 PM
Totally incorrect.  Anecdotal evidence is perfectly fine to refute a categorical statement.  And that is how it was used above.  People keep asserting that D&D was frequently played with large numbers of exotic races, even from the beginning.  Many of us, some who had a pretty large circle of gaming friends and/or a frequent presence at conventions, never observed this.  So the categorical is called into question by the observations of those people.
I'd argue that you're not dealing with a categorical statement in this case because "frequently" isn't something you can apply as a category. By its very definition it isn't claiming ubiquity (a requirement for a categorical statement to be refutable by anecdote). Anecdotal evidence can neither prove nor disprove the claim of "frequently" only "all" or "none." Basically, you've no proof the circles you frequented were large enough to be a valid statistical sample vs. a self-selected group based on common interests.

Regardless, the question I answered was "when does Anecdotal becomes Statistical evidence?" to which the answer remains 'never' because statistics require representative samples and anecdotes are, but definition, self-reported (i.e. not representative; indeed almost invariably the most extreme edges of any given sample).

You may as well use the volume of Twitter comments about a subject as evidence (leading contributor to the "Get Woke, Go Broke" phenomena precisely because Twitter is the antithesis of a representative sample).
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Pat on February 08, 2021, 01:55:20 PM
(At what point does mounting "anecdotal" evidence become statistical?)
When you conduct an actual study that doesn't involve a self-reporting sample population. Particularly a self-reporting sample population on a board that skews heavily OSR.

As the famous political quote goes “I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” - Pauline Kael, New Yorker film critic

If you asked my circles you would find almost no one who played in the manner you described... so my anecdotal compilation of dozens of players would be that playing just humans, elves, dwarves and halflings is a bizarre anomaly.

Half a dozen posters on an OSR-fan board doesn't prove anything other than half-a-dozen OSR fans who post here prefer the default OSR options.
Totally incorrect.  Anecdotal evidence is perfectly fine to refute a categorical statement.  And that is how it was used above.  People keep asserting that D&D was frequently played with large numbers of exotic races, even from the beginning.  Many of us, some who had a pretty large circle of gaming friends and/or a frequent presence at conventions, never observed this.  So the categorical is called into question by the observations of those people.
A single counter example can refute a proof or law, but it's utterly useless to disprove a tendency.

More importantly, I think you're talking past each other. The group who are saying exotic races are fine seem to be either new school or very old (0e) old school. Whereas the group who are saying that the most exotic race anyone played was an elf seem to be the post-OD&D crowd. It's worth remembering there was a major shift in tone in between OD&D and AD&D. OD&D told DMs that balrog PCs were fine, while the AD&D DMG has that notorious rant against playing monsters. It shouldn't surprise anyone that there was a strong shift in how people played.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Aglondir on February 08, 2021, 02:07:54 PM
Well, I don't agree that an elf with wings is ridiculous or playing a lizard man is so far off the beam for a game about wizards and dragons. My concern nowadays is, does the character fit the world? Does it break the tone of the setting? That kind of stuff.
Actually I agree with that. Lizard Men and Cat People seem rather tame by today's offerings, but at the risk of sounding like Old Man Yelling at Clouds, this was not the case back in the 80's. My point was not that you should forbid wacky races, rather that parties back in the 80's did not consist of balrogs and vampires.

As for characters with wings, flight is a BIG advantage, and if you're going to go that route you'd be better off using a system like Gurps or Hero where you can cost out all of your superpowers. Gives the vanilla humans a break as well.

I loved how Tieflings and Dragonborn were handled in 4E, because it meant something. That didn't carry over to 5E. As you mention, if the GM presents a coherent and interesting campaign world, that's great. But the trend I see in 5E is anything but. The party ends up looking like a circus freak show with zero ramifications in the gameworld. I've played Tieflings that stroll into a merchant's shop in a small country village and no one bats an eye. It's like the guy who will die in the same village he was born in is not even phased that 6 freaky monster PCs that he's never seen before have just entered his shop. And when guys neighbor asks the same 6 freakshows to save the village from a band of raiding hobgoblins, it really makes you wonder WTF is happening in that world. Is that all just anecdotal? Perhaps a string of bad GMs? Maybe.

On a related note, SJWs say that the games in the past were filled with racists who didn't allow women to play. No, they weren't, I was there. Anecdotal? Maybe. Was there a game somewhere where they said "No girls allowed?" or made racist jokes? No doubt, people are imperfect and some are just stupid. Was it representative of the hobby as a whole? No.

The thing about "that's just anecdotal evidence" is it's a conversation ender. No one here has anything but anecdotes. I guess the question is: Are are enough anecdotes to make it become a valid experience?
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Ghostmaker on February 08, 2021, 02:14:04 PM
I hope Maliszewski's gotten over his fart-sniffing addiction, because that rant about Dragonlance was about as convincing as Paris Hilton insisting 'I'm a real gamer too!'.

He complains about how 'story' became more important and how 'modules' were deemphasized. Well, excuse me, I'm so terribly sorry I expressed interest in having a game with more plot depth than a parking lot puddle.

If he had complained about the actual plot arcs in DL (especially War of the Lance), then sure, I can admit the worldbuilding and plotline could use some tightening up. But crying about 'how dare people want more than just dice rolls and stats' is just plain stupid.

And my favorite character was Flint. Fight me.

Oh, get your panties out of your buttcrack. Even for a self-admitted hyperbolic rant, Mazilewski isn't shitting on plot in RPG. He's specifically criticizing Dragonlance's scripted plot.
Plots have scripts? Wow, I am shocked, shocked. Oh wait, not that shocked.

Let's not mince words here, Dragonlance barely cracks the top fifty of 'worst things in RPGs' these days.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Pat on February 08, 2021, 02:23:31 PM
Let's not mince words here, Dragonlance barely cracks the top fifty of 'worst things in RPGs' these days.
One word: Kender.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: BoxCrayonTales on February 08, 2021, 02:27:45 PM
Well, I don't agree that an elf with wings is ridiculous or playing a lizard man is so far off the beam for a game about wizards and dragons. My concern nowadays is, does the character fit the world? Does it break the tone of the setting? That kind of stuff.
Actually I agree with that. Lizard Men and Cat People seem rather tame by today's offerings, but at the risk of sounding like Old Man Yelling at Clouds, this was not the case back in the 80's. My point was not that you should forbid wacky races, rather that parties back in the 80's did not consist of balrogs and vampires.

As for characters with wings, flight is a BIG advantage, and if you're going to go that route you'd be better off using a system like Gurps or Hero where you can cost out all of your superpowers. Gives the vanilla humans a break as well.

I loved how Tieflings and Dragonborn were handled in 4E, because it meant something. That didn't carry over to 5E. As you mention, if the GM presents a coherent and interesting campaign world, that's great. But the trend I see in 5E is anything but. The party ends up looking like a circus freak show with zero ramifications in the gameworld. I've played Tieflings that stroll into a merchant's shop in a small country village and no one bats an eye. It's like the guy who will die in the same village he was born in is not even phased that 6 freaky monster PCs that he's never seen before have just entered his shop. And when guys neighbor asks the same 6 freakshows to save the village from a band of raiding hobgoblins, it really makes you wonder WTF is happening in that world. Is that all just anecdotal? Perhaps a string of bad GMs? Maybe.

On a related note, SJWs say that the games in the past were filled with racists who didn't allow women to play. No, they weren't, I was there. Anecdotal? Maybe. Was there a game somewhere where they said "No girls allowed?" or made racist jokes? No doubt, people are imperfect and some are just stupid. Was it representative of the hobby as a whole? No.

The thing about "that's just anecdotal evidence" is it's a conversation ender. No one here has anything but anecdotes. I guess the question is: Are are enough anecdotes to make it become a valid experience?

This is strangely where a lot of D&D-influenced anime do better by often including some degree of overt racism in their world building: Humans are often racist against other fantasy races that aren't sufficiently human-looking, using their appearance as an excuse to enslave them or use them as target practice. (I'm excluding examples where the non-human races are in fact born evil, because that's not racism.)
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Eirikrautha on February 08, 2021, 02:33:30 PM
Totally incorrect.  Anecdotal evidence is perfectly fine to refute a categorical statement.  And that is how it was used above.  People keep asserting that D&D was frequently played with large numbers of exotic races, even from the beginning.  Many of us, some who had a pretty large circle of gaming friends and/or a frequent presence at conventions, never observed this.  So the categorical is called into question by the observations of those people.
I'd argue that you're not dealing with a categorical statement in this case because "frequently" isn't something you can apply as a category. By its very definition it isn't claiming ubiquity (a requirement for a categorical statement to be refutable by anecdote). Anecdotal evidence can neither prove nor disprove the claim of "frequently" only "all" or "none." Basically, you've no proof the circles you frequented were large enough to be a valid statistical sample vs. a self-selected group based on common interests.

Regardless, the question I answered was "when does Anecdotal becomes Statistical evidence?" to which the answer remains 'never' because statistics require representative samples and anecdotes are, but definition, self-reported (i.e. not representative; indeed almost invariably the most extreme edges of any given sample).

You may as well use the volume of Twitter comments about a subject as evidence (leading contributor to the "Get Woke, Go Broke" phenomena precisely because Twitter is the antithesis of a representative sample).
As the frequency goes up, the likelihood of not experiencing the phenomenon goes down.  Since the original argument was that D&D has incorporated weird characters races as a default from the beginning based on anecdotes, my burden of proof based on anecdote is much smaller.  But whatever.  I find most people tend to find logic to support their argument, rather than an argument built on logic.

I agree with the original post that stated weird character races were almost never played.  Now refute that with non-anecdotal evidence.  See?
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 08, 2021, 02:36:57 PM
Quote
I loved how Tieflings and Dragonborn were handled in 4E, because it meant something. That didn't carry over to 5E. As you mention, if the GM presents a coherent and interesting campaign world, that's great. But the trend I see in 5E is anything but

Dunno about dragonborns, but TBH I prefer older tieflings who were less race and more template on person. (Best if each planetouched is random table of visual quirks ;) )
Like in this wacky fantasy mythical world as most D&D ones - it seems quite normal that there will be offspring of divine beings like in most mythologies, even more prevalent maybe, as most of D&D are more FANTASY saturated than real myths.

So making them just another fantasy race was bit meh for me.

Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Eirikrautha on February 08, 2021, 02:37:14 PM
More importantly, I think you're talking past each other. The group who are saying exotic races are fine seem to be either new school or very old (0e) old school. Whereas the group who are saying that the most exotic race anyone played was an elf seem to be the post-OD&D crowd. It's worth remembering there was a major shift in tone in between OD&D and AD&D. OD&D told DMs that balrog PCs were fine, while the AD&D DMG has that notorious rant against playing monsters. It shouldn't surprise anyone that there was a strong shift in how people played.

Good point, especially the Gary paraphrase.  The problem isn't whether someone wants to play a game with gonzo races or not.  I could care less.  It's when people argue that gonzo PC races are the norm or the default for D&D.  That hasn't always been true, and therefore doesn't serve as an argument for or against such a policy...
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2021, 03:52:50 PM
I hope Maliszewski's gotten over his fart-sniffing addiction, because that rant about Dragonlance was about as convincing as Paris Hilton insisting 'I'm a real gamer too!'.

He complains about how 'story' became more important and how 'modules' were deemphasized. Well, excuse me, I'm so terribly sorry I expressed interest in having a game with more plot depth than a parking lot puddle.

If he had complained about the actual plot arcs in DL (especially War of the Lance), then sure, I can admit the worldbuilding and plotline could use some tightening up. But crying about 'how dare people want more than just dice rolls and stats' is just plain stupid.

And my favorite character was Flint. Fight me.

Oh, get your panties out of your buttcrack. Even for a self-admitted hyperbolic rant, Mazilewski isn't shitting on plot in RPG. He's specifically criticizing Dragonlance's scripted plot.
Plots have scripts? Wow, I am shocked, shocked. Oh wait, not that shocked.

Let's not mince words here, Dragonlance barely cracks the top fifty of 'worst things in RPGs' these days.

It's one thing to plot out an adventure path. It's another to insist that specific plot points happen regardless of what the players do.
I usually have an idea of where a campaign is heading, but that idea is very open to player input, and I dont' expect any specific thing to happen to any specific character or NPC in order to beat the players over the head with some script.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2021, 03:56:51 PM
More importantly, I think you're talking past each other. The group who are saying exotic races are fine seem to be either new school or very old (0e) old school. Whereas the group who are saying that the most exotic race anyone played was an elf seem to be the post-OD&D crowd. It's worth remembering there was a major shift in tone in between OD&D and AD&D. OD&D told DMs that balrog PCs were fine, while the AD&D DMG has that notorious rant against playing monsters. It shouldn't surprise anyone that there was a strong shift in how people played.

Good point, especially the Gary paraphrase.  The problem isn't whether someone wants to play a game with gonzo races or not.  I could care less.  It's when people argue that gonzo PC races are the norm or the default for D&D.  That hasn't always been true, and therefore doesn't serve as an argument for or against such a policy...

Now we get to the root of the matter. How default is a game that includes such widely different campaign settings as Dark Sun or Spelljammer or Eberron or Ravenloft or Planescape?
I think core D&D expects to be a rather generic system, and so it includes most of the stuff in a disjointed grab-bag of races and classes.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Chris24601 on February 08, 2021, 05:10:43 PM
Now we get to the root of the matter. How default is a game that includes such widely different campaign settings as Dark Sun or Spelljammer or Eberron or Ravenloft or Planescape?
I think core D&D expects to be a rather generic system, and so it includes most of the stuff in a disjointed grab-bag of races and classes.
Agreed, and let me tell it actually took a bit of work in my own game's setting to get all the kitchen sink races to all fit in the same world in a way that made sense.

The ultimate trick I landed on was the decision to set my game at a specific point in a fictional timeline and that many of the species present at that time had  not always been there in the past nor would they all endure in perpetuity into the future. Basically, its akin to the point in pre-History where humans and Neandertals co-existed. That lasted for thousands of years, but humans ultimately won out (minus the few percent of Neandertal DNA that survives in many modern humans).

The other thing that helped it all fit was a decision that there was only one native and naturally evolved sapient species in the world; humans. Everything else was either alien to the world, created by humans or created from humans.

Humans were first. Then the fallen primal spirits entered world (what man now calls demons) and conquered it. They warped some humans into Dwarves using their primal power to make them better able to withstand the hellish mines they worked them in for the statues and cities built in their honor. In need of loyal overseers the demons bred with mortal women to produce the Malfeans.

Eventually the demons were cast out when the good primal spirits aligned with men and dwarves, but there was a faction of primal spirits who had been too cowardly to pick a side in the war and so they were banished to the mortal world where they would reincarnate time and again until they finally earned their redemption. These became the Eldritch (sprites, dryads, sylphs, giants, dragons and similar reclusive beings connected to nature).

Not relevant now, but relevant later, the war between the primal spirits and demons shattered the world's spiritual aspect into countless shards, each reflecting the primal energies of The Source across the dome of the Great Barrier created to trap the demons in the Outer Darkness. The shattered surface split these energies into aspects such as justice, knowledge, courage, dreams, death, etc. These motes of light became the stars and from the spiritual energies were born the Astral Gods, who took portions of this energy and created servants for themselves.

Men had been corrupted by their time in service to the demons and so used magic to created their own slaves to cater to their whims just as they had once been used, creating the many species of Beastmen. The Beastmen ultimately rebelled and destroyed the human empire but were too fractious to remain unified and so the world slipped into barbarism.

In time mankind rose again, but still hadn't learned its lesson. This time they created servants from metal and stone, the Golems. But they required constant resetting to keep them from developing personalities of their own and that was lost with the coming of The Cataclysm (while many of the golems themselves and even rare Forge Golems able to build more of their number survived).

200 years ago a global storm of fire and darkness swept across the world, killing 99% of the population (another 90% of the initial survivors would perish in the following year of starvation, disease, violence and suicide... a planetary population of nearly 8 billion was reduced to just 9 million practically overnight). Of the survivors, nearly a third had been warped into Mutants who bred true (more common varieties are trolls, troglodytes, orcs and ogres).

The Cataclysm wasn't just limited to the mortal world either, it ripped open the barriers between worlds and stranded thousands of servitor spirits from the astral realm of dreams (Elves and Gnomes) and astral psychopomps (Fetches) in the mortal world when the barriers slammed shut again.

200 years later (when the game is set), pockets of civilization have just started to reach the point where they can look beyond their borders and immediate survival. Most of the world is unpopulated wilderness (global populations have rebounded to about 60 million) and small city-states populated by various species are starting to come into contact (and into conflict).

It is highly unlikely that more than a few of these species will survive in the long term (which is still a few thousand years, though many will go into decline as populations continue to grow sooner than that), but that's for the future. What matters for my setting is that all of those many varieties (enough that every playable 3e-4E option and then some is available should a player desire it) plausibly exist in the present.

The wide array also works well for GM's creating their own world since all they have to do is cut options rather than needing to create new ones.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: BoxCrayonTales on February 08, 2021, 05:36:04 PM
It's obviously going to vary by campaign setting, but I had an idea for retrofitting more monstrous PC races into more humanocentric settings: Change their outward appearance to be less monstrous, enough that they can pass for human or a performer in makeup.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on February 08, 2021, 06:58:40 PM
More importantly, I think you're talking past each other. The group who are saying exotic races are fine seem to be either new school or very old (0e) old school. Whereas the group who are saying that the most exotic race anyone played was an elf seem to be the post-OD&D crowd. It's worth remembering there was a major shift in tone in between OD&D and AD&D. OD&D told DMs that balrog PCs were fine, while the AD&D DMG has that notorious rant against playing monsters. It shouldn't surprise anyone that there was a strong shift in how people played.

Good point, especially the Gary paraphrase.  The problem isn't whether someone wants to play a game with gonzo races or not.  I could care less.  It's when people argue that gonzo PC races are the norm or the default for D&D.  That hasn't always been true, and therefore doesn't serve as an argument for or against such a policy...

Now we get to the root of the matter. How default is a game that includes such widely different campaign settings as Dark Sun or Spelljammer or Eberron or Ravenloft or Planescape?
I think core D&D expects to be a rather generic system, and so it includes most of the stuff in a disjointed grab-bag of races and classes.

Was I in the only ADnD groups that played using the Reincarnation spell and or the Unearthed Arcana book?
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2021, 08:49:46 PM
More importantly, I think you're talking past each other. The group who are saying exotic races are fine seem to be either new school or very old (0e) old school. Whereas the group who are saying that the most exotic race anyone played was an elf seem to be the post-OD&D crowd. It's worth remembering there was a major shift in tone in between OD&D and AD&D. OD&D told DMs that balrog PCs were fine, while the AD&D DMG has that notorious rant against playing monsters. It shouldn't surprise anyone that there was a strong shift in how people played.

Good point, especially the Gary paraphrase.  The problem isn't whether someone wants to play a game with gonzo races or not.  I could care less.  It's when people argue that gonzo PC races are the norm or the default for D&D.  That hasn't always been true, and therefore doesn't serve as an argument for or against such a policy...

Now we get to the root of the matter. How default is a game that includes such widely different campaign settings as Dark Sun or Spelljammer or Eberron or Ravenloft or Planescape?
I think core D&D expects to be a rather generic system, and so it includes most of the stuff in a disjointed grab-bag of races and classes.

Was I in the only ADnD groups that played using the Reincarnation spell and or the Unearthed Arcana book?

You know, we rarely relied on Ressurection since you could come back as all kinds of crazy shit. We preferred Raise Dead if it was necessary to bring a dead character back.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on February 08, 2021, 09:30:40 PM
More importantly, I think you're talking past each other. The group who are saying exotic races are fine seem to be either new school or very old (0e) old school. Whereas the group who are saying that the most exotic race anyone played was an elf seem to be the post-OD&D crowd. It's worth remembering there was a major shift in tone in between OD&D and AD&D. OD&D told DMs that balrog PCs were fine, while the AD&D DMG has that notorious rant against playing monsters. It shouldn't surprise anyone that there was a strong shift in how people played.

Good point, especially the Gary paraphrase.  The problem isn't whether someone wants to play a game with gonzo races or not.  I could care less.  It's when people argue that gonzo PC races are the norm or the default for D&D.  That hasn't always been true, and therefore doesn't serve as an argument for or against such a policy...

Now we get to the root of the matter. How default is a game that includes such widely different campaign settings as Dark Sun or Spelljammer or Eberron or Ravenloft or Planescape?
I think core D&D expects to be a rather generic system, and so it includes most of the stuff in a disjointed grab-bag of races and classes.

Was I in the only ADnD groups that played using the Reincarnation spell and or the Unearthed Arcana book?

You know, we rarely relied on Ressurection since you could come back as all kinds of crazy shit. We preferred Raise Dead if it was necessary to bring a dead character back.

Sometimes you dont have a Cleric when you need them.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Abraxus on February 08, 2021, 11:20:07 PM

Was I in the only ADnD groups that played using the Reincarnation spell and or the Unearthed Arcana book?

Not the only one though we preferred using raise Dead or Resurrection whenever possible.

I still really don't see what the fuss is about beyond Pundit wanting to stir up controversy for shits and giggles. The Chicken Little sky is falling crap is getting old really fast at this point.

Some tables want core only races some don't. Both approaches have merit and neither is wrong imo. I can't see why it can't be both.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Cloyer Bulse on February 09, 2021, 12:11:51 AM
Quote from: ”Shasarak”
Was I in the only ADnD groups that played using the Reincarnation spell and or the Unearthed Arcana book?

It is possible to play unusual characters in AD&D as a result of reincarnation or similar type magic, but there is no entitlement to play such characters from the start. The humanocentrism of AD&D rubs narcissists the wrong way, since playing strange characters is about fulfilling their bizarre fantasies as well as virtue-signaling their supposed moral superiority. They seem to have a fondness for demonic and animal-like creatures and a general distaste for humans in their natural and normal state.

UA came out long after AD&D had jumped the shark. The Golden Era of AD&D was 1977 to 1980, ending with DDG and Gygax’s uncompleted Q1/T2 manuscripts, when he was apparently abandoned by his creative muse and TSR began morphing into T$R.


Quote from: ”Ratman_tf”
You know, we rarely relied on Ressurection since you could come back as all kinds of crazy shit. We preferred Raise Dead if it was necessary to bring a dead character back.

Raise dead may not be readily available. It is a 5th level cleric spell, and as per the PHB, spells of 5th level and above are granted to clerics directly by their deity, and the cleric requesting such spells may be judged at that time. This was changed in the DMG for some reason, such that 6th level spells and above are granted directly by their deity, but this means that 5th level spells in the PHB were written with the intent that they were only granted conditionally.

If one goes by the PHB, as one should in my opinion, in most cases good clerics will not be so willing to raise non-good characters, and well-played evil clerics will not raise anyone without an exorbitant fee. Clerics who misuse spells that promote weal or spells that are baneful should be castigated by their deity, but that is entirely up to the DM.

This makes sense historically, since reincarnation was a pagan belief. That is why magic-users and druids can reincarnate, while only clerics can raise.


Quote from: ”sureshot”
...Some tables want core only races some don't. Both approaches have merit and neither is wrong imo. I can't see why it can't be both.

The game isn’t the problem, it’s a symptom of an increasingly malignant situation. Co-existence with radical liberalism, an ideology formed and promulgated by those with cluster B personality disorders, is impossible since they believe they have the moral right to impose tyranny on and commit crimes against others. Anyone who refuses to submit to them are condemned as “domestic terrorists”, a phrase which can be and has been used to justify acts of violence against innocent people.

True narcissists are quite noxious and their disorder insinuates itself into everything they do. Dealing with them in any capacity for any length of time is always unpleasant. It is useful to know the warning signs.

Some of the characteristics of a narcissist are:

-Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
-Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
-Having a sense of entitlement
-Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with their expectations
-Believing that they are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people

Dealing with people who have cluster B personality disorders (antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic) leave normal people feeling emotionally drained, hence they can be called “emotional vampires”. Woke leaders are generally “narcopaths”, which means they suffer from both narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder; they intentionally manipulate those with mental disorders in order to harm others. Many politicians, big-tech and Hollywood executives fall into this category.

Quote
However, a more recent study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry in 2008 (Stinson et al) puts the figure at a much higher rate. This study found that the prevalence of NPD was 6.2% in the general population. As expected, the rates were higher for males (7.7%) than for females (4.8%). This research looked at other variables as well and found that NPD was significantly more prevalent among Black men and women, Hispanic women, younger adults, and separated/divorced/widowed or never married adults. NPD was associated with mental disability among men but not women, supporting the notion that the more severe forms of NPD tend to be in males. This nationwide study in the United States demonstrated data that suggested Narcissistic Personality Disorder was more prevalent among younger adults and may support the idea that Narcissistic Personality Disorder is on the rise. It was hypothesized that this may be due to “social and economic conditions that support more extreme versions of self-focused individualism” (Bender, 2012).

In 2009, Twenge and Campbell conducted studies that supported the above figures. Their data suggested that the incidence of NPD had more than doubled in the U.S. in the prior 10 years, and that 1 in 16 of the general population had experienced NPD in their lifetime.

– https://thenarcissisticlife.com/what-is-the-prevalence-of-narcissism/
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Pat on February 09, 2021, 12:35:11 AM
It is possible to play unusual characters in AD&D as a result of reincarnation or similar type magic, but there is no entitlement to play such characters from the start. The humanocentrism of AD&D rubs narcissists the wrong way, since playing strange characters is about fulfilling their bizarre fantasies as well as virtue-signaling their supposed moral superiority. They seem to have a fondness for demonic and animal-like creatures and a general distaste for humans in their natural and normal state.
I'm a big fan of constrained form. No, you can't play everything. Only certain races, certain professions, and certain character concepts, make sense in certain worlds. The tone and feel of a world are often defined more by what is excluded, than what is included. The limited B/X race as classes with level limits work very well at establishing a humanocentric world, where races like halfings, elves, and dwarves are relegated to the fringes of the world, and are treated as exotic and alien.

I also have a problem with anyone who says they can't come up with a character concept for a human fighter -- don't they realize that almost every single hero in myth, legend, and history was a human fighter? Human culture and human variation presents an unfathomable range of inspirations.

And most exotic races are nothing more than humans with bumpy foreheads, or a new set of horns, anyway. If there's anything fundamentally different about a new race, it's usually that they represent a narrow, stereotypical slice of the human experience. Elves are nature-loving humans (with pointy ears), dwarves are gruff humans (who happen to be stocky), and on and on. That's not presenting new options, it's restricting them.

But fuck everything you just said. You just turned a highly defensible position into a bigoted, irrational rant that's more concerned with attacking everyone who likes thing you don't than explaining why the things you like are worthwhile.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Ratman_tf on February 09, 2021, 01:02:34 AM
It is possible to play unusual characters in AD&D as a result of reincarnation or similar type magic, but there is no entitlement to play such characters from the start. The humanocentrism of AD&D rubs narcissists the wrong way, since playing strange characters is about fulfilling their bizarre fantasies as well as virtue-signaling their supposed moral superiority. They seem to have a fondness for demonic and animal-like creatures and a general distaste for humans in their natural and normal state.

I don't cut off my nose to spite my face. And I won't exclude a race or class just to be contrary to the wokescolds out there.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 09, 2021, 06:07:18 AM
Quote
It is possible to play unusual characters in AD&D as a result of reincarnation or similar type magic, but there is no entitlement to play such characters from the start. The humanocentrism of AD&D rubs narcissists the wrong way, since playing strange characters is about fulfilling their bizarre fantasies as well as virtue-signaling their supposed moral superiority. They seem to have a fondness for demonic and animal-like creatures and a general distaste for humans in their natural and normal state.

Well to certain degree it;s a problem - but also - in most of fantasy games humans are sort most boring and most bland race, without any specific ups and downs. That's important part what makes them sort of meh for many players. Especially considering other races are mostly short/slim humans with weird ears or noses, and more interesting racial abilities.
That tendency bring start to making new races to avoid boring humans, more and more with every game and edition - modern tiefling furry maniacs jumped on this train when it was already going with full speed.

Quote
And most exotic races are nothing more than humans with bumpy foreheads, or a new set of horns, anyway. If there's anything fundamentally different about a new race, it's usually that they represent a narrow, stereotypical slice of the human experience. Elves are nature-loving humans (with pointy ears), dwarves are gruff humans (who happen to be stocky), and on and on. That's not presenting new options, it's restricting them.

It's quite funny considering how considerably different from humans were either faerie elves and dwarves or Tolkienian ones.

Quote
I'm a big fan of constrained form. No, you can't play everything. Only certain races, certain professions, and certain character concepts, make sense in certain worlds. The tone and feel of a world are often defined more by what is excluded, than what is included. The limited B/X race as classes with level limits work very well at establishing a humanocentric world, where races like halfings, elves, and dwarves are relegated to the fringes of the world, and are treated as exotic and alien.

I also have a problem with anyone who says they can't come up with a character concept for a human fighter -- don't they realize that almost every single hero in myth, legend, and history was a human fighter? Human culture and human variation presents an unfathomable range of inspirations.

Yes. But again both Human and Fighter despite having this great cultural potential were bit bland and meh, in basic engine. Maybe because authors decided - well everybody gets it.
But when you read those entries - they will be less inspired and so on.

We must make Human Fighter cool again - and that means making them Cool on Game Level not Flaunting grand examples of our ancestors withing mechanics that doesn't really support your claims to be Heracles.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Chris24601 on February 09, 2021, 08:58:17 AM
One True Wayist Bullcrap
And yet people wonder why even conservatives and libertarians consider the OSR a bunch of wannabe tyrants with their heads stuck up their asses... and why I want nothing to do with the toxic soup that is the OSR.

THIS is precisely the attitude my experiences have taught me is the norm in the OSR and what almost drove me out of the hobby entirely if I hadn’t discovered Palladium Books and been able to recruit my friends to play those instead of AD&D.

Mr. Bulse, I suggest you revisit your list of traits you assign to narcissists; you’ll find that in your rant alone you demonstrate several; expecting to be recognized as superior without achievements of your own, having a sense of entitlement and believing that because of your superior position those who disagree with you and any ideas they might have should be excluded from the hobby.

Projection is a hell of a thing...

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West
Yes. But again both Human and Fighter despite having this great cultural potential were bit bland and meh, in basic engine. Maybe because authors decided - well everybody gets it. But when you read those entries - they will be less inspired and so on.

We must make Human Fighter cool again - and that means making them Cool on Game Level not Flaunting grand examples of our ancestors withing mechanics that doesn't really support your claims to be Heracles.
I found a lot more potential in Palladium Fantasy than I ever did in AD&D at the time precisely because there was no Fighter class, but an entire group of Men-At-Arms classes like soldier, mercenary, longbowman and knight with different fighting styles and skills. It also kept the upper levels of magic constrained relative to the advancement of the warrior classes without needing to turn them into fragile weaklings at low levels.

I didn’t find that sort of thinking inside D&D until 4E.

Frankly, if you want the majority of your players to be non-magic types, then DON’T cram every non-spellcaster option onto half-a-dozen pages while devoting half the player book to magic spells.

That’s one of the reasons fighters in my system have nine combos of fighting style and focus and eight paths that define them while the spellcasting types have just 3-4 options and six paths. It’s also why only two of the ten backgrounds are magic focused... because when you can combine those fighter options with aristocrat, artisan, barbarian, commoner, entertainer, military, outlaw and traveler you get some mechanical support for a broad range of warrior types that don’t all feel identical save for their level and equipment... even if using them in a setting devoid of magic (there are also enough non-magic options in the religious background you could use it too... so arcanist is the only background you’d need to dump entirely for a non-magic setting).
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Abraxus on February 09, 2021, 10:00:57 AM
It is possible to play unusual characters in AD&D as a result of reincarnation or similar type magic, but there is no entitlement to play such characters from the start. The humanocentrism of AD&D rubs narcissists the wrong way, since playing strange characters is about fulfilling their bizarre fantasies as well as virtue-signaling their supposed moral superiority. They seem to have a fondness for demonic and animal-like creatures and a general distaste for humans in their natural and normal state.

In some cases yes most of the time though it's wanting to play something new and different. I have been playing standard core races of D&D since I started in the hobby way back in mid to late 1980s. My wanting to play something different is not due to my so called "bizarre fantasies, virtue-signaling or moral superiority" in any form. After awhile the core races do become boring to play. Do some SJWs and non engage in such behavior sure they are the exception than the norm. If someone in my group wants to play a Lizardfolk it's because they are cool not for anything else. Again not seeing anything wrong with changing up the races every now and then as long the player is not being a jerk about it


The game isn’t the problem, it’s a symptom of an increasingly malignant situation. Co-existence with radical liberalism, an ideology formed and promulgated by those with cluster B personality disorders, is impossible since they believe they have the moral right to impose tyranny on and commit crimes against others. Anyone who refuses to submit to them are condemned as “domestic terrorists”, a phrase which can be and has been used to justify acts of violence against innocent people.

True narcissists are quite noxious and their disorder insinuates itself into everything they do. Dealing with them in any capacity for any length of time is always unpleasant. It is useful to know the warning signs.

Some of the characteristics of a narcissist are:

-Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
-Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
-Having a sense of entitlement
-Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with their expectations
-Believing that they are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people

Dealing with people who have cluster B personality disorders (antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic) leave normal people feeling emotionally drained, hence they can be called “emotional vampires”. Woke leaders are generally “narcopaths”, which means they suffer from both narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder; they intentionally manipulate those with mental disorders in order to harm others. Many politicians, big-tech and Hollywood executives fall into this category.

Maybe I have been lucky and have only dealt personally with one annoying SJW that not even the hardcore Liberal in the group wants to have anything to do with anymore yet I think your reading too much into it.

Of course jerks and other people who behave badly will always be in the hobby yet you and to lesser extent Pundit make it seem like the entire Hobby is riddled with gamers suffering from the above in your post. That is just not the case imo. Again some tables play differently from mine and yours and I do not think anything is wrong with that. IF i am not or will not enjoy running or playing I walk away.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Abraxus on February 09, 2021, 10:05:25 AM
The Fighter class at least in early editions was never the issue. Humans as a race being boring was an issue imo. Not to mention too many rpg companies fantasy settings did and still suffer from Humanity being at the top of the food chain. With nothing special about them beyond being able to bred like rabbits and ambition. As no other race in said fantasy setting is ambitious. Later editions with not giving the fighter much beyond " I swing and I hit " at least in 3.5/PF did not help the situation for the class. Pre third edition Fighters could get a Keep and Weapon Specilization. Humans just received no level limits yay I guess.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Chris24601 on February 09, 2021, 11:11:15 AM
Pre third edition Fighters could get a Keep and Weapon Specilization. Humans just received no level limits yay I guess.
Also worth noting is that level limits (if they were even enforced) mattered only if your campaigns ever got to those levels. In my experience 75% of campaigns peter out within five levels of start (so by level 6 if you start at level 1). A level limit of 8 in that situation is what games like the HERO System would call a non-limiting limitations (and thus worth no points) because the odds of it ever mattering are less than 25% (less because the odds of an ongoing campaign go up the longer it goes so even one that makes it to 6 may not make it to 8 and also, in my experience, any group that could keep a campaign going long enough to reach the level limits was also incredibly likely to drop those limits to keep the campaign going).

The ironic thing to me is that 4E, far from being some menagerie of weirdos, was one of the first editions where Human was considered by the CharOps community to be almost always the BEST race to pair with any class (and was, at worst, just one of the best). The +2 to any ability score, the bonus at-will attack power, the bonus trained skill (i.e. +5 to one of choice instead of +2 to two pre-selected skills), the bonus feat and the improved defenses made Humans exceptional for just about anything.

Outside of very specific concepts, Human PCs were almost ubiquitous in 4E. Out of the last four 4E campaigns I’ve been in the racial breakdowns were... 1) four humans and a half-elf, 2) three humans and a kobold, 3) four humans, an elf and a pixie (played by another player’s 11 year old daughter), 4) four humans.

In my experience, weird PC races only really turn up in play when they offer a distinct mechanical advantage over thd more common ones.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 09, 2021, 11:24:36 AM
Quote
The Fighter class at least in early editions was never the issue. Humans as a race being boring was an issue imo. Not to mention too many rpg companies fantasy settings did and still suffer from Humanity being at the top of the food chain. With nothing special about them beyond being able to bred like rabbits and ambition. As no other race in said fantasy setting is ambitious. Later editions with not giving the fighter much beyond " I swing and I hit " at least in 3.5/PF did not help the situation for the class. Pre third edition Fighters could get a Keep and Weapon Specilization. Humans just received no level limits yay I guess.

Weapon specialisation is very cool thing, and it definitely should be kept, though I get why Keep was dropped - as classes were centred around character itself, not resources.
(PF helped things a bit with extra-feats, and extra talents for archetypes - but it's all kinda passive elements). I think what fighter needs is sort of having lot of tacical option in form of various maneuvers - sort of what Nine Swords but less wuxia).

But yeah humans were meh. But then to some degree other races were often bit meh as well - I mean I think I like Eberron because most races have several cultures, vastly different from each other - and if it was my take - it would be even bigger clusterfuck of those than real Earth.

Quote
I found a lot more potential in Palladium Fantasy than I ever did in AD&D at the time precisely because there was no Fighter class, but an entire group of Men-At-Arms classes like soldier, mercenary, longbowman and knight with different fighting styles and skills. It also kept the upper levels of magic constrained relative to the advancement of the warrior classes without needing to turn them into fragile weaklings at low levels.

Agree. I mean at least in old D&D wizards were fragile often even on top levels - after 3,5 and especially Pathfinder - they are quite sturdy.
But TBH my favourite model of magic is probably Warhammer magic - which to mean - yes it's powerful, much more than equivalent options of fighter - but it's risky to use, and consequences can be calamity.

I sort of like idea of sorcerer as someone who's military value is 75% intimidation factor - do you really wanna attack sorcerer and risk him failing to curse you.

Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Conanist on February 09, 2021, 02:57:06 PM

Projection is a hell of a thing...


Agreed. From what I've read, ideological zealotry of all (lately both) types is a huge predictor of Dark Triad personality types, of which narcissism is only one.

Regarding Dragonlance ruining everything, that does have some merit. I'd say its success definitely led to the huge glut of mostly mediocre (at best!) TSR novels that followed. They tried another multi module story in Ravenloft that I attempted to run, and the later parts were a giant mess. They had book tie ins for some of the Dark Sun stuff too although I never tried them.

I'd consider those adventure attempts to be failures. Do you think the current adventure paths and hardcover story modules are an attempt to recreate the Dragonlance magic? The Salvatore books were also a huge success where they might have tried the same multi module approach with the set pregen PCs, but didn't, to my knowledge.

The move to a more heroic approach isn't something I'd pin on Dragonlance specifically. Tolkien has always been a major influence and I think that would have happened at some point regardless.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Chris24601 on February 09, 2021, 03:32:40 PM
I sort of like idea of sorcerer as someone who's military value is 75% intimidation factor - do you really wanna attack sorcerer and risk him failing to curse you.
My preference is more towards the Princess Ariel (Thundarr not Disney) variety which I find makes it easier to judge performance between “warriors” and “wizards” in a game where there is no set plot outcome or end point.

This is because the variance is easier to manage in a way that can be judged. For an extreme example, how much extra power on a given spell is “1% chance the world is destroyed” worth in evaluating things? or “1% chance the caster explodes like a nuclear bomb?”

Throw in the hard feelings that your character (who isn’t even the caster) can be killed because of some other player’s bad dice roll and it’s just not a great mechanic outside of war games (i.e. where you have no particular attachment to individual game pieces).

Which pretty much means that any wild magic effects basically need to be confined to the caster and NPCs at which point it’s basically just a very random casting limit mechanic (which, as stated above, makes it very hard to judge potency relative to non-wild options).

Wild magic running out of control works better in fiction where the author can control when and how it runs out of control... or in war games where there’s nothing beyond a one-off contest to be disrupted when it runs awry.

This is also why you just don’t see it much in rpgs (or video games as a player-side mechanic).
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Jaeger on February 09, 2021, 04:42:44 PM
More importantly, I think you're talking past each other. The group who are saying exotic races are fine seem to be either new school or very old (0e) old school. Whereas the group who are saying that the most exotic race anyone played was an elf seem to be the post-OD&D crowd. It's worth remembering there was a major shift in tone in between OD&D and AD&D. OD&D told DMs that balrog PCs were fine, while the AD&D DMG has that notorious rant against playing monsters. It shouldn't surprise anyone that there was a strong shift in how people played.

Good point, especially the Gary paraphrase.  The problem isn't whether someone wants to play a game with gonzo races or not.  I could care less.  It's when people argue that gonzo PC races are the norm or the default for D&D.  That hasn't always been true, and therefore doesn't serve as an argument for or against such a policy...

I think that the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on...


[/quote]
Now we get to the root of the matter. How default is a game that includes such widely different campaign settings as Dark Sun or Spelljammer or Eberron or Ravenloft or Planescape?
I think core D&D expects to be a rather generic system, and so it includes most of the stuff in a disjointed grab-bag of races and classes.

I think the better word here might be Expected to be a rather generic system.

I don't think I'm gonna be totally clear here so bear with.

IMHO there was a tonal shift when WOTC got D&D and put out 3e. Some of the unwritten cultural assumptions about the game got lost in translation. And the effect has snowballed over time.

Especially since it was viewed that having all those competing settings was somehow a drag on the "core D&D" game. OK fair enough, and with the exception of Eberron which was designed from the ground up to accommodate all existing D&D lore, D&D has basically become a one setting game.

A one setting game that has gotten more and more self-referential in its worldbuilding and lore. It is now being influenced by videogames and anime, with WOTC piling it on to everything else that was there before.

D&D has always been it's own genre of fantasy, where Gygax and co. threw stuff in the game because they thought it was cool. A little disjointed, but the playing culture around the game tended to be a bit more DiY and focused on homebrew rules and campaigns. Which is why it worked really well IMHO.

The trend I see post WOTC is that DiY homebrew rules and campaigns are OUT.

RAW rules and Adventure Paths are IN.

And the expectation is that all the "...disjointed grab-bag of races and classes." are on the table all the time. "Because they were part of the D&D Lore"...

So even if you are running a home campaign, RAW is expected with all WOTC approved races and classes available.

And if you don't want to accommodate that, then you "Lack Creativity"...

This is what I see the 5e "new player" trends of cultural expectations leaning into.

Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on February 09, 2021, 04:55:26 PM
More importantly, I think you're talking past each other. The group who are saying exotic races are fine seem to be either new school or very old (0e) old school. Whereas the group who are saying that the most exotic race anyone played was an elf seem to be the post-OD&D crowd. It's worth remembering there was a major shift in tone in between OD&D and AD&D. OD&D told DMs that balrog PCs were fine, while the AD&D DMG has that notorious rant against playing monsters. It shouldn't surprise anyone that there was a strong shift in how people played.

Good point, especially the Gary paraphrase.  The problem isn't whether someone wants to play a game with gonzo races or not.  I could care less.  It's when people argue that gonzo PC races are the norm or the default for D&D.  That hasn't always been true, and therefore doesn't serve as an argument for or against such a policy...

I think that the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on...

The prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on?

I guess you have some anecdote to back that up because you could not play a monster race using the core 3e rules.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: moonsweeper on February 09, 2021, 05:18:01 PM
More importantly, I think you're talking past each other. The group who are saying exotic races are fine seem to be either new school or very old (0e) old school. Whereas the group who are saying that the most exotic race anyone played was an elf seem to be the post-OD&D crowd. It's worth remembering there was a major shift in tone in between OD&D and AD&D. OD&D told DMs that balrog PCs were fine, while the AD&D DMG has that notorious rant against playing monsters. It shouldn't surprise anyone that there was a strong shift in how people played.

Good point, especially the Gary paraphrase.  The problem isn't whether someone wants to play a game with gonzo races or not.  I could care less.  It's when people argue that gonzo PC races are the norm or the default for D&D.  That hasn't always been true, and therefore doesn't serve as an argument for or against such a policy...

I think that the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on...

The prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on?

I guess you have some anecdote to back that up because you could not play a monster race using the core 3e rules.

You'll notice he said it was due to the cultural shift that started with the 3.x rules.  Core 3.0 was the first version of D&D that had monsters mechanically built in the same manner as PCs so that you could just add class levels/templates/etc. to them.  That is the paradigm shift in how monsters and PCs were viewed that he is referring to...and then Savage Species specifically codified it in 3.0 just before 3.5 dropped.

The only official things before that were the BECMI Creature Crucibles for Fey, Lycanthropes, Sky Gnomes and Aquatics.  Those didn't seem to see widespread use except on their own...We played individual campaigns centered around one or the other books on a regular basis, but we never tried to use them in a more general campaign.  Maybe other people did use the stuff for regular campaigns, but you would have to do some checking on that.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on February 09, 2021, 05:36:41 PM
More importantly, I think you're talking past each other. The group who are saying exotic races are fine seem to be either new school or very old (0e) old school. Whereas the group who are saying that the most exotic race anyone played was an elf seem to be the post-OD&D crowd. It's worth remembering there was a major shift in tone in between OD&D and AD&D. OD&D told DMs that balrog PCs were fine, while the AD&D DMG has that notorious rant against playing monsters. It shouldn't surprise anyone that there was a strong shift in how people played.

Good point, especially the Gary paraphrase.  The problem isn't whether someone wants to play a game with gonzo races or not.  I could care less.  It's when people argue that gonzo PC races are the norm or the default for D&D.  That hasn't always been true, and therefore doesn't serve as an argument for or against such a policy...

I think that the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on...

The prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on?

I guess you have some anecdote to back that up because you could not play a monster race using the core 3e rules.

You'll notice he said it was due to the cultural shift that started with the 3.x rules.  Core 3.0 was the first version of D&D that had monsters mechanically built in the same manner as PCs so that you could just add class levels/templates/etc. to them.  That is the paradigm shift in how monsters and PCs were viewed that he is referring to...and then Savage Species specifically codified it in 3.0 just before 3.5 dropped.

The only official things before that were the BECMI Creature Crucibles for Fey, Lycanthropes, Sky Gnomes and Aquatics.  Those didn't seem to see widespread use except on their own...We played individual campaigns centered around one or the other books on a regular basis, but we never tried to use them in a more general campaign.  Maybe other people did use the stuff for regular campaigns, but you would have to do some checking on that.

Yes it was only the BECMI Creature Crucibles for Fey, Lycanthropes, Sky Gnome and Aquatics.

And All the Humanoids in 1993

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fa/PHBR10_TSR2135_The_Complete_Book_of_Humanoids.jpg)

And Skills and Powers (or 2.5e) in 1995

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d3/POSnP.png)

But yeah other then that it must have been the culture shift 10 years later with 3e that did it.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Jaeger on February 09, 2021, 05:48:21 PM
The prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on?

I guess you have some anecdote to back that up because you could not play a monster race using the core 3e rules.

You'll notice he said it was due to the cultural shift that started with the 3.x rules.  Core 3.0 was the first version of D&D that had monsters mechanically built in the same manner as PCs so that you could just add class levels/templates/etc. to them.  That is the paradigm shift in how monsters and PCs were viewed that he is referring to...and then Savage Species specifically codified it in 3.0 just before 3.5 dropped….

Yes, thank you.


But yeah other then that it must have been the culture shift 10 years later with 3e that did it.

You are right "started" is the wrong word. Cultural Shifts don't come out of nowhere.

"Codified" with 3e fits the situation better.

There was always a subset of players who wanted to play some special non-core thing. And supplemental material was made to cater to them. In 1e and 2e.

But since 3e we have seen a jump with each new edition expanding the core book PC races to a more furry friendly format.


Making D&D “Less Generic” for 3e was done on purpose:
https://www.enworld.org/threads/3e-and-the-feel-of-d-d.667269/



For 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons, the big picture was to return the game to its roots, reversing the direction that 2nd Edition had taken in making the game more generic. The plan was to strongly support the idea that the characters were D&D characters in a D&D world. We emphasized adventuring and in particular dungeoneering, both with the rules and with the adventure path modules. We intentionally brought players back to a shared experience after 2E had sent them off in different directions.

Starting in original D&D, top-level fighters and clerics could build strongholds, and we dropped that. If you have had fun playing your character as an adventurer for level after level, why would you suddenly want to take on non-adventuring duties at 9th level? …

Personally, one part of the process I enjoyed was describing the world of D&D in its own terms, rather than referring to real-world history and mythology. …

In 2nd Ed, the rules referred to history and to historical legends to describe the game, …But by the time we were working on 3rd Ed, D&D had had such a big impact on fantasy that we basically used D&D as its own source. For example, 2E took monks out of the Player’s Handbook, in part because martial artist monks have no real place in medieval fantasy. We put them back in because monks sure have a place in D&D fantasy. The same goes for gnomes. The 3E gnome is there because the gnome was well-established in D&D lore, not in order to represent real-world mythology.

For the art in 3E, we took pains to have it seem to illustrate not fantasy characters in general but D&D adventurers in particular. For one thing, lots of them wore backpacks. For the iconic characters, we wrote up the sort of gear that a 1st-level character might start with, and the illustrations showed them with that gear. The illustrations in the 2E Player’s Handbook feature lots of human fighters, human wizards, and castles. Those images reflect standard fantasy tropes, while the art in 3E reflects what you see in your mind’s eye when you play D&D.

Descriptions of weapons in 2E referred to historical precedents, …. We dropped the historical references, such as the Lucerne hammer, and gave dwarves the dwarven warax. And if the dwarven warax isn’t cool enough, how would you like a double sword or maybe a spiked chain?

The gods in 2E were generic, such as the god of strength. We pulled in the Greyhawk deities so we could use proper names and specific holy symbols that were part of the D&D heritage. We knew that plenty of Dungeon Masters would create their own worlds and deities, as I did for my home campaign, but the Greyhawk deities made the game feel more connected to its own roots. They also helped us give players a unified starting point, which was part of Ryan Dancey’s plan to bring the D&D audience back to a shared experience.

Fans were enthusiastic about the way 3E validated adventuring, the core experience that D&D does best and that appeals most broadly. We were fortunate that by 2000 D&D had such a strong legacy that it could stand on its own without reference to Earth history or mythology. One reason that fans were willing to accept sweeping changes to the rules was that 3E felt more like D&D than 2nd Edition had.

Here's a real good one:

Sometimes I wonder what 4E could have accomplished if it had likewise tried to reinforce the D&D experience rather than trying to redesign it.

He claims to have wanted to "return the game to its roots", yet he then proceeded to systematically divorce the game from referring to real-world history and mythology.


Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on February 09, 2021, 05:52:16 PM
I almost forgot that infamous 3e supplement Orcs of Thar released in 1988

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/GAZ10_TSR9241_The_Orcs_Of_Thar.jpg)
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: moonsweeper on February 09, 2021, 05:53:03 PM
My bad, I forgot the Humanoids book...

...but like CC, Monsters and PCs used different rules.  Did you ever try to use either of them?  Those books attempted to shoehorn in monster races into a playable format using the PC rules and it usually required more tweaking, which creates a tendency not to experiment.  It generally only worked well in a 'monsters' campaign.

3.x rules were specifically codified from the get-go to be the same for PCs and Monsters...that is what led to the paradigm shift.  It was easy interchange PCs and Monsters for anybody using the rules, before that it required more 'work'.  Less work led more people to experiment and also allowed WOTC to easily create a book like Savage Species.

I'm not saying its bad, I'm just saying the big shift occurred because of the uniform rules style of 3e lead to much easier integration and experimentation.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on February 09, 2021, 06:29:20 PM
My bad, I forgot the Humanoids book...

...but like CC, Monsters and PCs used different rules.  Did you ever try to use either of them?  Those books attempted to shoehorn in monster races into a playable format using the PC rules and it usually required more tweaking, which creates a tendency not to experiment.  It generally only worked well in a 'monsters' campaign.

3.x rules were specifically codified from the get-go to be the same for PCs and Monsters...that is what led to the paradigm shift.  It was easy interchange PCs and Monsters for anybody using the rules, before that it required more 'work'.  Less work led more people to experiment and also allowed WOTC to easily create a book like Savage Species.

I'm not saying its bad, I'm just saying the big shift occurred because of the uniform rules style of 3e lead to much easier integration and experimentation.

These were all the rules you needed to create a Minotaur character in 2e Dragonlance and half of that was Proficiencies.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: BoxCrayonTales on February 09, 2021, 06:54:36 PM
He claims to have wanted to "return the game to its roots", yet he then proceeded to systematically divorce the game from referring to real-world history and mythology.

I would love if D&D referenced real-world history and mythology.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Ratman_tf on February 09, 2021, 07:03:59 PM
He claims to have wanted to "return the game to its roots", yet he then proceeded to systematically divorce the game from referring to real-world history and mythology.

I would love if D&D referenced real-world history and mythology.

Now that's just plain wrong. D&D is built in large part on references to real world history and mythology. It may not cater to whatever specific details you prefer.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on February 09, 2021, 07:21:22 PM
He claims to have wanted to "return the game to its roots", yet he then proceeded to systematically divorce the game from referring to real-world history and mythology.

I would love if D&D referenced real-world history and mythology.

You did not hear that DnD is based off Jewish culture?

A whole race and two monsters if you can believe it!
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: moonsweeper on February 09, 2021, 07:39:20 PM
My bad, I forgot the Humanoids book...

...but like CC, Monsters and PCs used different rules.  Did you ever try to use either of them?  Those books attempted to shoehorn in monster races into a playable format using the PC rules and it usually required more tweaking, which creates a tendency not to experiment.  It generally only worked well in a 'monsters' campaign.

3.x rules were specifically codified from the get-go to be the same for PCs and Monsters...that is what led to the paradigm shift.  It was easy interchange PCs and Monsters for anybody using the rules, before that it required more 'work'.  Less work led more people to experiment and also allowed WOTC to easily create a book like Savage Species.

I'm not saying its bad, I'm just saying the big shift occurred because of the uniform rules style of 3e lead to much easier integration and experimentation.

These were all the rules you needed to create a Minotaur character in 2e Dragonlance and half of that was Proficiencies.

...but just like Orcs of Thar, that is a campaign-world specific race.  It would not be appropriate in Greyhawk or FR, for example.  This discussion is more centered on the complete circus effect now going on in the generic settings.

When we used to play 2e, we all ran specific campaign worlds...it allowed our money to go farther by each purchasing stuff for the different worlds.  I DMed Birthright and Planescape...and Planescape is still my all time favorite for TSR Campaign worlds.  I loved tieflings because no 2 were ever alike by the time players got done on the random special ability/looks/qualities tables in the Planewalker's Handbook.  But they were appropriate for that campaign setting.  Hell, Planescape or Spelljammer would be the only settings I would allow all of that stuff into because it fits there because of it being a Star Wars cantina type of place.

That being said, it doesn't matter to me what someone else does with their campaign.  I actually like 3e and always enjoyed playing it.  Its biggest flaw was the massive DM overhead associated with the universalist rules and the CR tables.  However, that universalist nature and the OGL is what really ignited the whole 'all monsters can be played' trend.  Before that, it was a bit here or there in one campaign world or another.  I also have no problem with the monster races as PCs idea, I just think that it has finally gone overboard with the menagerie effect coupled together with player's being upset when their Gnoll PC gets treated differently in town because Gnolls have a bloodthirsty raider reputation.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 09, 2021, 07:56:30 PM
Quote
Throw in the hard feelings that your character (who isn’t even the caster) can be killed because of some other player’s bad dice roll and it’s just not a great mechanic

That's very good mechanic for particular flavour of casters I like to emulate here. And mind it - you can have perfectly playable Warhammer team, multiple teams - that do not accept any walking nuclear bombs alongside, unlike D&D where without arcane caster you are usually at least a bit screwed.

Quote
But since 3e we have seen a jump with each new edition expanding the core book PC races to a more furry friendly format.

Now let's not overexaggerate.
If anything it's more scale-y as dragonborn (nota bene totally new race made for 4e, not a pre-existing monster type) is only animalistic species in core 4e and 5e games.
Basically CORE races changes very very slowly, much slower than classess IMHO because at least in this regard 4E made big twisted mix with 8 core ones.


Quote
Now that's just plain wrong. D&D is built in large part on references to real world history and mythology. It may not cater to whatever specific details you prefer.

Well it started this way - so roots are present, but well system evolved later into it's own.
TBH that happens with a lots of fantasy settings, based on real history and myth, first editions, drafts are more closely rooted - but if franchise survives a lot it gets more and more OWN vibe.
Even Professor Tolkien is good example - earlier drafts are more closer to Germanic mythology, the more time passes, the more specific and different setting of his works become (sure roots are still there of course, alas).

Quote
I loved tieflings because no 2 were ever alike by the time players got done on the random special ability/looks/qualities tables in the Planewalker's Handbook.  But they were appropriate for that campaign setting.

TBH that's a good way to keep planetouched as playable race but limit it's SJW-glamour-factor - RANDOM TABLES OF PLANAR PROPERTIES.
You make thing twice about playing tiefling if it gives you as much chance of having pink skin, than beard made of tentacles (+2 to grapple).
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: BoxCrayonTales on February 09, 2021, 08:11:46 PM
He claims to have wanted to "return the game to its roots", yet he then proceeded to systematically divorce the game from referring to real-world history and mythology.

I would love if D&D referenced real-world history and mythology.

Now that's just plain wrong. D&D is built in large part on references to real world history and mythology. It may not cater to whatever specific details you prefer.

I meant literal references (http://www.hahnlibrary.net/rpgs/sources.html).

But speaking of catering, I would appreciate if they at least partially renamed a few monsters that are so utterly divorced from their source material that their name no longer makes sense and only causes confusion whenever you try to compare the two. What would be even better is if they allowed monsters to have multiple names, whether those names come from one language or multiple languages, as in real world bestiaries of folklore.

E.g. Medusa becomes Gorgon Medusa, Snake-Haired Woman, Queen of Serpents, that one hot chick who always wears a veil, etc. Gorgon becomes Gorgon Catoblepas, Iron Bull, Terrible Downlooker, Death Cow, etc. Lich becomes Lich Lord, Lich Mage, Archlich, Lord of Sorrow, Arcane Lich, Lich King, The Lovechild of Afgorkon and Koschey, Afgorkoschey, The Giant Without a Heart, Soulless Immortal Lich, Horcrux-user, Sauron, Ring-Wraith, Voldemort, Rasputin, He Who Must Not Be Named, the Dark Lord of the Sith, etc. Wight becomes Barrow-Wight, Mort-Wight, Lich-Wight, Draug, Draug-Wight, Again Walker, Mummy Without Bandages, etc.

He claims to have wanted to "return the game to its roots", yet he then proceeded to systematically divorce the game from referring to real-world history and mythology.

I would love if D&D referenced real-world history and mythology.

You did not hear that DnD is based off Jewish culture?

A whole race and two monsters if you can believe it!
That many? Very loosely, it seems.

D&D dwarves have had their Jewish inspirations scrubbed away in D&D. They don't speak a Semitic language, aren't trying to reclaim and develop their homeland, and they aren't embroiled in war with Qurac.

The lich's phylactery is no longer limited to a Jewish prayer book so the name is an artifact more than anything else.

The clay golem has had its Jewish inspirations scrubbed away to the point that the name is an artifact. The name has been genericized so that it applies to any automaton, rather than those specifically made of clay.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on February 09, 2021, 08:40:32 PM
My bad, I forgot the Humanoids book...

...but like CC, Monsters and PCs used different rules.  Did you ever try to use either of them?  Those books attempted to shoehorn in monster races into a playable format using the PC rules and it usually required more tweaking, which creates a tendency not to experiment.  It generally only worked well in a 'monsters' campaign.

3.x rules were specifically codified from the get-go to be the same for PCs and Monsters...that is what led to the paradigm shift.  It was easy interchange PCs and Monsters for anybody using the rules, before that it required more 'work'.  Less work led more people to experiment and also allowed WOTC to easily create a book like Savage Species.

I'm not saying its bad, I'm just saying the big shift occurred because of the uniform rules style of 3e lead to much easier integration and experimentation.

These were all the rules you needed to create a Minotaur character in 2e Dragonlance and half of that was Proficiencies.

...but just like Orcs of Thar, that is a campaign-world specific race.  It would not be appropriate in Greyhawk or FR, for example.  This discussion is more centered on the complete circus effect now going on in the generic settings.

When we used to play 2e, we all ran specific campaign worlds...it allowed our money to go farther by each purchasing stuff for the different worlds.  I DMed Birthright and Planescape...and Planescape is still my all time favorite for TSR Campaign worlds.  I loved tieflings because no 2 were ever alike by the time players got done on the random special ability/looks/qualities tables in the Planewalker's Handbook.  But they were appropriate for that campaign setting.  Hell, Planescape or Spelljammer would be the only settings I would allow all of that stuff into because it fits there because of it being a Star Wars cantina type of place.

That being said, it doesn't matter to me what someone else does with their campaign.  I actually like 3e and always enjoyed playing it.  Its biggest flaw was the massive DM overhead associated with the universalist rules and the CR tables.  However, that universalist nature and the OGL is what really ignited the whole 'all monsters can be played' trend.  Before that, it was a bit here or there in one campaign world or another.  I also have no problem with the monster races as PCs idea, I just think that it has finally gone overboard with the menagerie effect coupled together with player's being upset when their Gnoll PC gets treated differently in town because Gnolls have a bloodthirsty raider reputation.

You could play "monster races' in ODnD

You could play "monster races" in Dragonlance in 2e

You could play "monster races" in Dark Sun in 2e

You could play "monster races" in Spelljammer in 2e

You could play "monster races" in Birthright in 2e

You could play "monster races" in Mystara in BECMI/DnD

You could play "monster races" in Faerun in 2e

You could play "monster races" in Planescape in 2e

But the real trend of playing "monster races" started in 3e.  Somehow.  Some thing to do with refined mechanics and easier character creation, descending armour class being the only thing holding back huge swaths of people from playing Minotaurs.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Ratman_tf on February 09, 2021, 08:54:06 PM
He claims to have wanted to "return the game to its roots", yet he then proceeded to systematically divorce the game from referring to real-world history and mythology.

I would love if D&D referenced real-world history and mythology.

Now that's just plain wrong. D&D is built in large part on references to real world history and mythology. It may not cater to whatever specific details you prefer.

I meant literal references (http://www.hahnlibrary.net/rpgs/sources.html).

But speaking of catering, I would appreciate if they at least partially renamed a few monsters that are so utterly divorced from their source material that their name no longer makes sense and only causes confusion whenever you try to compare the two. What would be even better is if they allowed monsters to have multiple names, whether those names come from one language or multiple languages, as in real world bestiaries of folklore.

E.g. Medusa becomes Gorgon Medusa, Snake-Haired Woman, Queen of Serpents, that one hot chick who always wears a veil, etc. Gorgon becomes Gorgon Catoblepas, Iron Bull, Terrible Downlooker, Death Cow, etc. Lich becomes Lich Lord, Lich Mage, Archlich, Lord of Sorrow, Arcane Lich, Lich King, The Lovechild of Afgorkon and Koschey, Afgorkoschey, The Giant Without a Heart, Soulless Immortal Lich, Horcrux-user, Sauron, Ring-Wraith, Voldemort, Rasputin, He Who Must Not Be Named, the Dark Lord of the Sith, etc. Wight becomes Barrow-Wight, Mort-Wight, Lich-Wight, Draug, Draug-Wight, Again Walker, Mummy Without Bandages, etc.

We've been down this road before. You're welcome to your opinion, but you come across as a pedant. Like complaining that Jurassic Park is misleading and confusing because they didn't get every detail about dinosaurs correct.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Jaeger on February 09, 2021, 09:43:06 PM
You could play "monster races" in ...

The operative words here being "You Could".

Lots of non-PHB optional, supplemental material you cite there.

I read that you could play a Kender back in the day. I hear they were a big hit.


All I'm saying is I believe that the overall Gamer Culture around D&D has gradually shifted to the point that Multiple Monster races are now standard in core gameplay.

PHB Core Races-

OD&D: Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Hobbit Halfling

B/X: Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling

1e: Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome, Half-Orc

2e: Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome

3e: Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome, Half-Orc

4e: Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Eldarin, Tiefling, Dragonborn

5e: Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome, Half-Orc, Tiefling, Dragonborn


For some reason post 3e, the number of core PC monster races in the PHB seems to increase with every edition.

There just might be an underlying trend in D&D gamer culture with (obviously) earlier roots that seems to have really gained ground around the time 3e was released.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: BoxCrayonTales on February 09, 2021, 09:49:55 PM
He claims to have wanted to "return the game to its roots", yet he then proceeded to systematically divorce the game from referring to real-world history and mythology.

I would love if D&D referenced real-world history and mythology.

Now that's just plain wrong. D&D is built in large part on references to real world history and mythology. It may not cater to whatever specific details you prefer.

I meant literal references (http://www.hahnlibrary.net/rpgs/sources.html).

But speaking of catering, I would appreciate if they at least partially renamed a few monsters that are so utterly divorced from their source material that their name no longer makes sense and only causes confusion whenever you try to compare the two. What would be even better is if they allowed monsters to have multiple names, whether those names come from one language or multiple languages, as in real world bestiaries of folklore.

E.g. Medusa becomes Gorgon Medusa, Snake-Haired Woman, Queen of Serpents, that one hot chick who always wears a veil, etc. Gorgon becomes Gorgon Catoblepas, Iron Bull, Terrible Downlooker, Death Cow, etc. Lich becomes Lich Lord, Lich Mage, Archlich, Lord of Sorrow, Arcane Lich, Lich King, The Lovechild of Afgorkon and Koschey, Afgorkoschey, The Giant Without a Heart, Soulless Immortal Lich, Horcrux-user, Sauron, Ring-Wraith, Voldemort, Rasputin, He Who Must Not Be Named, the Dark Lord of the Sith, etc. Wight becomes Barrow-Wight, Mort-Wight, Lich-Wight, Draug, Draug-Wight, Again Walker, Mummy Without Bandages, etc.

We've been down this road before. You're welcome to your opinion, but you come across as a pedant. Like complaining that Jurassic Park is misleading and confusing because they didn't get every detail about dinosaurs correct.

Lots of people complain about Jurassic Park's inaccuracies, particularly their continued usage despite our new knowledge. But I digress.

Not that I actually expect anybody to adopt my suggestions, I'm not that stupid or narcissistic. I'm likewise not obligated to adopt Gygax's jargon in my own writing, nor is anyone else. A rose by any other name.

By the same token, we can't argue that any particular usage is right or wrong because words change meaning over time. For example, I find D&D's stubborn refusal to let words expand in meaning as per natural language drift to be anal-retentive. In any case, that's why I suggested adding clarifiers in the names to reflect their expanded meanings rather than changing them wholesale: Gorgon Medusa, Catoblepas Gorgon, Draug-Wight, Horcruxed Lich, Poul Troll, etc. This would free up the original names taken from folklore to be used in additional contexts, including more (or less) folkloric takes. For example, using the name "wight" to refer to spirits of buildings and natural features as in neo-paganism: house-wight, land-wight, forge-wight, etc... or weirder things like color wights from the Lightbringer series. Or introducing any of the many varieties of trolls from Scandinavian folklore and popular culture that have nothing to do with the Andersonian troll. Whatever.

Not that I actually expect anybody to adopt my suggestions, I'm not that stupid or narcissistic. I'm likewise not obligated to adopt Gygax's jargon in my own writing, nor is anyone else. A rose by any other name.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on February 09, 2021, 10:38:32 PM
You could play "monster races" in ...

The operative words here being "You Could".

Lots of non-PHB optional, supplemental material you cite there.

I read that you could play a Kender back in the day. I hear they were a big hit.


All I'm saying is I believe that the overall Gamer Culture around D&D has gradually shifted to the point that Multiple Monster races are now standard in core gameplay.

PHB Core Races-

OD&D: Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Hobbit Halfling

B/X: Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling

1e: Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome, Half-Orc

2e: Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome

3e: Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome, Half-Orc

4e: Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Eldarin, Tiefling, Dragonborn

5e: Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome, Half-Orc, Tiefling, Dragonborn


For some reason post 3e, the number of core PC monster races in the PHB seems to increase with every edition.


So you meant to say, starting with 4e PC monster races in the core PHB have increased with every edition.


Quote
There just might be an underlying trend in D&D gamer culture with (obviously) earlier roots that seems to have really gained ground around the time 3e was released.

You seem to be confusing people that play the game with the people that make the game.

There was no ground swell call for Dragonborn and Tiefling PC races before the 4e PHB came out.  In fact 4e not having Gnomes as a core race out of the gate was often cited as one reason why it did so poorly.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: SHARK on February 09, 2021, 11:48:12 PM
Greetings!

Jaeger, you are spot on about this. All of the apologists are missing the point entirely. Yes, in past decades, through various editions, there ptional, supplemental rules that allowed a player to play some kind of monstrous freak character.

Generally speaking, however, it was relatively quite unusual. Most players in most campaigns played conventional character races.

Nowadays, however, monstrous freak characters are *everywhere* in virtually every group, by the trainload. And more importantly, such monstrous freak characters are typically obnoxious, whining bitch snowflakes. I realize that many of the erudite, mature veterans here maintain that they, or the players in their game groups, are thespians par excellence, and outstanding gamers in every way, whether they are playing a standard, conventional race character, or some exotic race. I have confidence in their sincerity.

However, the many groups of gamers I see, in my experience at Adventure's League, don't play exotic races rarely--they play monstrous freak characters routinely--in fact, I would say the majority of parties are composed of a monstrous circus of freaks. The conventional, standard character races are the minority, and often when players select such characters, they are questioned for their wisdom in doing so, in comparison to the uber-cool, special freak races. And, I have seen many of the gamers that choose to play such monstrous freak races, also typically are obnoxious, drama-queen snowflakes. Both the gamer choices of monster freak characters, and the level of obnoxious, drama-queen players have increased in recent years significantly, regardless of what the sincere members here would like to believe.

If I restricted myself to only playing with my private, home groups, I too might have a benighted view of the current state of gamers and gaming--none the less, the reality from what I have seen with many different groups, is a distinctly unfortunate and lamentable dynamic that definitely is increasing. Pundit also often discusses these same kinds of dynamics in his video program, so it isn't like you woke up alone in some weird "Twilight Zone". Other people as well, including myself, have noticed much the same dynamics and trends going on through the gaming hobby.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: jhkim on February 10, 2021, 12:47:46 AM
However, the many groups of gamers I see, in my experience at Adventure's League, don't play exotic races rarely--they play monstrous freak characters routinely--in fact, I would say the majority of parties are composed of a monstrous circus of freaks. The conventional, standard character races are the minority, and often when players select such characters, they are questioned for their wisdom in doing so, in comparison to the uber-cool, special freak races. And, I have seen many of the gamers that choose to play such monstrous freak races, also typically are obnoxious, drama-queen snowflakes. Both the gamer choices of monster freak characters, and the level of obnoxious, drama-queen players have increased in recent years significantly, regardless of what the sincere members here would like to believe.

What's the range of your experience with organized play? I have occasionally dipped my toe into organized play at local Bay Area conventions over the past 15 or so years - and I always find it markedly inferior to general play, for reasons having nothing to do with monstrous races. I think by intention, it's flattening everything out -- making every run the same and every run boring. And the people drawn to this sort of play are the lowest common denominator as well. I didn't notice any trend regarding races - there were just as many obnoxious players with gnomes, elves, and humans as there were playing dragonborn. Then again, I had a limited sample - since I've only played one or two games every few years before leaving again.

Do you (or anyone) have experience with organized play under 1e and 2e? I went to a handful of conventions as a teenager in the 1980s, and the D&D tournament modules that I played had similar problems - though not quite the same. There was a lot of bullshit about collecting points, and the structure of challenges made things dull -- emphasizing puzzle-solving and to some degree memorization of the Monster Manual.

For me personally, I find that endlessly repeating Tolkien in every fantasy game is fucking boring. I enjoy playing settings and campaigns that break out of that mold. My last in-person campaign had a setting where all the PCs were orcs, kobolds, hobgoblins, and similar races. I enjoy Tolkien and have run some cool Middle-Earth games, but I also like variety.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: moonsweeper on February 10, 2021, 01:26:16 AM


You could play "monster races' in ODnD

You could play "monster races" in Dragonlance in 2e

You could play "monster races" in Dark Sun in 2e

You could play "monster races" in Spelljammer in 2e

You could play "monster races" in Birthright in 2e

You could play "monster races" in Mystara in BECMI/DnD

You could play "monster races" in Faerun in 2e

You could play "monster races" in Planescape in 2e

But the real trend of playing "monster races" started in 3e.  Somehow.  Some thing to do with refined mechanics and easier character creation, descending armour class being the only thing holding back huge swaths of people from playing Minotaurs.

You keep missing my point.

Yes, all of those campaign settings had a unique 'monster race' or two that were baked-in/added very early...except for Planescape and Spelljammer which were the over-the-top settings, designed to add anything from the other settings.

0e would have whatever the DM created or allowed since the settings were basically all homebrew.

3e used unified mechanics for monsters and PCs...this, along with proliferation due to OGL, and the spread of info through the internet, made it much easier for people to develop 'playable' monsters...which culminated in the Savage Species book a few years later.  This is all a good thing.

I don't really understand what you have against 3e  ???

...Over the years, one of the useful things from 3e (easy ability to add a monster PC to the campaign if you want) has become overused to the point that you are seeing a traveling circus effect (which can also be blamed on hyper-optimization to get that last possible +1)...and now more and more monster races are being added without them really fitting the campaign settings...but that is hardly the fault of 3e, its just a downstream effect.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Omega on February 10, 2021, 02:43:54 AM
Of course Pundit ignores the little fact that even before publication the D&D players were playing everything from a Balrog to a Vampire and all sort of other critters that various "purity" snobs conveniently ignore. The game allowed you to do about anything as long as the DM was on board for it.

Players playing weird races today? Thats so 70s.

It's past time that we call bullshit on this. Was there a game in the 70s Lake Geneva where someone played a balrog once? Sure, ok. And yes, someone back then played Lord Fang and Gygax loved it so much he tried to kill the character, or invented turning undead, or something.

But to claim that this was representative of anything is nonsense. No one played PC monsters in any of the groups I was in. You choose a race from the option in the PHB, and if you tried any of that garbage no one would game with you.

YMMV, I guess?

Except Mike has stated here and elsewhere it was fairly common and the players regularly recruited monsters into their retinue and were able to then select those as PCs if the current died. Just like any other retainer.

Also Dragon had at least one article for B or BX for freefom character creation allowing you to play anything. And later there were three expansions for BX or BECMI for playing a very large array of monsters and one monster-centric mini campaign settings.
Hell, Dragon alone had every few issues at least one new player race that was half the time a MM creature. Several being player submitted.
Various settings have added new races that were prior monsters.
AD&D has that section on how to convert characters from Gamma World. 2e was cross compatible with GW as well. Not to mention that small section of advice cautioning on how to allow players to play monsters as well.
And so on.

But golly gee that must have all neeeever happened and this is allllll 5es fault and those mean ol snowflakes wanting to ruin D&D!

And before this Pundit and others were bitching about how those mean ol snowflakes want to reuin D&D by playing, ghasparoones! Elves and Dwarves! Get thee to a fainting couch.

Take out a loan and buy a clue. Every style of play has been there from the get-go. Human only campaigns? Plenty, Bog standard mix of Humans and Demis? Plenty. Monsters tossed in? Plenty.

You bitch and whine about how the SJWs want to restrict your play and then turn around and declare you want to do the exact same thing.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 10, 2021, 06:18:11 AM
Quote
But speaking of catering, I would appreciate if they at least partially renamed a few monsters that are so utterly divorced from their source material that their name no longer makes sense and only causes confusion whenever you try to compare the two. What would be even better is if they allowed monsters to have multiple names, whether those names come from one language or multiple languages, as in real world bestiaries of folklore.

E.g. Medusa becomes Gorgon Medusa, Snake-Haired Woman, Queen of Serpents, that one hot chick who always wears a veil, etc. Gorgon becomes Gorgon Catoblepas, Iron Bull, Terrible Downlooker, Death Cow, etc. Lich becomes Lich Lord, Lich Mage, Archlich, Lord of Sorrow, Arcane Lich, Lich King, The Lovechild of Afgorkon and Koschey, Afgorkoschey, The Giant Without a Heart, Soulless Immortal Lich, Horcrux-user, Sauron, Ring-Wraith, Voldemort, Rasputin, He Who Must Not Be Named, the Dark Lord of the Sith, etc. Wight becomes Barrow-Wight, Mort-Wight, Lich-Wight, Draug, Draug-Wight, Again Walker, Mummy Without Bandages, etc.

This would be utterly ridiculous and straight up stupid.
In this case New School is right - D&D definitions evolved from original legends/myths (not to mention many of those you mentioned were not even a thing in those times) and forged certain own identity of various things - D&D basilisks, D&D medusas, D&D demons and devils, D&D liches (in this case I'm quite sure it was D&D who forged modern lich from some archaic word for "corpse", so I'm quite sure it's totally off your point). And when we discuss those monsters in D&D context, we discuss them in context of almost 50 years of D&D, not in context of ancient Bulgarian folklore from 9th century AD.

Not to mention those names are simply NOT COOL. (Also - Sauron would be equivalent of high level LE outsider - what it even has to do with liches).
And real-life folklore can suck it, and make other games and lores with more faithful representations.

Quote
The lich's phylactery is no longer limited to a Jewish prayer book so the name is an artifact more than anything else.

TBH term phylacterium is greek and it was never limited to Jewish scroll-amulets, simply Greek-speaking Jews adopted it for it.

Quote
For some reason post 3e, the number of core PC monster races in the PHB seems to increase with every edition.

I have to say I'd hardly call any of races appearing post-3 as monster-races. May understanding is that monster race is like taking existing monster from Bestiary/Manual and PC-ing him.
Meanwhile dragonborn are utterly new, tieflings never were monsters - they were just rare planar race from planar settings, closest would be half-orc I assume.
Meanwhile orcs, goblinoids, giantkin, gnolls and many other classical monsters are still sadly relegated to some supplements. (Aside of PF but their Goblins are simply movie Gremlins, not mangusta-people from FR so that does not count ;) )

Quote
Not that I actually expect anybody to adopt my suggestions, I'm not that stupid or narcissistic. I'm likewise not obligated to adopt Gygax's jargon in my own writing, nor is anyone else. A rose by any other name.

Well sure but if we talk about D&D we talk about D&D. So basilisks have 8 legs and no chicken's head.


Quote
So you meant to say, starting with 4e PC monster races in the core PHB have increased with every edition.

Unless you count gnomes as monster race I think 5e and 4e are on equal note in what is considered monster race here.


Quote
Nowadays, however, monstrous freak characters are *everywhere* in virtually every group, by the trainload. And more importantly, such monstrous freak characters are typically obnoxious, whining bitch snowflakes. I realize that many of the erudite, mature veterans here maintain that they, or the players in their game groups, are thespians par excellence, and outstanding gamers in every way, whether they are playing a standard, conventional race character, or some exotic race. I have confidence in their sincerity.

Youngest generation of zoomers are often whiny snowflakes with obsession on uniquenes.. Ultimately this is generational problem.
If there was no snowflake races in D&D they would simply play snowflake members of usual races beings equally obnoxious. I mean they manage to be obnoxious snowflakey in real life quite well, despite not being tieflings or dragonborns XD

Quote
For me personally, I find that endlessly repeating Tolkien in every fantasy game is fucking boring. I enjoy playing settings and campaigns that break out of that mold. My last in-person campaign had a setting where all the PCs were orcs, kobolds, hobgoblins, and similar races. I enjoy Tolkien and have run some cool Middle-Earth games, but I also like variety.

Now TBH D&D was never repeating Tolkien.
They re-wrote almost all races - partly because Gygax was inspired by other fantasy writers more, partly due to balance.
In fact only one really Tolkienian D&D is 5e Adventures in Middle Earth because they are sort of 5e version of The One Ring, probably only really good Tolkienian system overall.
Elves were turned into faerie hippies, dwarves into drunken Scottish miners, orcs into green barbarians, hobbits into kenders...
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Chris24601 on February 10, 2021, 08:46:47 AM
You bitch and whine about how the SJWs want to restrict your play and then turn around and declare you want to do the exact same thing.
I’ve said before that it often feels like certain OSR pushers aren’t complaining because of what the SJW’s are pushing... but because THEY aren’t the ones getting to push their gaming preferences on everyone.

Frankly, it’s why I want nothing to do with the OSR in regards to my own system and consider the brand toxic. There are far too many people like the above in the movement and very few people have much tolerance for One True Wayist BS.

There’s a huge difference between “play what you want, but it’s not for me” and “if you aren’t playing the way I like you’re doing it wrong and are either misguided or a bad person.”

So my project is non-OSR and that does mean that, like Palladium’s Rifts, you can play giants, dragons, centaurs, ravenkin, cyborg dwarves, golems, trolls, orcs, ogres, shadow men, malfeans, sprites and talking animals in addition to elves and gnomes and humans right out of the box.

That said, most of my playtesters have still chosen mostly humans (which to be fair, does include those with elven, dwarvish, eldritch, shadow and mutant ancestries), elf or other very common alternatives, but for me it’s important to have the options there because it’s always easier to cut out than to add.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Abraxus on February 10, 2021, 09:12:00 AM
But golly gee that must have all neeeever happened and this is allllll 5es fault and those mean ol snowflakes wanting to ruin D&D!

And before this Pundit and others were bitching about how those mean ol snowflakes want to reuin D&D by playing, ghasparoones! Elves and Dwarves! Get thee to a fainting couch.

Take out a loan and buy a clue. Every style of play has been there from the get-go. Human only campaigns? Plenty, Bog standard mix of Humans and Demis? Plenty. Monsters tossed in? Plenty.

You bitch and whine about how the SJWs want to restrict your play and then turn around and declare you want to do the exact same thing.


LOL you made my day.

For all the gamers here claiming that the SJws are restrictive and repressive they can be just as bad. To me Pundit has become as bad as the SJWs he complains about. More often than not most games used the core races. Yet I'm not going to assume that because I never saw it at my table at least before 3E it never happened. Nor is it bad thing to me at least. If it were simply live and let live and play as you want it's one thing. Instead not only did it never happen, not only did the rules not allow it which they did, it's the " well if your playing anything but standard core your doing it" line of gatekeeping bullshit. Of all the places I expected gatekeeping to happen here was the last place.

@ Shark

All due respect to the Great white simply having a bad experience with organized play is not indicative of a wide spread problem in the hobby. Sure some are assholes who want to act like snowflakes it's the exception not the norm. That like an gay SJW gamer  claiming all gamers are homophobic because one table and only one discriminated against them for being gay.

Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Torque2100 on February 10, 2021, 10:22:18 AM

...........

For me personally, I find that endlessly repeating Tolkien in every fantasy game is fucking boring. I enjoy playing settings and campaigns that break out of that mold. My last in-person campaign had a setting where all the PCs were orcs, kobolds, hobgoblins, and similar races. I enjoy Tolkien and have run some cool Middle-Earth games, but I also like variety.

I'm with Jhkim. I think one of the reasons that I have always enjoyed Sci-Fi RPGs more than Fantasy is that Science Fiction has so much more variety to it.

Also gear porn.  Gear porn is always great.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Greywolf76 on February 10, 2021, 11:04:22 AM
For me, it depends on the setting.

I had a homebrew AD&D low-fantasy campaign with a strong influence from folk tales and myths, and besides humans, the only other two player races were elves and dwarves. And everytime I run al-Qadim, humans were the only available PC race.

I have no problem whatsoever with exotic player races if they're commonplace in the setting. I'm ok with tieflings and githzerai in Planescape, trolls in Shadowrun, thri-kreen and half-giants in Dark Sun, or shistavanens and togrutas in Star Wars.

But inserting things like the 4e tieflings (which is vastly different from the original Planescape one) or dragonborn in Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk and making them as ubiquitous as halflings and dwarves just seems odd to me. Maybe its the traditionalist in me, but I think they don't fit those settings at all. Just like I don't think elves and gnomes fit an Arabian Nights-inspired setting as al-Qadim.

Snowflake players are pet-peeves of mine. I've never allowed drow PC because, in my personal experience, it was the favorite PC race for those players (the tiefling apparently fills this niche nowadays) and I prefer them as mysterious, evil bastards. Good drow are extremely rare - and I believe they would prefer to organize a resistance movement in the Underdark rather than escaping to the surface world where they would be hunted down and killed at first sight. But I digress.

Anyway, I could allow some exotic and rare PC races, like half-ogre or a lizard man, in a Forgotten Realms campaign since they already exist in the setting (and there would be consequences - they'd would never be treated the same as the more human-looking races), but writers changing an entire setting and inserting things they pulled from their arses "just because"? LOL no, thanks.

Just my two coppers.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Armchair Gamer on February 10, 2021, 11:11:17 AM
There are cultural changes that WotC made when they took over that, I think, have increased the prevalence of new and more exotic PC races, although by no means was it original to the newer editions of the game. It was 2nd Edition, after all, that gave us rules for dragon and undead PCs.

One is a rules-based change--the class and level limits of O/B/AD&D died thoroughly with the launch of 3E and have never made a real comeback since.

The other is what might be called 'tighter integration.' There are two strains in D&D from the beginning, IMO--"D&D as a specific game/genre/experience," and "D&D as a toolkit." TSR swung between the two based on time and management (Gygax moved towards specificity with the AD&D project, but 2E was all-in on toolkit material and adaptation to the numerous settings), but while WotC has provided plenty of tools, it has also been big on 'making all these tools work together' and 'making games fit with the core D&D experience.' Thus, things that would have been setting-specific or contradictory in earlier days have been both made to work together and made 'universal' parts of D&D.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 10, 2021, 11:43:05 AM
Quote
and I believe they would prefer to organize a resistance movement in the Underdark rather than escaping to the surface world where they would be hunted down and killed at first sight. But I digress.

Technically I think most of Elistraee followers are surface dwelling, because still it's easier to get niche there, and some deal with other Woodland Critters, than to delve among Llothians.

Quote
Anyway, I could allow some exotic and rare PC races, like half-ogre or a lizard man, in a Forgotten Realms campaign since they already exist in the setting (and there would be consequences - they'd would never be treated the same as the more human-looking races), but writers changing an entire setting and inserting things they pulled from their arses "just because"? LOL no, thanks.

To certaing degree this was problem as editions started to take drastic changes, and each time each mayor settings - so AT LEAST - Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms and later Eberron has to fit Core races and classes. Faerun get shortest stick as it was most popular due games, and most rich with lore (which I have little love for but still) so each edition just explode things altogether.
I mean - planetouched was one thing - you just treat FR tieflings as they were before - rare and not race on it's own (like PoL 4e basic setting) but just mortals born with pinch of other blood, but to fit dragonborns in Faerun they had to literally clusterfuck to parallel universes together XD

But that's overall problem with settings crafted to fit game inside - and not game build around setting.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Habitual Gamer on February 10, 2021, 12:29:17 PM
Nowadays, however, monstrous freak characters are *everywhere* in virtually every group, by the trainload. And more importantly, such monstrous freak characters are typically obnoxious, whining bitch snowflakes.

I don't know when or how or why* it started, but I 'member back in the 90's when a group would sit down to play Vampire and somebody -had- to play a Werewolf, or they'd sit down to play Werewolf and somebody -had- to play a Mage**, or they'd sit down to play Mage and somebody -had- to play a were-dinosaur-with-demonic-investments-and-ghoul-powers-and-also-some-levels-of-Paladin-even-though-it-was-a-different-game-system.

Point being: this is an old thing, common to pretty much any game with "core" options and "supplemental" ones.

*Okay, I think I know -why- this is.  In a game where everybody is unique and special and different, some players have to feel -extra- special or else they feel like their character is "boring".  Some players out grow this with experience, some prefer the gonzo play style. 
** Alright.  Wanting to play a Mage in old-school World of Darkness games regardless of anything else isn't bad form.  It's just plain common sense.  (and while I'm half-joking when I say that, I'd never do that to somebody wanting to run a -Werewolf- game)
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Jaeger on February 10, 2021, 01:13:06 PM

So you meant to say, starting with 4e PC monster races in the core PHB have increased with every edition.

Nope 3e.

In 2e the Half-Orc was dropped as a core PC race.

Brought back in 3e because "...rather than referring to real-world history and mythology. …we basically used D&D as its own source..."

There was a cultural shift in the direction of the game at WOTC. For a lot of elements in D&D.


You seem to be confusing people that play the game with the people that make the game.

There was no ground swell call for Dragonborn and Tiefling PC races before the 4e PHB came out.  In fact 4e not having Gnomes as a core race out of the gate was often cited as one reason why it did so poorly.

No ground swell?

From your own posts there was obviously a decent sized market pre-3e, and during 3e for monster races as PC's. They certainly put out enough supplemental material for them!

Seems they finally decided to cater to that market in the core PHB.

And they obviously learned their lesson with the Gnome, and brought them back along with the Half-Orc in 5e for good measure!

Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Chris24601 on February 10, 2021, 01:17:49 PM
*Okay, I think I know -why- this is.  In a game where everybody is unique and special and different, some players have to feel -extra- special or else they feel like their character is "boring".  Some players out grow this with experience, some prefer the gonzo play style.
Personally, the only thing that can even get me to buy into a vampire game is if I’m allowed to run a Dhampir. Not because I need to be a special snowflake, but because I have a pathological aversion to playing parasitic monsters.

The ONLY sane reaction I imagine after regaining my senses after becoming a vampire would be to head straight to Confession followed by a walk out into the sun.

The Dhampir doesn’t have to feed off mortals (indeed gains ZERO benefit from even attempting it), but can still be involved in the game (somewhat power capped; one dot limit in disciplines; but the V20 version is almost brokenly resilient... can theoretically soak aggravated damage equal to a 7th Gen with max Fortitude and heal aggravated damage in moments as if they had the blood pool of a 4th Gen*).
 
Quote
** Alright.  Wanting to play a Mage in old-school World of Darkness games regardless of anything else isn't bad form.  It's just plain common sense.  (and while I'm half-joking when I say that, I'd never do that to somebody wanting to run a -Werewolf- game)
I would, though to be minimally disruptive I’d roll a Dreamspeaker with the Kinfolk merit.

I’d still utterly wreck things though because the oWoD scale of lethality goes Mage (unprepared) < Vampire < Werewolf < Demon < Reality < Mage (prepared), but at least I wouldn’t shatter the Wolves’ little corner of consensual reality while I do so.

* The rules bit with Dhampirs that allows both of these things is that, because they’re alive, Dhampirs treat aggravated damage as lethal (because that’s how it’s treated for mortals in V20). However, like ghouls they can still soak lethal damage with stamina and heal lethal damage for 1 blood point per level.

The result is that a Dhampir with Stamina 5, Fort 1 can soak aggravated damage (because it’s only lethal to them) with six dice... while a vampire can only soak Agg with Fortitude and 7th Gen is the weakest vampire that can buy Fort 6.

Likewise, while a Dhampir only has a blood pool of 10, it costs them only 1 blood point to heal a level of lethal damage (which all aggravated damage is for them) while it takes 24 hours and 5 blood points for a vampire to heal a level of aggravated damage... so it would take 50 blood points to match the aggravated healing of a dhampir; which is the blood pool size of a 4th Gen.

They’re still weaker in virtually every other way and can’t outsoak a Werewolf, but by amusing quirk of the rules Dhampirs are like the Energizer Bunny in terms of damage capacity in a vampire game.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Steven Mitchell on February 10, 2021, 01:20:52 PM
Nowadays, however, monstrous freak characters are *everywhere* in virtually every group, by the trainload. And more importantly, such monstrous freak characters are typically obnoxious, whining bitch snowflakes.

I don't know when or how or why* it started, but I 'member back in the 90's when a group would sit down to play Vampire and somebody -had- to play a Werewolf, or they'd sit down to play Werewolf and somebody -had- to play a Mage**, or they'd sit down to play Mage and somebody -had- to play a were-dinosaur-with-demonic-investments-and-ghoul-powers-and-also-some-levels-of-Paladin-even-though-it-was-a-different-game-system.

Point being: this is an old thing, common to pretty much any game with "core" options and "supplemental" ones.

*Okay, I think I know -why- this is.  In a game where everybody is unique and special and different, some players have to feel -extra- special or else they feel like their character is "boring".  Some players out grow this with experience, some prefer the gonzo play style. 
** Alright.  Wanting to play a Mage in old-school World of Darkness games regardless of anything else isn't bad form.  It's just plain common sense.  (and while I'm half-joking when I say that, I'd never do that to somebody wanting to run a -Werewolf- game)

It's even more common than that.  There's "that guy" that will always react that way.  He will do it even if you plan the setting as a group before play starts.  He will even agree during the setting planning:

"We agree we want to play an all-human game, low magic, set in a fantasy analog of south-western Europe within a century or two of the fall of Rome? OK then, go make your characters."  That guy comes back with a Hungarian half-elf that was personal friends with the last emperor and has access to magic now lost.

He will say that he was agreeing during the planning merely to be agreeable but then felt unduly constrained.  So next campaign, you play wide-open kitchen sink in a global setting with 15 races and 37 classes and numerous options but still some setting limits.  He agrees.  He shows up with a time-traveling alien from another dimension that could not possibly be made from any of those building blocks.

More normal people that really wanted to play an elf in the first game would have raised that question while the campaign was being discussed or pitched or at least let the GM know that they'll give the campaign a shot but would prefer a few more options.  Most people that have a strong streak of "that guy" in their nature are more subtle in their attempts to manipulate the setting for their amusement.  Some few of the latter can even be enjoyable players to have in a group, if the GM has a backbone.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Chris24601 on February 10, 2021, 02:56:28 PM
It's even more common than that.  There's "that guy" that will always react that way.  He will do it even if you plan the setting as a group before play starts.
“That guy” doesn’t even need to use race; it’s just often the most convenient.

Religion is another common way they play disrutor in my experience. “That Guy” in one campaign was playing a human fighter... whose patron was Bane (in his aspect as god of discipline and military strength or so the player claimed).

Or, after listening to everyone else lay out the goals their PCs are interested in pursuing, decides their PC’s goals will be mutually exclusive (ex. from the Vampire game I mentioned recently; PCs want to establish a power base in the city and maybe overthrow the Prince eventually... their goal? Become a jet-setting international pop celebrity).

Frankly, I’ll take someone who wants to play a talking dog, but otherwise gets along with the rest of the PCs and shares their goals over the Bane worshipper and “celebrity sparkles” vampire any day of the week.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on February 10, 2021, 03:14:43 PM
You keep missing my point.

Yes, all of those campaign settings had a unique 'monster race' or two that were baked-in/added very early...except for Planescape and Spelljammer which were the over-the-top settings, designed to add anything from the other settings.

0e would have whatever the DM created or allowed since the settings were basically all homebrew.

3e used unified mechanics for monsters and PCs...this, along with proliferation due to OGL, and the spread of info through the internet, made it much easier for people to develop 'playable' monsters...which culminated in the Savage Species book a few years later.  This is all a good thing.

I don't really understand what you have against 3e  ???

...Over the years, one of the useful things from 3e (easy ability to add a monster PC to the campaign if you want) has become overused to the point that you are seeing a traveling circus effect (which can also be blamed on hyper-optimization to get that last possible +1)...and now more and more monster races are being added without them really fitting the campaign settings...but that is hardly the fault of 3e, its just a downstream effect.

Since you love 3e so much then you would be able to bring some proof of what you are saying to the table.

Because at the moment it sounds like you are saying that pre-3e DMs banned having monster PC in their campaigns and post-3e DMs had no choice but to allow Players to play what ever PC race that they wanted.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on February 10, 2021, 03:21:50 PM

So you meant to say, starting with 4e PC monster races in the core PHB have increased with every edition.

Nope 3e.

In 2e the Half-Orc was dropped as a core PC race.

Brought back in 3e because "...rather than referring to real-world history and mythology. …we basically used D&D as its own source..."

There was a cultural shift in the direction of the game at WOTC. For a lot of elements in D&D.

The only reason that Half-Orc was dropped from 2e was the Woke scalds that were coming after DnD during the Satanic Panic caused the neck beards designing 2e to pull all risque material from DnD.  So bye bye Assassin, Devils, Demons and yes Half-Orcs.


Quote
You seem to be confusing people that play the game with the people that make the game.

There was no ground swell call for Dragonborn and Tiefling PC races before the 4e PHB came out.  In fact 4e not having Gnomes as a core race out of the gate was often cited as one reason why it did so poorly.

No ground swell?

From your own posts there was obviously a decent sized market pre-3e, and during 3e for monster races as PC's. They certainly put out enough supplemental material for them!

Seems they finally decided to cater to that market in the core PHB.

And they obviously learned their lesson with the Gnome, and brought them back along with the Half-Orc in 5e for good measure!

Two very niche races that barely any DnD player had even heard about?

Most people wont believe you but I do.   :o
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Omega on February 10, 2021, 04:40:45 PM
There are cultural changes that WotC made when they took over that, I think, have increased the prevalence of new and more exotic PC races, although by no means was it original to the newer editions of the game. It was 2nd Edition, after all, that gave us rules for dragon and undead PCs.

One is a rules-based change--the class and level limits of O/B/AD&D died thoroughly with the launch of 3E and have never made a real comeback since.

1: Not really. Players were submitting exotic races to Dragon fairly often and as noted, A/2, B/BX/BECMI had a surprisingly large mumber, especially BX/BECMI.

2: There was an increasing push to remove race level limits long long before 3e. And groups were ignoring those limits right out the gate. 3e just made it alot more official.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Jaeger on February 10, 2021, 06:25:28 PM
The only reason that Half-Orc was dropped from 2e was the Woke scalds that were coming after DnD during the Satanic Panic caused the neck beards designing 2e to pull all risque material from DnD.  So bye bye Assassin, Devils, Demons and yes Half-Orcs.

Yet somehow, according to your own posts, they managed to release a good amount of material in that era that gave players options to play many different monster PC races...

Obviously their fear of the Woke scalds knew no limit.


Two very niche races that barely any DnD player had even heard about?

They served the cultural shift in the market. And for niche races that "barely any DnD player had even heard about"; they seem to be rather well received.

It seems that the people who made the game knew what the people who played the game wanted.


Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 10, 2021, 06:58:16 PM
Quote
** Alright.  Wanting to play a Mage in old-school World of Darkness games regardless of anything else isn't bad form.  It's just plain common sense.  (and while I'm half-joking when I say that, I'd never do that to somebody wanting to run a -Werewolf- game)

On higher "levels" yes. In terms of beginning characters for a long time Werewolfs can just smack around Mage and Vampire crossovers.

Quote
Personally, the only thing that can even get me to buy into a vampire game is if I’m allowed to run a Dhampir. Not because I need to be a special snowflake, but because I have a pathological aversion to playing parasitic monsters.

I think there are option nowadays to avoid hurting people - at least too much - like feeding on blood banks for instance.
As Mascarade Vampires still keeps their human identity - I'd not call them like fully monsters, not if they decide not to submit to Beast.

Quote
The ONLY sane reaction I imagine after regaining my senses after becoming a vampire would be to head straight to Confession followed by a walk out into the sun.

Either you are alive - and then cannot commit suicide, or dead and then you cannot confess :P

Quote
“That Guy” in one campaign was playing a human fighter... whose patron was Bane (in his aspect as god of discipline and military strength or so the player claimed).

My Lawful Neutral GM nods in approval. XD
He gets our team Banite Paladine woman as a retinue. NG elven archer is still disturbed ;)

Quote
Yet somehow, according to your own posts, they managed to release a good amount of material in that era that gave players options to play many different monster PC races...

Obviously their fear of the Woke scalds knew no limit.

I presume primo Satanic Panic was bit limited in time, and secondo - core rules are also of different meaning than Supplement nr. 34




Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on February 10, 2021, 06:59:32 PM
The only reason that Half-Orc was dropped from 2e was the Woke scalds that were coming after DnD during the Satanic Panic caused the neck beards designing 2e to pull all risque material from DnD.  So bye bye Assassin, Devils, Demons and yes Half-Orcs.

Yet somehow, according to your own posts, they managed to release a good amount of material in that era that gave players options to play many different monster PC races...

Obviously their fear of the Woke scalds knew no limit.

My guess is that she-who-must-not-be-named liked money more then she hated "bad" publicity because by the time 2.5e rolled around they had no problem building monster PC races directly into the core rules.

But I guess we can not talk about 2.5e because that would destroy your narrative about how it was 3e, years later, that was the font of problem monster PC races.

Your one weakness, people that can remember.

Quote
Two very niche races that barely any DnD player had even heard about?

They served the cultural shift in the market. And for niche races that "barely any DnD player had even heard about"; they seem to be rather well received.

It seems that the people who made the game knew what the people who played the game wanted.

It looks like Dragonborn and Tieflings are the fifth and sixth most popular races in 5e, beating out Halflings, Half Orcs and Gnomes
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 10, 2021, 07:03:47 PM
So what is official top 10 of races played by dunno official roll20 tables or social polls?
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Chris24601 on February 10, 2021, 07:37:16 PM
It looks like Dragonborn and Tieflings are the fifth and sixth most popular races in 5e, beating out Halflings, Half Orcs and Gnomes
That’s actually old data from the D&D Beyond beta (the top four in order being Human, Half-Elf, Elf and Dwarf).

The 2020 data from D&D Beyond indicates that Dragonborn and Tieflings are now 3 and 4 respectively; bumping off the elves and the dwarves. Humans and half-elves still remain #1 and 2 by a wide margin however. (ETA: this is different than the chart below, which was from 2019... so the numbers aren’t a static ratio by any means).

Half-orcs also made a comeback, climbing to #5 and also beating out elves and dwarves now.

So, by the numbers, humans and half-humans (-elves, -orcs, and -devils) are four of the top five races with “Proud Warrior Race” dragon guy rounding them out, but still falling well behind humans and half-elves.

So much for the theory that weird monster snowflakes were taking over D&D these days. The only thing they’re taking over are snowflake Twitter feeds, which we already know are not a representative sample of the population.

ETA: Here’s a jpg from a D&D Beyond presentation someone put up at enworld.
(https://www.enworld.org/attachments/race-distro-2-19-jpg.104647/)

Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on February 10, 2021, 08:17:08 PM
So what is official top 10 of races played by dunno official roll20 tables or social polls?

Here are the official top 10 races as created by players on DnD beyond:

Human
Elf
Half-Elf
Dwarf
Dragonborn
Tiefling
Genasi
Halfling
Half-Orc
Gnome
Goliath
Aarakocra
Aasimar
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on February 10, 2021, 08:21:31 PM
It looks like Dragonborn and Tieflings are the fifth and sixth most popular races in 5e, beating out Halflings, Half Orcs and Gnomes
That’s actually old data from the D&D Beyond beta (the top four in order being Human, Half-Elf, Elf and Dwarf).

The 2020 data from D&D Beyond indicates that Dragonborn and Tieflings are now 3 and 4 respectively; bumping off the elves and the dwarves. Humans and half-elves still remain #1 and 2 by a wide margin however. (ETA: this is different than the chart below, which was from 2019... so the numbers aren’t a static ratio by any means).

Half-orcs also made a comeback, climbing to #5 and also beating out elves and dwarves now.

That is only true if you break Elves and Dwarves down to their sub races.

So, not true.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 10, 2021, 08:27:02 PM
Aasimar after Aarakocra - truly D&D is lost and taken forever by feathery furries. (Srsly scalies and featheries are present - but no furries, are furries just playing dwarves now? I WANT TO KNOW) XD

The chart Chris pasted is bit meh - as it divides certain groups IMHO unnecessary and counterintuitevly.

Add them up:

Human - 22,8%
Elf - 13,7%
Half-Elf - 9,1%
Tiefling - 7,5%
Dragonborn - 7,2%
Dwarf - 6,6%
Half-Orc - 4,7%
Halfling - 4,7%
Gnome - 3,1%
Aasimar - 2,9%
Aarakocra - 2,8%
Goliath - 3,9%
Genasi - 3,4%
Changeling - 1,4%
Tabaxi - 1,2%
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Chris24601 on February 10, 2021, 11:05:00 PM
The chart Chris pasted is bit meh - as it divides certain groups IMHO unnecessary and counterintuitevly.
I didn't put it together; it was part of some WotC power point presentation.

That said, when you actually look at those numbers you begin to understand some of the decisions WotC made with 4E. They got grief for it at the time, but the fact is the Gnome and Half-Orc just aren't THAT popular which is why they were initially one of the optional races in the back of the MM (so saying they weren't in the initial release is just false) and got a full write-up in the always planned PHB2 nine months later. Admittedly halflings aren't that popular overall either, but they're more popular than gnomes and they needed a small race for the first book.

It bit them because the gnome player, though small, was quite vocal... but if you look at those percentages, the the 4E PHB1 races account for just over 75% of all the PCs on that list.

Also, looking at that list really does drive home that even though they're options and highly touted by freaks on Twitter, pretending monstrous snowflake races are taking over D&D is just plain hyperbole. The default D&D races account for about 65% of all PCs with Tieflings and Dragonborn accounting for 15% of the rest... so all the other stuff is just 20% and when you cut out Aasimar (i.e. humans with celestial ancestry), Genasi (humans with elemental ancestry), Changelings (who spend most of their time looking like the common races) and Goliaths (depends on the setting, but in at least one they're humans with giant ancestry) you're down to just 4% that aren't a demi-human, part human or a dragonborn.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: TJS on February 10, 2021, 11:50:26 PM
Gnomes were often forgotten even in TSR days/

Dark Sun - No gnomes
Birthright - No gnomes
Dragonlance - Gnomes replaced by annoying comic parody gnomes.
Basic D&D - No gnomes


Honestly I forget that they ever exist until once every 10 years or so someone says "Hey, maybe I'll play a gnome.  What are gnomes like in this setting?" 

And I go "Um, aah, right Gnomes.  Those guys yeah.  They're um.."
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: TJS on February 11, 2021, 12:00:47 AM
I'll note from that poll that only 22% of characters are human.

When you put that against the fact that in every published D&D setting most of the kingdoms are human, most of the politics are human and most of the cultures are dominated by humans you do end up with the situation in which most of the PCs are outsiders of some sort.  In addition almost all of what I would think of as source material for D&D games is predominantly humanocentric.

Is that a problem?  Not necessarily.  But it's a reason why you might want to greatly restrict these races.  And if people whinge if I say there are no Tieflings they can fuck off.

But really the bigger issue to me is the constant raising of the stakes.  If the PCs are things like half-demon vampires who make pacts with Great Old ones what weirdness are they going to discover out there in the world that's greater and more wondrous than what they see in the mirror every day?*  And of course once you've got characters like that the human Ice Barbarian who was exiled from his tribe for kinslaying and left to see the world, just seems a little dull by comparison.

*GM: You see a strange abomination floating towards you.  It has no visible means of locomotion and yet it moves, it's spherical in shape with razor sharp teeth and eyes that stick out in all directions and stare balefully at you as it approaches. This is something that clearly should not be able to exist...and yet it does!
Player: Oh it looks just like Aunt Jemima.  I ask it if it knows her.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Ratman_tf on February 11, 2021, 01:22:22 AM
It looks like Dragonborn and Tieflings are the fifth and sixth most popular races in 5e, beating out Halflings, Half Orcs and Gnomes
That’s actually old data from the D&D Beyond beta (the top four in order being Human, Half-Elf, Elf and Dwarf).

The 2020 data from D&D Beyond indicates that Dragonborn and Tieflings are now 3 and 4 respectively; bumping off the elves and the dwarves. Humans and half-elves still remain #1 and 2 by a wide margin however. (ETA: this is different than the chart below, which was from 2019... so the numbers aren’t a static ratio by any means).

Half-orcs also made a comeback, climbing to #5 and also beating out elves and dwarves now.

So, by the numbers, humans and half-humans (-elves, -orcs, and -devils) are four of the top five races with “Proud Warrior Race” dragon guy rounding them out, but still falling well behind humans and half-elves.

So much for the theory that weird monster snowflakes were taking over D&D these days. The only thing they’re taking over are snowflake Twitter feeds, which we already know are not a representative sample of the population.

ETA: Here’s a jpg from a D&D Beyond presentation someone put up at enworld.
(https://www.enworld.org/attachments/race-distro-2-19-jpg.104647/)

Where are the Thri-Kreen? Fucking racists!

(https://projects.inklesspen.com/fatal-and-friends/images/c2c346621c2de733568796770f13fd4f101b59024d0285fec19e42173944b4dc.png)
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Jaeger on February 11, 2021, 01:43:15 AM

My guess is that she-who-must-not-be-named liked money more then she hated "bad" publicity because by the time 2.5e rolled around they had no problem building monster PC races directly into the core rules.

But I guess we can not talk about 2.5e because that would destroy your narrative about how it was 3e, years later, that was the font of problem monster PC races.

Your one weakness, people that can remember.

Your one weakness seems to be your inability to remember my posted reply to you back on page 6 in this thread:

"You are right "started" is the wrong word. Cultural Shifts don't come out of nowhere.

"Codified" with 3e fits the situation better.

There was always a subset of players who wanted to play some special non-core thing. And supplemental material was made to cater to them. In 1e and 2e." ...





It looks like Dragonborn and Tieflings are the fifth and sixth most popular races in 5e, beating out Halflings, Half Orcs and Gnomes

Here are the official top 10 races as created by players on DnD beyond:

Human
Elf
Half-Elf
Dwarf
Dragonborn
Tiefling
Genasi
Halfling
Half-Orc
Gnome
Goliath
Aarakocra
Aasimar



Thank you for providing this list showing that over half of the top 10 13 PC races are monster races.

And if I may point out; that the two races that no gamer really heard of: the Dragonborn and Tiefling, are now "officially" more popular than the old standbys; Halfling, Half-Orc, and Gnome.



Also, looking at that list really does drive home that even though they're options and highly touted by freaks on Twitter, pretending monstrous snowflake races are taking over D&D is just plain hyperbole. ...

True, claiming that the snowflake races are taking over D&D is premature.

But all the Hyperbole does have a point.

They are very vocal, and the squeaky wheel gets the grease as they say. And the current powers that be at WOTC do seem to be listening...



Where are the Thri-Kreen? Fucking racists!

I'm very concerned about the problematic lack of Kender representation myself.

So non-inclusive.

#KenderLivesMatter

Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 11, 2021, 04:31:33 AM
Quote
Honestly I forget that they ever exist until once every 10 years or so someone says "Hey, maybe I'll play a gnome.  What are gnomes like in this setting?"

And I go "Um, aah, right Gnomes.  Those guys yeah.  They're um.."

Yeah. I have to say despite all beefs, at least Pathfinder managed to make gnomes somehow own race.

Quote
When you put that against the fact that in every published D&D setting most of the kingdoms are human, most of the politics are human and most of the cultures are dominated by humans you do end up with the situation in which most of the PCs are outsiders of some sort.  In addition almost all of what I would think of as source material for D&D games is predominantly humanocentric.

I think players as outsiders is common situation even in human-only settings and games tbh


Quote
But really the bigger issue to me is the constant raising of the stakes.  If the PCs are things like half-demon vampires who make pacts with Great Old ones what weirdness are they going to discover out there in the world that's greater and more wondrous than what they see in the mirror every day?*  And of course once you've got characters like that the human Ice Barbarian who was exiled from his tribe for kinslaying and left to see the world, just seems a little dull by comparison.

Well but now D&D is medieval superheroes genre, and most of fantasy tropes are so re-used and known it's hard to take anything from Monster Manual and MAKE IT GREATER AND WONDROUS.
Great red wyrms? Beholders? Demogorgons? All were our pals for decades.

It's like Cthulhu mythos - it was scary during cultural zeitgeist, but now CoC is occult criminal game, not existential horror really, because we all see Great Old Ones chewed and digested by popculture. I'm not scared by them at all.

Quote

*GM: You see a strange abomination floating towards you.  It has no visible means of locomotion and yet it moves, it's spherical in shape with razor sharp teeth and eyes that stick out in all directions and stare balefully at you as it approaches. This is something that clearly should not be able to exist...and yet it does!
Player: Oh it looks just like Aunt Jemima.  I ask it if it knows her.

oh, look it's beholder, I've read about it thousand of times and is iconic enemy that was on cover of Monster Manual, guess I'll have to divide my knowledge from Bilbo Baggins knowledge... ah yat immersion?

Quote
And if I may point out; that the two races that no gamer really heard of: the Dragonborn and Tiefling, are now "officially" more popular than the old standbys; Halfling, Half-Orc, and Gnome.

Well that's why you make new things to get attention of players/consumers tired of old shit.
Guess it works.

Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Ghostmaker on February 11, 2021, 08:37:35 AM
I would like to note that tieflings' first big splash was in Planescape back in 2E. So I can kinda see how they'd eventually become a core race.

Ironically, PF had a pretty good take on how life could be complicated for aasimar, with dimwitted commoners and peasants believing superstitions about how aasimar hair cures dysentery or something (no, seriously, there was fluff about that -- suddenly being the special snowflake seems a lot less fun, eh?).

This is, unfortunately, not without real world precedent either. Read up about what happens to the rare person with albinism in Africa. Try not to drink afterwards.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Greywolf76 on February 11, 2021, 09:52:54 AM
I would like to note that tieflings' first big splash was in Planescape back in 2E. So I can kinda see how they'd eventually become a core race.

Ironically, PF had a pretty good take on how life could be complicated for aasimar, with dimwitted commoners and peasants believing superstitions about how aasimar hair cures dysentery or something (no, seriously, there was fluff about that -- suddenly being the special snowflake seems a lot less fun, eh?).

This is, unfortunately, not without real world precedent either. Read up about what happens to the rare person with albinism in Africa. Try not to drink afterwards.

That's one of the reasons I always frowned upon the more exotic races as PCs in my games. It would give the group all kinds of trouble, and then I'd have a player whining about how the game is unfair, and then it's one less player on the table.

But yes, a half-ogre on the party? No inn or city will allow them, because "everyone knows those monsters eat people".

A lizard-man or saurian on the party? "Well, everyone knows that according to Zaubar's ancient medical texts a lizard-man's eye / tail / little finger / penis dryed and powdered is the perfect medicine for the gout.

A drow on the party? Crossbow bolt on the chest as soon as the PC is seen. Kill it first, ask questions later.

A tiefling? "Hellspawn, you'll be hanged, quartered and drawn!!"

And so on.

I used something like this to annoy one of my players who had a gnome mage once: the party visited a far kingdom where people believed gnomes were naturally lucky and rubbing one's head would give you luck for the entire day. LOL. After two days of this, the character snapped in a tavern: "I'll kick the crap out of the next son of a whore that rubs my head"!  ;D
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Omega on February 11, 2021, 10:06:26 AM
My guess is that she-who-must-not-be-named liked money more then she hated "bad" publicity because by the time 2.5e rolled around they had no problem building monster PC races directly into the core rules.

There was no 2.5e. There never was. S&P is not 2.5e.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Omega on February 11, 2021, 10:13:42 AM
Gnomes were often forgotten even in TSR days/

Dark Sun - No gnomes
Birthright - No gnomes
Dragonlance - Gnomes replaced by annoying comic parody gnomes.
Basic D&D - No gnomes


Honestly I forget that they ever exist until once every 10 years or so someone says "Hey, maybe I'll play a gnome.  What are gnomes like in this setting?" 

And I go "Um, aah, right Gnomes.  Those guys yeah.  They're um.."

In Neverwinter Online all the gnomes of Faerun were cursed into redcaps.

BX/BECMI re-introduced gnomes as a PC with the Top Ballista setting book. Weird Gnomes done right.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Ghostmaker on February 11, 2021, 11:17:22 AM
I would like to note that tieflings' first big splash was in Planescape back in 2E. So I can kinda see how they'd eventually become a core race.

Ironically, PF had a pretty good take on how life could be complicated for aasimar, with dimwitted commoners and peasants believing superstitions about how aasimar hair cures dysentery or something (no, seriously, there was fluff about that -- suddenly being the special snowflake seems a lot less fun, eh?).

This is, unfortunately, not without real world precedent either. Read up about what happens to the rare person with albinism in Africa. Try not to drink afterwards.

That's one of the reasons I always frowned upon the more exotic races as PCs in my games. It would give the group all kinds of trouble, and then I'd have a player whining about how the game is unfair, and then it's one less player on the table.

But yes, a half-ogre on the party? No inn or city will allow them, because "everyone knows those monsters eat people".

A lizard-man or saurian on the party? "Well, everyone knows that according to Zaubar's ancient medical texts a lizard-man's eye / tail / little finger / penis dryed and powdered is the perfect medicine for the gout.

A drow on the party? Crossbow bolt on the chest as soon as the PC is seen. Kill it first, ask questions later.

A tiefling? "Hellspawn, you'll be hanged, quartered and drawn!!"

And so on.

I used something like this to annoy one of my players who had a gnome mage once: the party visited a far kingdom where people believed gnomes were naturally lucky and rubbing one's head would give you luck for the entire day. LOL. After two days of this, the character snapped in a tavern: "I'll kick the crap out of the next son of a whore that rubs my head"!  ;D
I'm thinking about tossing a little of that into my current 5E game. Have someone follow one of the exotic PCs around asking for a lock of their hair. Just to see the reactions. :D
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Omega on February 11, 2021, 12:09:15 PM
Lets take a trip down memory lane for all of those here who have ever so conveniently forgotten.

OA introduces 3 new races. A new sub race of dwarf, Hengyokai subdivided into 12 different types, and the Spirit Folk who are subdivided into 3 different types.

Vikings disallows all non-human races and introduces the Trollborn, Half-troll as a new PC race.
Celts was even more restricted. You were human, but introduces 2 new sub races with a 1 in 20 chance of being a mixed blood half-Sidhe or half-Fomori.
 
Dark Sun introduces new sub races of elf, and halfling, as well as new sub-races of human in the Mul and Half Giant. And the Thri-Kreen as a new PC race. Later editions added Aracocra and a dragonborn varian among others to the list.

Dragonlance of course subdivided various demihuman races and replaced halflings with Kender, also added the Ildra pure trolls as a PC race. I believe later editions added a few more but do not have those to check.

Complete Humanoids opened up everything from Wemics to Gnolls to Orcs, Swanmays, Goblins, and so on.

d20 Ravenloft removed half-ors and introduced Calibans, humans twisted by curses and magic. And a half-Vistani.

But the real plethora of new PC races came from the Creature Crucible series for BX/BECMI.
Wee Folk added 13, including Trents, Sidhe, Hsao, Pixies, Brownies/Redcaps, Centaurs, Woodrakes, Dryads, Fauns, Sprites, Wood Imps, Leprechaun, and Pooka.
Top Ballista adds Faenare, a race of elven Harpies, Gnome, Gremlin, Harpy, Nagpa, Pegataur, Sphinx and Tabi.
Sea People added Tritons, Merrow, Aquatic Elves, Nixies, Kopru, Sea Giants, Kna and Shark-kin.
Night Howlers introduces PC Were-Bat, Bear, Boar, Fox, Rat, Seal, Shark, Tiger, Wolf and Devil-Swine.

Red Steel added some new ones as well such as the Lupin, Clockwork people, Rakasta and Tortles.

And of course Dragon introduced dozens of player and staff created new races or monsters as new PCs. And a BX article to create your own PC class or race from anything.

But no no no you say! None of that really counts... because! Its all those mean ol new players fault and this is all a totally new thing we must fight to our last breath. eg: being willfully ignorant.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Armchair Gamer on February 11, 2021, 12:56:57 PM
d20 Ravenloft removed half-ors and introduced Calibans, humans twisted by curses and magic. And a half-Vistani.
 
   Point of information: Half-Vistani were introduced in 2nd Edition, with Van Richten's Guide to the Vistani and Domains of Dread.

   And you forgot Council of Wyrms (dragons) and Requiem (undead), also for 2E.

  I still say the change was less the array of options that it was the greater unification of the 'game environment' produced by the Internet and WotC's emphasis on 'D&D for D&D's sake,' which produces something that can simultaneously seem wild to those who played on the more limited side and constrained to those who skewed more fantastic.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: jhkim on February 11, 2021, 02:13:02 PM
That's one of the reasons I always frowned upon the more exotic races as PCs in my games. It would give the group all kinds of trouble, and then I'd have a player whining about how the game is unfair, and then it's one less player on the table.

But yes, a half-ogre on the party? No inn or city will allow them, because "everyone knows those monsters eat people".

A lizard-man or saurian on the party? "Well, everyone knows that according to Zaubar's ancient medical texts a lizard-man's eye / tail / little finger / penis dryed and powdered is the perfect medicine for the gout.

A drow on the party? Crossbow bolt on the chest as soon as the PC is seen. Kill it first, ask questions later.

You can do what you like in your world, but not all worlds will be like that. In AD&D 1e race relations, half-orcs are the least accepted among races -- but humans and half-orcs get along together (neutral) better than dwarves and elves (antipathy). It's only among demi-humans that half-orcs have a problem. The Free City of Greyhawk is described as:
Quote
Population: 53,000 (city), 70,000+ total (including surrounding area)
Demi-humans: Some
Humanoids: Some

Lots of other countries in the world of Greyhawk have more humanoids than demi-humans. Humans in Greyhawk are pragmatic, frequently allying with humanoids rather than always with demi-humans. Also, in Greyhawk, almost all humans wouldn't even know what a Drow is, let alone shoot them on sight.

Other worlds differ. You do what you want in your world -- though if I was a player, I'd probably prefer to just be told "you can't play a drow" rather than being allowed to play one and then being killed the first time I go into any settlement.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Ratman_tf on February 11, 2021, 02:19:17 PM
I used something like this to annoy one of my players who had a gnome mage once: the party visited a far kingdom where people believed gnomes were naturally lucky and rubbing one's head would give you luck for the entire day. LOL. After two days of this, the character snapped in a tavern: "I'll kick the crap out of the next son of a whore that rubs my head"!  ;D

See, as a player, I'd find that fun. Grist for the RP mill. My only concern is if it becomes too disruptive to the game, but occasional interactions (or clusters of them) are fine.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Greywolf76 on February 11, 2021, 02:38:59 PM

I'm thinking about tossing a little of that into my current 5E game. Have someone follow one of the exotic PCs around asking for a lock of their hair. Just to see the reactions. :D

Don't forget to share how it turns out.


Lots of other countries in the world of Greyhawk have more humanoids than demi-humans. Humans in Greyhawk are pragmatic, frequently allying with humanoids rather than always with demi-humans. Also, in Greyhawk, almost all humans wouldn't even know what a Drow is, let alone shoot them on sight.

Other worlds differ. You do what you want in your world -- though if I was a player, I'd probably prefer to just be told "you can't play a drow" rather than being allowed to play one and then being killed the first time I go into any settlement.

There are so many different Greyhawk versions (I count at least four that I can remember, some of them very different from each other - original, From the Ashes, late 2e and Living Greyhawk) that ultimately it comes to each DM how to run his particular vision of GH, as it happens with any published setting...

My own version of the grey box FR is quite different from "canon" in some aspects. 

Regarding drows and crossbow bolts to the chest: I do tell the players upfront why I don't allow X and Y. If they ask me why, I can give them the reason above ("drow are hated and will be killed on sight"), or I might just say I don't like them as PC races and prefer them as antagonists, and thus they're not available in my campaigns. Depends on the player.

I'd would never screw a player by deliberately killing his character like that.

I used something like this to annoy one of my players who had a gnome mage once: the party visited a far kingdom where people believed gnomes were naturally lucky and rubbing one's head would give you luck for the entire day. LOL. After two days of this, the character snapped in a tavern: "I'll kick the crap out of the next son of a whore that rubs my head"!  ;D

See, as a player, I'd find that fun. Grist for the RP mill. My only concern is if it becomes too disruptive to the game, but occasional interactions (or clusters of them) are fine.

It was a one of a kind event, and limited to a very specific place the PCs visited once during one adventure. I use these little tidbits all the time to make people and places in my campaign unique.

See, the PC was pissed, but the gnome player had a lot of fun.

Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on February 11, 2021, 02:45:09 PM

My guess is that she-who-must-not-be-named liked money more then she hated "bad" publicity because by the time 2.5e rolled around they had no problem building monster PC races directly into the core rules.

But I guess we can not talk about 2.5e because that would destroy your narrative about how it was 3e, years later, that was the font of problem monster PC races.

Your one weakness, people that can remember.

Your one weakness seems to be your inability to remember my posted reply to you back on page 6 in this thread:

"You are right "started" is the wrong word. Cultural Shifts don't come out of nowhere.

"Codified" with 3e fits the situation better.

There was always a subset of players who wanted to play some special non-core thing. And supplemental material was made to cater to them. In 1e and 2e." ...


Always good to see posters walk those goal posts back.

"I didnt mean 'started' " indeed.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: BronzeDragon on February 11, 2021, 04:18:04 PM
I do tell the players upfront why I don't allow X and Y. If they ask me why, I can give them the reason above ("drow are hated and will be killed on sight"), or I might just say I don't like them as PC races and prefer them as antagonists, and thus they're not available in my campaigns. Depends on the player.

I'd would never screw a player by deliberately killing his character like that.

This is the best way to do it.

Before the campaign starts, you lay it all down. Such and such are not allowed, these and those limits exist, pick between this and that. Players can then make choices based on what will actually fit your campaign setting and world (and the style of campaign you intend to run).
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 11, 2021, 05:00:08 PM
Quote
I would like to note that tieflings' first big splash was in Planescape back in 2E. So I can kinda see how they'd eventually become a core race.

TBH I think prevalence of various anime/video games visual style was crucial in their fast advancement.


Quote
Ironically, PF had a pretty good take on how life could be complicated for aasimar, with dimwitted commoners and peasants believing superstitions about how aasimar hair cures dysentery or something (no, seriously, there was fluff about that -- suddenly being the special snowflake seems a lot less fun, eh?).

I mean in Adventure Path 1.1. - adventure villain was aasimar woman turned towards evil because of fucked up life.

Quote
That's one of the reasons I always frowned upon the more exotic races as PCs in my games. It would give the group all kinds of trouble, and then I'd have a player whining about how the game is unfair, and then it's one less player on the table.

But yes, a half-ogre on the party? No inn or city will allow them, because "everyone knows those monsters eat people".

A lizard-man or saurian on the party? "Well, everyone knows that according to Zaubar's ancient medical texts a lizard-man's eye / tail / little finger / penis dryed and powdered is the perfect medicine for the gout.

A drow on the party? Crossbow bolt on the chest as soon as the PC is seen. Kill it first, ask questions later.

A tiefling? "Hellspawn, you'll be hanged, quartered and drawn!!"

And so on.

OK, but that's sort of taking D&D races into the world with medieval or at least Warhammer-y logic.
There is bit problem with it - specifically objective cosmic forces of Good, Evil, Law, Chaos. Real gods that need to keep rules of those Cosmic Powers. Real priests.
In a country with LG government tendencies - killing sentient beings for their racial origin, or really even for evil alignment without specific evil deeds - that will cause reaction from important religious cults. God of Justice won't stand for wanton court murder of someone cursed with demonic great-grandfather. Killing intelligent beings for folk medicine - damn even if those would be wicked bullywugs - that would still be cannibalism. Evil.

I mean sure not all world is LG, but seriously in most D&D settings those various freaks unless they are well still evil as most of their kin could find allies among good races mostly.

Ironically adding Good/Evil axis make it much harder to just murder evil races on spot.

Quote
Devil-Swine.

OK, now I'm interested.

Quote
Regarding drows and crossbow bolts to the chest: I do tell the players upfront why I don't allow X and Y. If they ask me why, I can give them the reason above ("drow are hated and will be killed on sight"), or I might just say I don't like them as PC races and prefer them as antagonists, and thus they're not available in my campaigns. Depends on the player.

Indeed, second aspect is fine if you want to have some villains as mystery and having PC that's deserter from their ranks would be problematic. I mean this can work even on ethnic origins of various normal races - ok, guys you can play elves but no elves from Khaleder-dron, or having much to do with them in backstory.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Greywolf76 on February 11, 2021, 08:13:51 PM

OK, but that's sort of taking D&D races into the world with medieval or at least Warhammer-y logic.
There is bit problem with it - specifically objective cosmic forces of Good, Evil, Law, Chaos. Real gods that need to keep rules of those Cosmic Powers. Real priests.
In a country with LG government tendencies - killing sentient beings for their racial origin, or really even for evil alignment without specific evil deeds - that will cause reaction from important religious cults. God of Justice won't stand for wanton court murder of someone cursed with demonic great-grandfather. Killing intelligent beings for folk medicine - damn even if those would be wicked bullywugs - that would still be cannibalism. Evil.

I mean sure not all world is LG, but seriously in most D&D settings those various freaks unless they are well still evil as most of their kin could find allies among good races mostly.

Ironically adding Good/Evil axis make it much harder to just murder evil races on spot.


Following alignment and other elements as written, I tend to agree with you.

However, I tend to take into consideration other elements, too.

For instance, are evil races metaphysically / intrinsically evil or culturally evil? In other words, can they be redeemed? Orcs and goblins are evil because its in their nature, and thus they cannot change (pretty much like fiends and fae, for instance)? If an orc or a goblin is raised by virtuous clerics of the LG God of Light in a monastery will they become LG, too? Or their evil nature will take over sooner or later?

If they are merely culturally evil, I can see your point. Otherwise, not so much.

Goblins and hobgoblins in my campaigns have a supernatural origin (they are fallen fae who became mortal after being exiled to the Prime Material Plane). They have no souls and their nature cannot be changed. Ever. Heck, they don't even reproduce like other races (there are no females, they are born from gourds "watered" with fresh human blood).

My orcs, gnolls and ogres cannot be redeemed, either, because of how those races came to be in my campaign (I won't bother you with my origins for those races, don't worry).

Now, drow? Duergar? Half-ogres? Minotaurs? Absolutely! At least in theory, members of those races can be good. They are culturally evil.

(As an aside, I'd never allow drow or duergar PCs because I prefer those races as mysterious, rare and evil antagonists, even though they could be good. On the other hand, I've had good-aligned half-ogre and saurian PCs in the past. As for tieflings, I prefer them as originally presented in Planescape - as a template with a customized, unique appearance rather than an entire race of horned and tailed half-demons).

The other element to take into consideration is whether people are self-aware about their alignments (which was the standard in 1E, but something that became much more subtle in 2E). If the answer is "yes", a "medieval" mindset wouldn't be possible at all for all the reasons you stated above. But if the answer is "no" (and that's the standard in my campaigns) I believe a "burn the tiefling on sight" scenario is completely plausible, perhaps even in a LG nation. Specially if gods tend to be more subtle (instead of sending their avatars to share a drink in taverns with their priests they only communicate through visions, omens, dreams or, more rarely, supernatural messengers) and don't interfere directly in mortal affairs.

Of course, I think a good DM will use a "show, don't tell" approach to give those hints to his players, because, more often than not, most of them come to the table with their own formed experiences and conceptions, which can be different from the GM's.

That is, if the DM wants to show his players that humanoids can be good, the players will see a pious orc or half-orc monk who lives in the monastery of the good god of healing. A good wizard might have a good (or, at least, non-evil) goblin as his apprentice. A good-hearted half-ogre can own the best tavern in town known for its hospitality and good food, or a good hobgoblin can serve a noble paladin as his squire.

There are many fantasy settings with that approach (GURPS' Yrth is an example among many others) and I use it to an extent (albeit those are very rare) in my own campaigns.

In the end I guess it's all a matter of personal taste.

Anyway, sorry for the long post.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Abraxus on February 11, 2021, 10:43:46 PM
Lets take a trip down memory lane for all of those here who have ever so conveniently forgotten.

OA introduces 3 new races. A new sub race of dwarf, Hengyokai subdivided into 12 different types, and the Spirit Folk who are subdivided into 3 different types.

Vikings disallows all non-human races and introduces the Trollborn, Half-troll as a new PC race.
Celts was even more restricted. You were human, but introduces 2 new sub races with a 1 in 20 chance of being a mixed blood half-Sidhe or half-Fomori.
 
Dark Sun introduces new sub races of elf, and halfling, as well as new sub-races of human in the Mul and Half Giant. And the Thri-Kreen as a new PC race. Later editions added Aracocra and a dragonborn varian among others to the list.

Dragonlance of course subdivided various demihuman races and replaced halflings with Kender, also added the Ildra pure trolls as a PC race. I believe later editions added a few more but do not have those to check.

Complete Humanoids opened up everything from Wemics to Gnolls to Orcs, Swanmays, Goblins, and so on.

d20 Ravenloft removed half-ors and introduced Calibans, humans twisted by curses and magic. And a half-Vistani.

But the real plethora of new PC races came from the Creature Crucible series for BX/BECMI.
Wee Folk added 13, including Trents, Sidhe, Hsao, Pixies, Brownies/Redcaps, Centaurs, Woodrakes, Dryads, Fauns, Sprites, Wood Imps, Leprechaun, and Pooka.
Top Ballista adds Faenare, a race of elven Harpies, Gnome, Gremlin, Harpy, Nagpa, Pegataur, Sphinx and Tabi.
Sea People added Tritons, Merrow, Aquatic Elves, Nixies, Kopru, Sea Giants, Kna and Shark-kin.
Night Howlers introduces PC Were-Bat, Bear, Boar, Fox, Rat, Seal, Shark, Tiger, Wolf and Devil-Swine.

Red Steel added some new ones as well such as the Lupin, Clockwork people, Rakasta and Tortles.

And of course Dragon introduced dozens of player and staff created new races or monsters as new PCs. And a BX article to create your own PC class or race from anything.

But no no no you say! None of that really counts... because! Its all those mean ol new players fault and this is all a totally new thing we must fight to our last breath. eg: being willfully ignorant.

Seconded and forgot about many on the list.

Anything and everything that goes against the carefully constructed personal narrative does not exist. As well as to be summarily ignored.

For fuck sake yeah most tables never used or ran monster races. To think their were never any rules or worse that 3E+ because some here have an axe to grind with that edition and those players.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Omega on February 11, 2021, 10:59:35 PM
I do tell the players upfront why I don't allow X and Y. If they ask me why, I can give them the reason above ("drow are hated and will be killed on sight"), or I might just say I don't like them as PC races and prefer them as antagonists, and thus they're not available in my campaigns. Depends on the player.

I'd would never screw a player by deliberately killing his character like that.

This is the best way to do it.

Before the campaign starts, you lay it all down. Such and such are not allowed, these and those limits exist, pick between this and that. Players can then make choices based on what will actually fit your campaign setting and world (and the style of campaign you intend to run).

Exactly. Unless its Eberron it is up to the DM to decide what races they want in a campaign. And sometimes the campaign itself can restrict choices sometimes quite heavily as I noted earlier.
D&D Conan is human only and class choices are very restricted. No paladins, wizards, clerics and so on as PC choices and restricted even to NPCs. The Rome campaign is another. Humans only.

Or you could go the opposite direction and add races to any of those.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Chris24601 on February 12, 2021, 01:55:43 AM
Exactly. Unless its Eberron it is up to the DM to decide what races they want in a campaign. And sometimes the campaign itself can restrict choices sometimes quite heavily as I noted earlier.

D&D Conan is human only and class choices are very restricted. No paladins, wizards, clerics and so on as PC choices and restricted even to NPCs. The Rome campaign is another. Humans only.

Or you could go the opposite direction and add races to any of those.
Agreed, with the caveat that when you’re designing a game system for publishing (versus a specific table’s campaign), and that system gives race/species a significant mechanical weight, that you’re almost always better off including too many races and letting individual GMs cut what they don’t want, than going too lean and leaving the work of adding what they need for their campaign to the individual GM.

Basically, it’s better to have and not need than to need and not have.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Omega on February 12, 2021, 10:41:54 AM
And at the end of the day 5e has so far only added a handful of new races to the core mix or what had existed prior.
Drow, Tieflings and Dragonborn(kinda) had been around before 3e as either optional or setting specific PC races.

The others in expansions already existed in older editions usually and have so far mostly followed the pattern of AD&D in releasing a few new races or optionals or setting specific races in expansions. And most of those existed before as well in 2e in some form. Aasimar and Genasi come to mind right off as Planescape races.

Thinking on it. What really has 5e so far added to races that was not allready there before in some format pre 3e?
The Yuan-Ti maybe?
Tabaxi arent much different from Rakasta from Red Steel. And Warforged are setting specific to Eberron but in 2e there were the clockwork PCs also from Red Steel.
Shadar-kai? I do not recall shadow humans/elves/whatevers in older books as a PC race so maybe they are new?
Avarials seem to have so far not gotten an official entry as a race. But are the example for creating a new one in 5e. But winged elves have been around a good while and pretty sure their origins were in Dragon. For Forgotten Realms?

And lets not forget that various editions of D&D have that reincarnate spell which oft had a chance to bring a character back as a non PC race or even an animal. Golly! That mean ol AD&D ruining everyones fun with new races! What a bunch of self involved narcissists!
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Chris24601 on February 12, 2021, 11:51:18 AM
As a follow-up to the thought of “better to have and not need than to need and not have”, that’s one of the things I always appreciated about Palladium Books’ design of having all the opponents with stats for running one as a PC.

Character creation, especially in Fantasy 1e, was not so complex as to be burdensome and Palladium has never had much concern over balance, but whether the stats properly represent what they’re supposed to and leaving it to the GM to decide if it’s allowed or not.

I think there’s definitely merit to at least presenting the option to create any free-willed and sapient species in the setting as a potential PC so the GM has easy access to the mechanics for developing any sort of campaign they desire.

And just because they’re presented in a PC format doesn’t mean opponents have to be designed or built the same way PC’s are any more than the dwarf, elf, human, etc. opponents in the non-3e Monster Manuals were built using the PC rules.

Leave the culling of options to the GM using the system; don’t give them extra work just because their campaign idea doesn’t conform with yours.*

* Bear in mind that, even as I argue for allowing all manner of species/races to be playable, my own preferences for PCs are for humans and the occasional near-human (mostly half-elves if not humans in fantasy, dhampirs in VtM, human exclusive in sci-fi). I just recognize that my preferences are personal and others look for different things in their choice of races (including being able to play a character that IS decidedly one-note instead of the full range of human complexity; if you’re playing as an escape you may not want to have to make deep calls on their character’s motivations and probably one of the appeals of the Dragonborn is that their culture is basically a textbook “proud warrior race” where “What Would Worf Do?” is all the deeper you have to go in deciding motives and actions).
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Steven Mitchell on February 12, 2021, 02:12:58 PM
Exactly. Unless its Eberron it is up to the DM to decide what races they want in a campaign. And sometimes the campaign itself can restrict choices sometimes quite heavily as I noted earlier.

D&D Conan is human only and class choices are very restricted. No paladins, wizards, clerics and so on as PC choices and restricted even to NPCs. The Rome campaign is another. Humans only.

Or you could go the opposite direction and add races to any of those.
Agreed, with the caveat that when you’re designing a game system for publishing (versus a specific table’s campaign), and that system gives race/species a significant mechanical weight, that you’re almost always better off including too many races and letting individual GMs cut what they don’t want, than going too lean and leaving the work of adding what they need for their campaign to the individual GM.

Basically, it’s better to have and not need than to need and not have.

Well, up to the point where you start considering page count and development opportunity costs.  If we assume that we are talking about competent designers and developers that really know the system well, then past some point in an edition of D&D, I'd rather prioritize, say, a domain management system or alternate magic system or whatever over "yet another set of races and classes."  If we reverse that assumption, however, I'd rather have more races and classes.  It's a lot easier to ignore incompetent work there. :)
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on February 12, 2021, 03:26:45 PM
And at the end of the day 5e has so far only added a handful of new races to the core mix or what had existed prior.
Drow, Tieflings and Dragonborn(kinda) had been around before 3e as either optional or setting specific PC races.

WotC didd add the races from the 'Magic' supplement a few years ago.

Quote
And lets not forget that various editions of D&D have that reincarnate spell which oft had a chance to bring a character back as a non PC race or even an animal. Golly! That mean ol AD&D ruining everyones fun with new races! What a bunch of self involved narcissists!

The funny thing is, even if you did get Reincarnated, in some campaigns the first town you walked into you would get a crossbow bolt to the head from the local racists.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Chris24601 on February 12, 2021, 03:33:08 PM
Well, up to the point where you start considering page count and development opportunity costs.  If we assume that we are talking about competent designers and developers that really know the system well, then past some point in an edition of D&D, I'd rather prioritize, say, a domain management system or alternate magic system or whatever over "yet another set of races and classes."  If we reverse that assumption, however, I'd rather have more races and classes.  It's a lot easier to ignore incompetent work there. :)
For the record, I've looked at just about every Domain Management ruleset out there because its second only to age-of-sail naval combat for parts of a campaign outside of core adventuring that I'm interested in... and I've come to the conclusion that the absolute best system is just a DM having events happens as they deem appropriate and allowing the PCs to react to them just as they normally would.

So my system's version of Domain Management is a section helping the GM come up with campaign events that would draw the interests of PC rulers and easy to use rules for mass combat if a ruler decides to have their troops handle things instead of dealing with a threat themselves.

But yes, I am making the presumption that the bases are already covered... though, as mentioned, I am generally a fan of Palladium's approach of listing out a version of every sapient species as if it could be a PC because I don't think it actually takes much extra room to present those options than just presenting them as monsters.

Heck, if you throw out the fluff-text, I managed to present the PC mechanics for every free-willed sapient species in my system (including what in standard D&D would be monsters; beastmen, dragons, giants, unicorns, trolls, etc.) using just 16 pages (6"x9" single column book format).
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Omega on February 13, 2021, 09:01:33 AM
And at the end of the day 5e has so far only added a handful of new races to the core mix or what had existed prior.
Drow, Tieflings and Dragonborn(kinda) had been around before 3e as either optional or setting specific PC races.

WotC didd add the races from the 'Magic' supplement a few years ago.

Quote
And lets not forget that various editions of D&D have that reincarnate spell which oft had a chance to bring a character back as a non PC race or even an animal. Golly! That mean ol AD&D ruining everyones fun with new races! What a bunch of self involved narcissists!

The funny thing is, even if you did get Reincarnated, in some campaigns the first town you walked into you would get a crossbow bolt to the head from the local racists.

1: What book? So far all have seen are the PDF series that is not official as it were since it is setting specific like Eberrons races? Though its really not to hard to map several of the MTG races to some existing D&D one if one really wanted to.

I think together the PDFs added 9 new races. At least two are reskins of D&D ones. Quick check then.
Innstrahd had oddly no new races.
Zendikar has Kor, Merfolk (not mermaid fishtaurs) Goblins, Vampires and generic 5e Elves renamed.
Kaladesh had Aetherborn, generic Dwarf and Elf renamed, and Vedalkin.
Amonket had Aven in 2 sub types (pretty much aaracocra), Khenra, Ram re-themed Minotaurs, and Naga
Ixalan had Merfolk again, this time in 2  colour coded varieties, Vampires again, Orcs, Goblins again, and Sirens (Harpies)
Dominaria is a mess but looks like Aven again, and Keldons (human giants that do not look very human. Goliath reskin?)
So 10 new races of which at least half are more or less just reskins of existing races from the various 5e books.

As of last Adventurers League none of these were allowable PC races.

2: Everyone just assumed I was the dead magic-users familliar... 8)
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 13, 2021, 04:08:34 PM
Quote
For instance, are evil races metaphysically / intrinsically evil or culturally evil? In other words, can they be redeemed? Orcs and goblins are evil because its in their nature, and thus they cannot change (pretty much like fiends and fae, for instance)? If an orc or a goblin is raised by virtuous clerics of the LG God of Light in a monastery will they become LG, too? Or their evil nature will take over sooner or later?

Well considering by most D&D settings literal outsiders which are made from cosmic stuff can reform themselves (not very Catholic notion but then Outer Planes of Great Wheel are not exactly like Catholic vision of spiritual dominion) - and we have now and then another story of fallen angel or archont, reformed demons and devils, and so on. Therefore I'd say - as much as specific intelligent beings have genuine individual intellect and will - they should have at least theoretical option to reform. I mean Planescape setting is sort of full of outsider outsiders who left usual planes to join weird philosophical sects.

I thing to certain degree my Catholic sentiments came here in play - just like with professor Tolkien who realised he sort of wrote himself into big nasty corner with his orcs (invented in times where Arda was pagan myth and Melkor was one of many gods, so he could create own beings - which of course become utterly impossible with later bringing Ainur's power closer in line with angelic beings). And then beings like Sauron or Saruman was not corrupted from the get go - like real angels - but in time, as they sort of lived and thought in semi-mortal way, within boundaries of world. (That's why Tolkien writes that Sauron could repent and redeem himself after War of Wrath, and his fate was yet not decided then). Now of course for all Christian themes there is overall lack of proper redemption themes I think in Arda - not even talking about Maiar redemptions as that would be problematic on it's own way - but I cannot even remember one Elf or Man who went really really bad - and returned and repented - not slightly flawed like Boromir or Thorin.

Quote
Goblins and hobgoblins in my campaigns have a supernatural origin (they are fallen fae who became mortal after being exiled to the Prime Material Plane). They have no souls and their nature cannot be changed. Ever. Heck, they don't even reproduce like other races (there are no females, they are born from gourds "watered" with fresh human blood).

But... clearly their nature can be changed - as you wrote themselves they were FALLEN (ergo they were fine once upon a time) and EXILED (ergo they were not here in the beginnings).
I mean sure you make your beings as you make them - but it seems nature of Fae can be corrupted by Cosmic Evil, so what is Cosmic Good doing all the time :P

Quote
(As an aside, I'd never allow drow or duergar PCs because I prefer those races as mysterious, rare and evil antagonists, even though they could be good. On the other hand, I've had good-aligned half-ogre and saurian PCs in the past. As for tieflings, I prefer them as originally presented in Planescape - as a template with a customized, unique appearance rather than an entire race of horned and tailed half-demons).

I totally agree about tieflings, indeed. In fact I was trying to go even further and make absolute random planetouched templates - idea was - if you want planetouched - first you take some mortal race, then you pick overall ancestry (divided by planes not specific species) then you roll a dice to see how many heirlooms you'd get from your lineage (I was thinking about 2D6 roll) - then you roll on big table of random elements - which included both visual quirks, supernatural abilities, attributes enchancements or more rarely penalties, and so on. So in theory you could end with genasi who's efreeti ancestry only results in having +4 Str and +2Con without any fire elements, or tiefling who have literally zero demonic boons aside looking like a looney freakshow.

Quote
The other element to take into consideration is whether people are self-aware about their alignments (which was the standard in 1E, but something that became much more subtle in 2E). If the answer is "yes", a "medieval" mindset wouldn't be possible at all for all the reasons you stated above. But if the answer is "no" (and that's the standard in my campaigns) I believe a "burn the tiefling on sight" scenario is completely plausible, perhaps even in a LG nation. Specially if gods tend to be more subtle (instead of sending their avatars to share a drink in taverns with their priests they only communicate through visions, omens, dreams or, more rarely, supernatural messengers) and don't interfere directly in mortal affairs.

True, but at least you have priest and paladins detecting alignments, this is low level ability tbh, and then you have losing powers if given priest would let people just murder shit of strangers because of weird horns. You'd have to limit divine powers even more.

Quote
Of course, I think a good DM will use a "show, don't tell" approach to give those hints to his players, because, more often than not, most of them come to the table with their own formed experiences and conceptions, which can be different from the GM's.

That is, if the DM wants to show his players that humanoids can be good, the players will see a pious orc or half-orc monk who lives in the monastery of the good god of healing. A good wizard might have a good (or, at least, non-evil) goblin as his apprentice. A good-hearted half-ogre can own the best tavern in town known for its hospitality and good food, or a good hobgoblin can serve a noble paladin as his squire.

Funny enough I'd also notice - that considering cosmic balance of four options - we all discuss here vividly about whether certain humanoid species can be redeemed, but no one is ever talking about infallibly good species that no matter what cannot turn evil...


Quote
Exactly. Unless its Eberron it is up to the DM to decide what races they want in a campaign. And sometimes the campaign itself can restrict choices sometimes quite heavily as I noted earlier.
D&D Conan is human only and class choices are very restricted. No paladins, wizards, clerics and so on as PC choices and restricted even to NPCs. The Rome campaign is another. Humans only.

TBh I do not know why Eberron specifically needs to be excluded. It's no different then any other setting (also did they put goblinoids and orcs as playable Eberron races specifically - because really they should)

Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Jaeger on February 15, 2021, 03:57:23 AM

Always good to see posters walk those goal posts back.

"I didnt mean 'started' " indeed.

And here you put words in my mouth again…

It seems you read what you want and not what is actually written.

Let’s look at what was actually said back on page 6:



I think that the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on...

The prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on?

I guess you have some anecdote to back that up because you could not play a monster race using the core 3e rules.

Note I was talking about the cultural shift that occurred in the game from 3.x on, resulting in the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard in D&D.

Becoming: the process of coming to be something or of passing into a state.


Your reply to moonsweeper where you used his choice of wording to prop up a false inference:

You'll notice he said it was due to the cultural shift that started with the 3.x rules.  …

Yes it was only the BECMI Creature Crucibles for Fey, Lycanthropes, Sky Gnome and Aquatics.

And All the Humanoids in 1993

But yeah other then that it must have been the culture shift 10 years later with 3e that did it.

You'll notice it was moonsweeper that said it was due to the cultural shift that started with the 3.x rules.  …

In my reply I acknowledged that there was a past history of supplemental material that gave the option to play monster races:
"You are right "started" is the wrong word. Cultural Shifts don't come out of nowhere. …”

My intent was to clarify moonsweepers meaning because I recognized that the use of the word 'started' was not the best word choice, and would give you a pedantic nail to hang your false inference on while ignoring the actual claim. The nuance was lost on you. You saw your nail and clung to it for dear life.

You seem to believe we said no one could, or did play a monster PC race pre 3e. Even though it was not a claim either moonsweeper or I ever made.

You then rattle off many posts showing the supplemental material offered so people could play monster race PC’s in past editions. Which no one was claiming didn’t happen.

My argument claimed that there was a cultural shift that took place in the D&D game once WOTC took over which led to: “the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard”.

Standard; as in not something out of a supplement, but something available from the get go. Most other posters in this thread seem to get what I am saying.

And I quoted Johnathan Tweets own words where he admits that they were intentionally changing the tone of the game compared to past editions:

“…But by the time we were working on 3rd Ed, D&D had had such a big impact on fantasy that we basically used D&D as its own source. For example, 2E took monks out of the Player’s Handbook, in part because martial artist monks have no real place in medieval fantasy. We put them back in because monks sure have a place in D&D fantasy. The same goes for gnomes. The 3E gnome is there because the gnome was well-established in D&D lore, not in order to represent real-world mythology. …

Hence my claim of the cultural shift in D&D that took place with 3e.

Because as has D&D became more self-referential, the more it has watered down the grounding the game had in actual myth and legend where monsters are allegorical representations of corruption and evil.

Instead, it has relied more on its own weak worldbuilding in trying to account for every kitchen sink element in one setting. And as the mythological underpinnings of the monster races have become watered down, it makes less and less sense to deny the segment of players that want to have monster pc’s to be a standard element of play. As a result they have been accommodated to a degree in D&D's standard PHB that wasn’t done before.

This has been empirically shown to be true when looking at the increase in monster races offered as standard PC option’s, starting with the return of the Half-Orc in the 3e PHB, and growing steadily with each successive edition: 4e and 5e. Which I have already highlighted in list form in a past post.

How when I said: ” I think that the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on...”

You found your way to: “No one could play monsters races in D&D before 3e. ” I do not know. Virtually no one else but you took that from what was being discussed.

You completely missed the point I was making, and have since just been spamming counterpoints to a claim no one made.

In fact one could argue that as D&D has become more self-referential and divorced itself from its mythological roots that the people working on D&D itself no longer understand themselves what monster races in myth and legend were symbolically representing, and have released nonsense statements displaying their ignorance such as this:

“Throughout the 50-year history of D&D, some of the peoples in the game—orcs and drow being two of the prime examples—have been characterized as monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated. That’s just not right, and it’s not something we believe in. ...”




As for referencing for goal posts...

Let's look back Where you said:

The only reason that Half-Orc was dropped from 2e was the Woke scalds that were coming after DnD during the Satanic Panic caused the neck beards designing 2e to pull all risque material from DnD.  So bye bye Assassin, Devils, Demons and yes Half-Orcs.

Then I said:

Yet somehow, according to your own posts, they managed to release a good amount of material in that era that gave players options to play many different monster PC races...

Obviously their fear of the Woke scalds knew no limit.

Then you said:

My guess is that she-who-must-not-be-named liked money more then she hated "bad" publicity because by the time 2.5e rolled around they had no problem building monster PC races directly into the core rules.

“…walk those goal posts back.” Indeed!



Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on February 15, 2021, 02:47:23 PM
Hence my claim of the cultural shift in D&D that took place with 3e.

And yet you still, until now, have no evidence that there was any such "cultural shift" starting with 3e.

Indeed the 3e Core rules had no more or less monster races then there were in the original ADnD rules written thirty years previously.

Even the revised 3.5 Core rule books had no extra monster races.

So where did this so called "cultural shift" come from when there seems to be no evidence of there being any such "shift".
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: SHARK on February 15, 2021, 06:18:26 PM
Greetings!

Well, it is certainly true that the game offered various monster races through Dragon Magazine, various Adventure Modules, and game supplements for the many years before 3.0 D&D. However, as mentioned earlier, such contributions were more or less optional, and often relegated to the fringes of the different supplements or Dragon articles. I heard them occasionally brought up or referenced by players, but again, most people in groups that I experienced were decidedly in favour of the traditional, standardized races, Human, Elf, Half Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome, and Half Orc. Occasionally, someone would allow a Lizardman, a Minotaur, or a Half Ogre, which all three seemed to have some definite appeal. Still, the traditional races noted predominated in actual groups I played with, and much of beyond.

Somewhere along the way in D&D 3.0, though not initially, I would think, the cultural shift gained momentum and rose to prominence. Some exact point? No, I don't think so. Is their court-sanctioned "evidence"? Well, yeah, there is such evidence sufficient for many people in embracing such a position, but it really isn't important if an individual "sees it" or not. The evidence is all around, and obvious for those willing to see. For those that aren't, no amount of such evidence or references would be sufficient. Somewhere in later 3.0 going into 3.5, the whole tendency of, "I was playing my Half-Dragon/Half Elf/Sparkle Vampire with the Laughing Rainbow Template!" became a recurring desire, even surfacing within some of the groups I played in at the time. This happened from a variety of "Streams of Influence"--the shifting culture which embraced more video games, MMORPGS--like World of Warcraft--Anime, movies, as well as books, I'm sure. It all flows into changing the cultural tone, and the tone within gaming. There's elements of this also seen in the game books and modules at the time, which were also then influential in changing people's attitudes and conceptions.

All of these "Streams of Influence" contributed to transforming the gaming landscape by the end of D&D 3.5, where playing crazy monstrous races were now the main desire, expectation, and thrill of perhaps a majority of players. Even many DM's, too, joined in, as they became seduced by the luminous allure of creating some ultimate Rainbow Sparkle NPC Villain that would titillate and wow the players and fellow DM's alike. It became almost a "mini-game" in its own way to come up with the most fantastic hybrid monstrosity of a race as possible. And, all of that momentum, brought on by the different streams of influence, has not dissipated, but has intensified in every way to the current D&D 5E.

Now, as I have previously mentioned, in groups I have seen--which there have been many over the recent years--standard, traditional races for characters are often the minority in a part composition. Crazy, Rainbow Freak monster races are the norm now. And, as someone mentioned about preferring Science Fiction games because they provide more diversity--indeed, that is quite true. Design-wise, and tone-wise, the more crazy Monster races get allowed into the game, the more like a Science Fiction game D&D can seem to become--and divorced and separated from it's mythological, historical, and medieval roots. If one views such a dynamic as a spectrum, for many people, the more of one thing therefore reduces the other, and that, ultimately, is at the heart of the conflict.

That's my perspective on it. ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on February 15, 2021, 07:13:06 PM
What about the Complete book of Sparkling Vampires in 2e?

Well my DM never let me use it.

 :o
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 15, 2021, 08:10:06 PM
I'd say it was also aligned with turning from more survivalist tones of older D&D to Big Fucking Heroes of later ones. So not only sci-fi and anime, but also superhero element plays roles, with all wacky beings from comics. Now I must say as much as running post 5 lvl D&D can be bit of chore - and more than bit - it was sort of fan to product advanced awakened dread wight half-black dragon dire bat possessed by balor ;) or nosferatu troglodyte ninja ;).

But now looking at this half of century of D&D behind us - if I would want medieval mythical historical roots, then still OD&D would be far from my choice.

Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: BoxCrayonTales on February 16, 2021, 04:10:56 PM

Always good to see posters walk those goal posts back.

"I didnt mean 'started' " indeed.

And here you put words in my mouth again…

It seems you read what you want and not what is actually written.

Let’s look at what was actually said back on page 6:



I think that the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on...

The prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on?

I guess you have some anecdote to back that up because you could not play a monster race using the core 3e rules.

Note I was talking about the cultural shift that occurred in the game from 3.x on, resulting in the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard in D&D.

Becoming: the process of coming to be something or of passing into a state.


Your reply to moonsweeper where you used his choice of wording to prop up a false inference:

You'll notice he said it was due to the cultural shift that started with the 3.x rules.  …

Yes it was only the BECMI Creature Crucibles for Fey, Lycanthropes, Sky Gnome and Aquatics.

And All the Humanoids in 1993

But yeah other then that it must have been the culture shift 10 years later with 3e that did it.

You'll notice it was moonsweeper that said it was due to the cultural shift that started with the 3.x rules.  …

In my reply I acknowledged that there was a past history of supplemental material that gave the option to play monster races:
"You are right "started" is the wrong word. Cultural Shifts don't come out of nowhere. …”

My intent was to clarify moonsweepers meaning because I recognized that the use of the word 'started' was not the best word choice, and would give you a pedantic nail to hang your false inference on while ignoring the actual claim. The nuance was lost on you. You saw your nail and clung to it for dear life.

You seem to believe we said no one could, or did play a monster PC race pre 3e. Even though it was not a claim either moonsweeper or I ever made.

You then rattle off many posts showing the supplemental material offered so people could play monster race PC’s in past editions. Which no one was claiming didn’t happen.

My argument claimed that there was a cultural shift that took place in the D&D game once WOTC took over which led to: “the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard”.

Standard; as in not something out of a supplement, but something available from the get go. Most other posters in this thread seem to get what I am saying.

And I quoted Johnathan Tweets own words where he admits that they were intentionally changing the tone of the game compared to past editions:

“…But by the time we were working on 3rd Ed, D&D had had such a big impact on fantasy that we basically used D&D as its own source. For example, 2E took monks out of the Player’s Handbook, in part because martial artist monks have no real place in medieval fantasy. We put them back in because monks sure have a place in D&D fantasy. The same goes for gnomes. The 3E gnome is there because the gnome was well-established in D&D lore, not in order to represent real-world mythology. …

Hence my claim of the cultural shift in D&D that took place with 3e.

Because as has D&D became more self-referential, the more it has watered down the grounding the game had in actual myth and legend where monsters are allegorical representations of corruption and evil.

Instead, it has relied more on its own weak worldbuilding in trying to account for every kitchen sink element in one setting. And as the mythological underpinnings of the monster races have become watered down, it makes less and less sense to deny the segment of players that want to have monster pc’s to be a standard element of play. As a result they have been accommodated to a degree in D&D's standard PHB that wasn’t done before.

This has been empirically shown to be true when looking at the increase in monster races offered as standard PC option’s, starting with the return of the Half-Orc in the 3e PHB, and growing steadily with each successive edition: 4e and 5e. Which I have already highlighted in list form in a past post.

How when I said: ” I think that the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on...”

You found your way to: “No one could play monsters races in D&D before 3e. ” I do not know. Virtually no one else but you took that from what was being discussed.

You completely missed the point I was making, and have since just been spamming counterpoints to a claim no one made.

In fact one could argue that as D&D has become more self-referential and divorced itself from its mythological roots that the people working on D&D itself no longer understand themselves what monster races in myth and legend were symbolically representing, and have released nonsense statements displaying their ignorance such as this:

“Throughout the 50-year history of D&D, some of the peoples in the game—orcs and drow being two of the prime examples—have been characterized as monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated. That’s just not right, and it’s not something we believe in. ...”




As for referencing for goal posts...

Let's look back Where you said:

The only reason that Half-Orc was dropped from 2e was the Woke scalds that were coming after DnD during the Satanic Panic caused the neck beards designing 2e to pull all risque material from DnD.  So bye bye Assassin, Devils, Demons and yes Half-Orcs.

Then I said:

Yet somehow, according to your own posts, they managed to release a good amount of material in that era that gave players options to play many different monster PC races...

Obviously their fear of the Woke scalds knew no limit.

Then you said:

My guess is that she-who-must-not-be-named liked money more then she hated "bad" publicity because by the time 2.5e rolled around they had no problem building monster PC races directly into the core rules.

“…walk those goal posts back.” Indeed!

Yes, the monsters of myth and folklore were allegorical. It was D&D that made them increasingly more like Star Trek humanoid aliens with every edition.

Maybe the D&D races did have parallels to racist propaganda. So what? The reason the SJWs complain is because they think this causes players to develop racist attitudes, but in the absence of scientific studies we don't actually know if there's any weight to their arguments. We currently don't have any evidence that violent media necessarily increases the prevalence of violent crime, for comparison.

Tolkien thought the concept of inherently evil races didn't make sense. If you look at the supposed origins of the orcs as being elves tortured and indoctrinated by Morgoth, then the closest real world parallel isn't people of color: it's child soldiers.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: TJS on February 16, 2021, 11:00:39 PM

Always good to see posters walk those goal posts back.

"I didnt mean 'started' " indeed.

And here you put words in my mouth again…

It seems you read what you want and not what is actually written.

Let’s look at what was actually said back on page 6:



I think that the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on...

The prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on?

I guess you have some anecdote to back that up because you could not play a monster race using the core 3e rules.

Note I was talking about the cultural shift that occurred in the game from 3.x on, resulting in the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard in D&D.

Becoming: the process of coming to be something or of passing into a state.


Your reply to moonsweeper where you used his choice of wording to prop up a false inference:

You'll notice he said it was due to the cultural shift that started with the 3.x rules.  …

Yes it was only the BECMI Creature Crucibles for Fey, Lycanthropes, Sky Gnome and Aquatics.

And All the Humanoids in 1993

But yeah other then that it must have been the culture shift 10 years later with 3e that did it.

You'll notice it was moonsweeper that said it was due to the cultural shift that started with the 3.x rules.  …

In my reply I acknowledged that there was a past history of supplemental material that gave the option to play monster races:
"You are right "started" is the wrong word. Cultural Shifts don't come out of nowhere. …”

My intent was to clarify moonsweepers meaning because I recognized that the use of the word 'started' was not the best word choice, and would give you a pedantic nail to hang your false inference on while ignoring the actual claim. The nuance was lost on you. You saw your nail and clung to it for dear life.

You seem to believe we said no one could, or did play a monster PC race pre 3e. Even though it was not a claim either moonsweeper or I ever made.

You then rattle off many posts showing the supplemental material offered so people could play monster race PC’s in past editions. Which no one was claiming didn’t happen.

My argument claimed that there was a cultural shift that took place in the D&D game once WOTC took over which led to: “the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard”.

Standard; as in not something out of a supplement, but something available from the get go. Most other posters in this thread seem to get what I am saying.

And I quoted Johnathan Tweets own words where he admits that they were intentionally changing the tone of the game compared to past editions:

“…But by the time we were working on 3rd Ed, D&D had had such a big impact on fantasy that we basically used D&D as its own source. For example, 2E took monks out of the Player’s Handbook, in part because martial artist monks have no real place in medieval fantasy. We put them back in because monks sure have a place in D&D fantasy. The same goes for gnomes. The 3E gnome is there because the gnome was well-established in D&D lore, not in order to represent real-world mythology. …

Hence my claim of the cultural shift in D&D that took place with 3e.

Because as has D&D became more self-referential, the more it has watered down the grounding the game had in actual myth and legend where monsters are allegorical representations of corruption and evil.

Instead, it has relied more on its own weak worldbuilding in trying to account for every kitchen sink element in one setting. And as the mythological underpinnings of the monster races have become watered down, it makes less and less sense to deny the segment of players that want to have monster pc’s to be a standard element of play. As a result they have been accommodated to a degree in D&D's standard PHB that wasn’t done before.

This has been empirically shown to be true when looking at the increase in monster races offered as standard PC option’s, starting with the return of the Half-Orc in the 3e PHB, and growing steadily with each successive edition: 4e and 5e. Which I have already highlighted in list form in a past post.

How when I said: ” I think that the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on...”

You found your way to: “No one could play monsters races in D&D before 3e. ” I do not know. Virtually no one else but you took that from what was being discussed.

You completely missed the point I was making, and have since just been spamming counterpoints to a claim no one made.

In fact one could argue that as D&D has become more self-referential and divorced itself from its mythological roots that the people working on D&D itself no longer understand themselves what monster races in myth and legend were symbolically representing, and have released nonsense statements displaying their ignorance such as this:

“Throughout the 50-year history of D&D, some of the peoples in the game—orcs and drow being two of the prime examples—have been characterized as monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated. That’s just not right, and it’s not something we believe in. ...”




As for referencing for goal posts...

Let's look back Where you said:

The only reason that Half-Orc was dropped from 2e was the Woke scalds that were coming after DnD during the Satanic Panic caused the neck beards designing 2e to pull all risque material from DnD.  So bye bye Assassin, Devils, Demons and yes Half-Orcs.

Then I said:

Yet somehow, according to your own posts, they managed to release a good amount of material in that era that gave players options to play many different monster PC races...

Obviously their fear of the Woke scalds knew no limit.

Then you said:

My guess is that she-who-must-not-be-named liked money more then she hated "bad" publicity because by the time 2.5e rolled around they had no problem building monster PC races directly into the core rules.

“…walk those goal posts back.” Indeed!

Yes, the monsters of myth and folklore were allegorical. It was D&D that made them increasingly more like Star Trek humanoid aliens with every edition.

Maybe the D&D races did have parallels to racist propaganda. So what? The reason the SJWs complain is because they think this causes players to develop racist attitudes, but in the absence of scientific studies we don't actually know if there's any weight to their arguments. We currently don't have any evidence that violent media necessarily increases the prevalence of violent crime, for comparison.

Tolkien thought the concept of inherently evil races didn't make sense. If you look at the supposed origins of the orcs as being elves tortured and indoctrinated by Morgoth, then the closest real world parallel isn't people of color: it's child soldiers.

It's interesting the way these ideas have changed over time.

In the 90s and early 2000s there was some discussion of what fantasy would look like if written from a more left wing perspective.  This was less about condemning what had gone before, but more about writers considering what fantasy would look like if it better reflected their values.   China Mieville's writing was an example of this.  There's nothing really wrong with this - after all it's a call for more intellectual diversity - not less.

At the same time there was a more academic recognition that you could analyse a lot of texts and see how they reflected their times.  This does not mean you would look at Tolkien and condemn him as a racist, but more that you would look at his writing as taking place in a certain context and being placed within a certain time.  Again, done with nuance, there's nothing wrong with this, and the people initially doing this were probably people who loved Tolkien - why spend so much time analysing something you hate?

But somewhere along the line there has been a kind of coalescence and an immense dumbing down. 

You can tell the keep absence of any intellectual engagement by the vastly overinflated use of the concept of 'harm' which is never clearly explained or defined.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Omega on February 16, 2021, 11:35:40 PM
Thats because eventually all definitions become practically "everything on earth".

This is why they push fake ideas like "systemic racism" where EVERY white person is pretty much born racist. Or why they try to redefine what an RPG is to really mean "everything on earth". Or rape, or harrassment, or anything really. They can and will eventually keep broadening the term to encompass more and more.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Jaeger on February 22, 2021, 08:15:49 PM

And yet you still, until now, have no evidence that there was any such "cultural shift" starting with 3e.
…. .

Except I did.

Quoting Johnathan Tweet’s own words twice on the subject, and explaining my reasoning at length.

You choose to ignore it.




Maybe the D&D races did have parallels to racist propaganda. ...

I would say no. They were all originally based on myth and legend. And were allegorical representations of human vices.

Racist propaganda usurped the language of myth and legend in order to try and dehumanize specific groups of people.

Similar to the way SJW’s try and usurp history to fit their narrative of systematic racism.

Anyone who says D&D races = Racist caricature, Is actually parroting the racist worldview. They actually believe the racist propaganda.



Tolkien thought the concept of inherently evil races didn't make sense. If you look at the supposed origins of the orcs as being elves tortured and indoctrinated by Morgoth, then the closest real world parallel isn't people of color: it's child soldiers.

True, but going with Tolkien’s actual concepts would not allow them to shame-leverage the control over mainstream 5e Lore the way that screeching Orcs=Blacks does.




Yes, the monsters of myth and folklore were allegorical. It was D&D that made them increasingly more like Star Trek humanoid aliens with every edition.

Exactly. As D&D has gotten more and more self-referential, losing its connections to actual myths and legends, the game designers rob themselves and players of the allegorical archetypes the creatures represented.

And so as they design new ”races” they lack the understanding to give the new race a proper mythological grounding. So instead of providing a classical archetype for players to riff off of - all we get is “Me so special with blue skin! Squeee!!”
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on February 22, 2021, 09:42:03 PM

And yet you still, until now, have no evidence that there was any such "cultural shift" starting with 3e.
…. .

Except I did.

Quoting Johnathan Tweet’s own words twice on the subject, and explaining my reasoning at length.

You choose to ignore it.


Ok, lets look at your quote:

Quote
My argument claimed that there was a cultural shift that took place in the D&D game once WOTC took over which led to: “the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard”.

Standard; as in not something out of a supplement, but something available from the get go. Most other posters in this thread seem to get what I am saying.

And I quoted Johnathan Tweets own words where he admits that they were intentionally changing the tone of the game compared to past editions:

Quote from: Johnathan Tweet telling real world mythology to kick rocks: on February 09, 2021, 05:36:41 PM

    “…But by the time we were working on 3rd Ed, D&D had had such a big impact on fantasy that we basically used D&D as its own source. For example, 2E took monks out of the Player’s Handbook, in part because martial artist monks have no real place in medieval fantasy. We put them back in because monks sure have a place in D&D fantasy. The same goes for gnomes. The 3E gnome is there because the gnome was well-established in D&D lore, not in order to represent real-world mythology. …”


Hence my claim of the cultural shift in D&D that took place with 3e.

As I understand what Mr Tweet is saying, he basically used DnD as its own source using Monks not because they were a new idea or because they were Medieval authentic but because they were an existing part of DnD Lore.  Likewise Gnomes were not meant to be representative of "real" world mythology, they were supposed to be DnD Gnomes.

Looking at your example of including Half-Orcs in the PHB.  What reason could Mr Tweet have had to include them?  One reason could have been that he saw a cultural shift towards playing "monstrous characters"  However my contention is that it would be  more accurate to state the real reason was because, like Gnomes, Half-Orcs were already an existing part of DnD Lore.

Therefore, there was no cultural shift with 3e.  3e was designed to be as DnD as possible using all of the accumulated DnD Lore which as I have shown includes monstrous characters.  3e Players were not making Half-Orc or Tiefling Characters because of some culture shift, they were making Half-Orc or Tiefling Characters because DnD Players have always made Half-Orc or Tiefling Characters.  As Mr Tweets quote states 3e is completely self referential to the existing DnD Lore.

Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on February 22, 2021, 09:45:41 PM
And so as they design new ”races” they lack the understanding to give the new race a proper mythological grounding. So instead of providing a classical archetype for players to riff off of - all we get is “Me so special with blue skin! Squeee!!”

Ha, Drow Rangers are so 80s.

Wait that does not fit your narrative!
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Abraxus on February 23, 2021, 08:33:37 AM
Ha, Drow Rangers are so 80s.

Wait that does not fit your narrative!

At this point it's best to walk away. Their is no real productive way to deal with the stubbornly stupid at this point. He insists on trying to convince everyone and anyone that 2+2=5 and nothing anyone or everyone says to the negative will change his mind.

It's the start of new week spend it doing much more enjoyable and productive things. As you or I or anyone else are going to round and round to no end. No amount of opinion or even proof is going to change the narrative.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Chris24601 on February 23, 2021, 12:04:19 PM
At this point it's best to walk away. Their is no real productive way to deal with the stubbornly stupid at this point. He insists on trying to convince everyone and anyone that 2+2=5 and nothing anyone or everyone says to the negative will change his mind.
Best way I've found to convince people that 2+2 doesn't equal 5 is to ask them if you can trade them some ones for a five, give them $2, then another $2 and then ask your $5.  ;D

On topic, there have been a LOT of fantasy stories with various monsters in the role of a protagonist; though due to production budgets there's usually only one of them for flavor. That reason alone is enough to make them available and leave it the GM to decide what, if any, limits to place on PCs.

Hell, a game might be set on something like John Carter's Mars where there's only one HUMAN allowed in the adventuring party.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on February 23, 2021, 02:47:52 PM
Ha, Drow Rangers are so 80s.

Wait that does not fit your narrative!

At this point it's best to walk away. Their is no real productive way to deal with the stubbornly stupid at this point. He insists on trying to convince everyone and anyone that 2+2=5 and nothing anyone or everyone says to the negative will change his mind.

It's the start of new week spend it doing much more enjoyable and productive things. As you or I or anyone else are going to round and round to no end. No amount of opinion or even proof is going to change the narrative.

Agreed and seconded.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Omega on February 23, 2021, 03:17:13 PM
And so as they design new ”races” they lack the understanding to give the new race a proper mythological grounding. So instead of providing a classical archetype for players to riff off of - all we get is “Me so special with blue skin! Squeee!!”

Ha, Drow Rangers are so 80s.

Wait that does not fit your narrative!

And Drow Chavaliers! And Drow Acrobats!

No. None of this fits the near cult-like idiot ball narrative imperative need to blame WOTC for every hallucinated evil.

Eventually we will have come full circle and become the new SJWs hallucinating new atrocities around every corner.

Oh wait. We allready are.

Go after WOTC for all the dirty things they HAVE done as these imaginary wrongs just undermine any attempts to call them out.

"WOTC is declaring all older books wacist!"
"Oh you mean like how you told us WOTC invented monster PC races to undermine "true D&D" play? Yeah riiiiight."
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Slambo on February 23, 2021, 03:30:12 PM
I mean, the best solution is just to say what races you'll allow.

I myself am a fan of race-as-class though so i dont have to worry.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: BoxCrayonTales on February 23, 2021, 04:03:47 PM

And yet you still, until now, have no evidence that there was any such "cultural shift" starting with 3e.
…. .

Except I did.

Quoting Johnathan Tweet’s own words twice on the subject, and explaining my reasoning at length.

You choose to ignore it.




Maybe the D&D races did have parallels to racist propaganda. ...

I would say no. They were all originally based on myth and legend. And were allegorical representations of human vices.

Racist propaganda usurped the language of myth and legend in order to try and dehumanize specific groups of people.

Similar to the way SJW’s try and usurp history to fit their narrative of systematic racism.

Anyone who says D&D races = Racist caricature, Is actually parroting the racist worldview. They actually believe the racist propaganda.



Tolkien thought the concept of inherently evil races didn't make sense. If you look at the supposed origins of the orcs as being elves tortured and indoctrinated by Morgoth, then the closest real world parallel isn't people of color: it's child soldiers.

True, but going with Tolkien’s actual concepts would not allow them to shame-leverage the control over mainstream 5e Lore the way that screeching Orcs=Blacks does.




Yes, the monsters of myth and folklore were allegorical. It was D&D that made them increasingly more like Star Trek humanoid aliens with every edition.

Exactly. As D&D has gotten more and more self-referential, losing its connections to actual myths and legends, the game designers rob themselves and players of the allegorical archetypes the creatures represented.

And so as they design new ”races” they lack the understanding to give the new race a proper mythological grounding. So instead of providing a classical archetype for players to riff off of - all we get is “Me so special with blue skin! Squeee!!”

My point is that stripping away the mythical connections and making them more, well, mundane does make them into something reminiscent of blood libel.

Orcs didn't actually exist in folklore, or at least nothing that survives today. They were pretty much invented by Tolkien. He took the Indo-European concept of goblins and then turned them into a race of mooks to serve the Dark Lords. Even then, there was still the question of whether they were truly irredeemable and whether killing them was the best option. Tolkien certainly wanted them to be redeemable, because it literally wasn't their fault they did bad things. Their souls were raped by Morgoth.

In D&D, they're a race of humanoids that exist solely to be killed for loot because it's a game. There's no problem in that. When you start pulling justifications out of your ass that killing them for XP and loot is morally right and blah, it starts treading the same territory as the cultural posturing and blood libel that humans invented to justify atrocities since time immemorial. Before you misunderstand me, let's be honest and admit that you can't be racist against fictional people.

AFAIK, folklore doesn't have entire races of people who it is okay to kill and loot. There aren't stories of heroes regularly going on genocide sprees against some despised race of subhumans and plundering their homes for loot. That seems to be more of an artifact of D&D imitating pulp fiction inspired by Manifest Destiny's genocide of Native Americans. (Though feel free to provide examples to the contrary. I'd love to see those.)

Like, Greek centaurs immediately come to mind as exactly the sort of race you'd think there'd be genocide tales about considering their rowdiness makes them ready antagonists in a number of stories. However, the Centauromachy is considered a tragedy. The centaurs aren't irredeemably evil beasts that must be exterminated and looted by heroes. They're just one of the many weird semi-human races wandering the mythic age.

And D&D players have pointed this stuff out for decades. "Is it moral to kill the baby orcs/goblins/whatever?" is a question that players have been asking for decades. And for just as long you've had settings where orcs (or whatever, not necessarily orcs) weren't inherently.

So the concept is a huge clusterfuck in the D&D writing history.

I think it's something worth examining.

But the reason why SJWs are interested in the first place is because they think depictions of evil orcs cause players to become racist.

There's no evidence of this. At all. Artists draw orc porn. It's trendy to depict orcs as not inherently evil or even as a persecuted minority.

I for one am a fan of evil orcs like 40k space orks or WC2 orc conquistadors because I'm tired of the current trendy native american stereotypes.

If you're interested in RTS games, there's this RTS in development called Edge of Chaos which includes evil orcs as one of its playable sides. I am totally looking forward to see the orc campaign.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on February 23, 2021, 04:47:18 PM
AFAIK, folklore doesn't have entire races of people who it is okay to kill and loot. There aren't stories of heroes regularly going on genocide sprees against some despised race of subhumans and plundering their homes for loot. That seems to be more of an artifact of D&D imitating pulp fiction inspired by Manifest Destiny's genocide of Native Americans. (Though feel free to provide examples to the contrary. I'd love to see those.)

Folklore, or as I like to call it History, is filled with races of people who it is ok to kill and loot.  Many of them come down to us as words like Vandals and Barbarians.

For those of us that like English history the Vikings were particularly terrifying invaders but people like the Barbary Pirates were also pretty bad for those living on the continent.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: BoxCrayonTales on February 23, 2021, 04:58:11 PM
AFAIK, folklore doesn't have entire races of people who it is okay to kill and loot. There aren't stories of heroes regularly going on genocide sprees against some despised race of subhumans and plundering their homes for loot. That seems to be more of an artifact of D&D imitating pulp fiction inspired by Manifest Destiny's genocide of Native Americans. (Though feel free to provide examples to the contrary. I'd love to see those.)

Folklore, or as I like to call it History, is filled with races of people who it is ok to kill and loot.  Many of them come down to us as words like Vandals and Barbarians.

For those of us that like English history the Vikings were particularly terrifying invaders but people like the Barbary Pirates were also pretty bad for those living on the continent.

Sure, but there's this double standard in play. In D&D adventures writers and players are open to discussion with human enemies but rarely offer the same consideration to humanoids.

Nowadays vikings are pretty romanticized, too. In fact, I remember in school playing a simple edutainment game that loosely simulated the economics of running a viking raiding party.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on February 23, 2021, 05:49:10 PM
AFAIK, folklore doesn't have entire races of people who it is okay to kill and loot. There aren't stories of heroes regularly going on genocide sprees against some despised race of subhumans and plundering their homes for loot. That seems to be more of an artifact of D&D imitating pulp fiction inspired by Manifest Destiny's genocide of Native Americans. (Though feel free to provide examples to the contrary. I'd love to see those.)

Folklore, or as I like to call it History, is filled with races of people who it is ok to kill and loot.  Many of them come down to us as words like Vandals and Barbarians.

For those of us that like English history the Vikings were particularly terrifying invaders but people like the Barbary Pirates were also pretty bad for those living on the continent.

Sure, but there's this double standard in play. In D&D adventures writers and players are open to discussion with human enemies but rarely offer the same consideration to humanoids.

Nowadays vikings are pretty romanticized, too. In fact, I remember in school playing a simple edutainment game that loosely simulated the economics of running a viking raiding party.

What do you imagine Vikings were being taught to make them think it was Good to go Rape, Murder and Pillage if there were no stories about how Valhalla was waiting for them if they gloriously died in battle?

Why do you have a double standard for white-washing violence out of Folklore?
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Slipshot762 on February 23, 2021, 07:36:52 PM
Historical Fact: Romans would shank you for your pants.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Omega on February 23, 2021, 08:15:56 PM
Pants Romina?  8)

ahem.

As for there being allways evil races in forlkore. Anyone saying there isn't any such thing is either woefully ignorant, willfully ignorant, or a liar.

No really. Go read up on some folklore of various cultures on some of the hostile beings that plagued people.

Part of the problem is that over time various people have either deliberately or mistakenly merged into one what were before different races of creatures.

And again. Orcs in D&D were originally not allways evil and anyone claiming they were IS a liar.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Jaeger on February 24, 2021, 03:37:20 PM

Therefore, there was no cultural shift with 3e.  …  As Mr Tweets quote states 3e is completely self referential to the existing DnD Lore.

Moving the game to being completely self-referential to the existing DnD Lore. races, monsters, classes, items, etc.  IS the cultural shift.

Because his design decision when it came to the creation of D&D lore was a distinctly different shift from what designers would use as references in previous editions.

I highly doubt Mr. Tweet thought he was making some cultural shift – he just probably thought it was a cool idea at the time. But making all the game lore completely self-referential was by his own admission a departure from how the world building was done in every previous edition!


In 2nd Ed, the rules referred to history and to historical legends to describe the game

This was also done in past editions. Mr. Tweet didn’t like this part of D&D.

When writing roleplaying games, I enjoy helping the player get immersed in the setting, and I always found these references to the real world to be distractions.

So he set about “fixing” D&D Lore.


Personally, one part of the process I enjoyed was describing the world of D&D in its own terms, rather than referring to real-world history and mythology.

… For example, 2E took monks out of the Player’s Handbook, in part because martial artist monks have no real place in medieval fantasy.
We put them back in because monks sure have a place in D&D fantasy. The same goes for gnomes. The 3E gnome is there because the gnome was well-established in D&D lore, not in order to represent real-world mythology.

Descriptions of weapons in 2E referred to historical precedents, …. We dropped the historical references….

D&D had such a strong legacy that it could stand on its own without reference to Earth history or mythology.

In a relatively short article, he explicitly mentions dumping references to real world history or mythology no less than four times. Specifically contrasting his new direction to what previous editions of D&D did.

I explained at length in previous posts why this shift away from referencing and understanding real world mythology contributed to “…the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard”  Post 3e.

Note these key words form my original post: becoming standard.

Becoming: The process of coming to be something or of passing into a state.

Not instantly transforming the game when changes are first introduced.

Standard: Uniform and established.

Everyone knows I'm referring to standard player options in the core PHB.

Not a claim that more PC options were never available in supplementary material.

Not a claim that PC’s did not play monster races before 3e, or that mary sue characters never existed.

It’s not that hard. Reading comprehension is a thing.



Ha, Drow Rangers are so 80s.

Wait that does not fit your narrative!

Your projection is showing.

Once again referencing supplementary material from past editions to counter claims no one is making.

“…the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard” This concept is evidently beyond you.

You could not play a Drow straight out of the PHB in past editions. It was not a standard option.

You can in 5e.

Thus; being able to play a Drow PC became standard in D&D.

Only you and a few others seem completely unable to grasp what I am saying.

Dealing with the stubbornly stupid indeed.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 24, 2021, 05:18:20 PM
Quote
As for there being allways evil races in forlkore. Anyone saying there isn't any such thing is either woefully ignorant, willfully ignorant, or a liar.

Depends what we call races.
I mean there is hardly any races in Slavic mythology for instance - there is large and insane bestiary but it would be hard to call something a race from beasts known to me.
Germanic mythology on the other hands - have gods, elves, and giants basically as separate races each owning own worlds.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: jhkim on February 24, 2021, 05:26:43 PM
You could not play a Drow straight out of the PHB in past editions. It was not a standard option.

You can in 5e.

Thus; being able to play a Drow PC became standard in D&D.

You're defining that only the Player's Handbook is standard - and therefore (for example) it was not standard to take a barbarian character in 1e.

But the barbarian was created by Gary Gygax and published in a hardbound book described as official new rules. When kids watched the D&D cartoon, they saw the barbarian, cavalier, and thief-acrobat alongside other classes like ranger and wizard. In his article on "The Future of the Game" (Dragon #103), Gygax reported that in his plan for a second edition, he would incorporate material from Unearthed Arcana into the new Player's Handbook.

It seems like splitting hairs to me to call Unearthed Arcana non-standard. It was official Gygax-written material that was sold as core rules - not optional or setting-specific.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Omega on February 24, 2021, 05:32:04 PM
Because their narrow little narrative window can't allow for things like facts get in the way of blaming WOTC for every evil.

Watch em grab those goal posts and run like their little religion depended on it.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: BoxCrayonTales on February 24, 2021, 05:53:00 PM
Quote
As for there being allways evil races in forlkore. Anyone saying there isn't any such thing is either woefully ignorant, willfully ignorant, or a liar.

Depends what we call races.
I mean there is hardly any races in Slavic mythology for instance - there is large and insane bestiary but it would be hard to call something a race from beasts known to me.
Germanic mythology on the other hands - have gods, elves, and giants basically as separate races each owning own worlds.
Does the mythology call for open season on them like humanoids in D&D?

I recall that while the Aesir have many fights with the Jotun, they also have many non-violent encounters and even marriages.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 24, 2021, 06:29:38 PM
Yup, it would be hard to make any RACE of beings in Nordic Mythology as always evil.

On the other hand vampire or striga in Slavic mythology is always kinda evil - but those are not races.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: BronzeDragon on February 24, 2021, 06:38:41 PM
You're defining that only the Player's Handbook is standard - and therefore (for example) it was not standard to take a barbarian character in 1e.

But the barbarian was created by Gary Gygax and published in a hardbound book described as official new rules. When kids watched the D&D cartoon, they saw the barbarian, cavalier, and thief-acrobat alongside other classes like ranger and wizard. In his article on "The Future of the Game" (Dragon #103), Gygax reported that in his plan for a second edition, he would incorporate material from Unearthed Arcana into the new Player's Handbook.

It seems like splitting hairs to me to call Unearthed Arcana non-standard. It was official Gygax-written material that was sold as core rules - not optional or setting-specific.

To me, Standard is whatever you can play using the minimum amount of material released originally as "the game".

For D&D, that means the PHB, DMG and MM. For Warhammer FRP, it's just the one core book. Same for Star Wars in its D6 and D20 iterations (FFG has three core books, so you could have different Standards depending on which book you were using), so on and so forth.

Any books released after the core original release are supplements. It doesn't matter if they were written by the original author, if he decides to slap "Core Rules" on the cover or whatever else. Many groups will play with nothing but the original core, specially in places where the investment to get the books in the first place is substantial.

So no, for me Barbarians and Cavaliers are not standard AD&D classes, Monk is not a standard AD&D 2E class, and Drow are definitely a monster humanoid race until 5E (not sure if the 4E abomination had them in the PHB).
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Jaeger on February 24, 2021, 06:57:26 PM
Because their narrow little narrative window can't allow for things like facts get in the way of blaming WOTC for every evil.

Watch em grab those goal posts and run like their little religion depended on it.

The projection is heavy in this thread.

Sniping out one liners = The cornerstone of all non-arguments.

The only ones trying to move goalposts are posters who have no argument and are just throwing red herring spaghetti at the wall hoping something sticks.

Behold the latest example:

…Blah deblah all books are core books nonsense…

It seems like splitting hairs to me to call Unearthed Arcana non-standard. It was official Gygax-written material that was sold as core rules - not optional or setting-specific.


The only one splitting hairs to try for a gotcha points is you.

Everyone knows what people are talking about when they reference the core books vs everything else. The difference between the 3 core books and everything else is a common rules distinction many posters before me have made and many after me will make.

Even as much as he tried to obfuscate things by constantly bringing up supplemental material, Shasarak knew I was referring to the core books as standard when he was puzzled why a shift that lead to something becoming standard didn’t happen instantly:


Indeed the 3e Core rules had no more or less monster races then there were in the original ADnD rules written thirty years previously.

Even the revised 3.5 Core rule books had no extra monster races.

You are the only one I have seen try to say that it is not a thing.

+ bronze dragon’s post.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: deathknight4044 on February 25, 2021, 02:12:35 AM
Pants Romina?  8)

ahem.

As for there being allways evil races in forlkore. Anyone saying there isn't any such thing is either woefully ignorant, willfully ignorant, or a liar.

No really. Go read up on some folklore of various cultures on some of the hostile beings that plagued people.

Part of the problem is that over time various people have either deliberately or mistakenly merged into one what were before different races of creatures.

And again. Orcs in D&D were originally not allways evil and anyone claiming they were IS a liar.


In ad&d orcs were pretty much irredeemably evil. In the Q and As gary gygax has done hes said that the lawful good course of action for a paladin dealing with a surrendering orc would be for the paladin to make him renounce his evil or his god, and then put him to the sword. The 1st edition monster manual is full of hit points and combat abilities of monster children too.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Omega on February 25, 2021, 07:28:01 AM
In ad&d orcs were pretty much irredeemably evil. In the Q and As gary gygax has done hes said that the lawful good course of action for a paladin dealing with a surrendering orc would be for the paladin to make him renounce his evil or his god, and then put him to the sword. The 1st edition monster manual is full of hit points and combat abilities of monster children too.

Except...
A: Orcs could be Neutral in OD&D and were opened up to any alignment in 2e. Meanwhile in BX they were just Chaotic and could be good, bad or neutral depending on reactions. Just like practically everything else. In AD&D monsters were eventually all over the place in their depictions.

B: If I recall right, the Q&As were not written by Gary and in fact eventually was helmed by a woman who did not like RPGs and deliberately gave out bad information to discourage play. So Gary saying something like that, especially when his players were recruiting orcs, seems rather out of character.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: deathknight4044 on February 25, 2021, 08:28:29 AM
In ad&d orcs were pretty much irredeemably evil. In the Q and As gary gygax has done hes said that the lawful good course of action for a paladin dealing with a surrendering orc would be for the paladin to make him renounce his evil or his god, and then put him to the sword. The 1st edition monster manual is full of hit points and combat abilities of monster children too.

Except...
A: Orcs could be Neutral in OD&D and were opened up to any alignment in 2e. Meanwhile in BX they were just Chaotic and could be good, bad or neutral depending on reactions. Just like practically everything else. In AD&D monsters were eventually all over the place in their depictions.

B: If I recall right, the Q&As were not written by Gary and in fact eventually was helmed by a woman who did not like RPGs and deliberately gave out bad information to discourage play. So Gary saying something like that, especially when his players were recruiting orcs, seems rather out of character.

That's why I specified AD&D. This answer was from Gary Gygax on a Q and A thread:

Quote
Not directly.

If the infant orc was not able to reason, the paladin would not slay it, possibly see to its care somewhere until it reached a state where reason was possible; but if and when the immature humanoid was able to reason, the paladin would make it swear its rejection of evil, confess its adherance to LG, and then execute it before it could recant. Thus the orc would be guaranteed acceptence in a more benign afterlife.

Cheers,
Gary

And

Quote
Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The old addage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before thay can backslide :lol:

Cheers,
Gary


Quote
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good. Prisoners guilty of murder or similar capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment. Hanging is likely the usual method of such execution, although it might be beheading, strangulation, etc. A paladin is likely a figure that would be considered a fair judge of criminal conduct.

The Anglo-Saxon punishment for rape and/or murder of a woman was as follows: tearing off of the scalp, cutting off of the ears and nose, blinding, chopping off of the feet and hands, and leaving the criminal beside the road for all bypassers to see. I don't know if they cauterized the limb stumps or not before doing that. It was said that a woman and child could walk the length and breadth of England without fear of molestation then...

Chivington might have been quoted as saying "nits make lice," but he is certainly not the first one to make such an observation as it is an observable fact. If you have read the account of wooden Leg, a warrior of the Cheyenne tribe that fought against Custer et al., he dispassionately noted killing an enemy squaw for the reason in question.

Cheers,
Gary

https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=56868&start=270
https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&start=60
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Chris24601 on February 25, 2021, 09:11:50 AM
Quote
Not directly.

If the infant orc was not able to reason, the paladin would not slay it, possibly see to its care somewhere until it reached a state where reason was possible; but if and when the immature humanoid was able to reason, the paladin would make it swear its rejection of evil, confess its adherance to LG, and then execute it before it could recant. Thus the orc would be guaranteed acceptence in a more benign afterlife.

Cheers,
Gary
Good Lord.

Even if that WAS from Gary I can see how the story that the advice column was taken over by someone who hated RPGs got started. That is HORRIBLE advice.

I mean, let’s take “kill someone because they MIGHT commit evil in the future” to its logical extreme and Paladins should be putting every newly baptized infant to the sword because once they reach the age of reason they will inevitably sin and risk their immortal soul.

We don’t call people who do that lawful good. We call them serial killers and monsters.

If that was legitimately Gary’s view then I also understand why the move to force him out before 2nd Edition launched... even without the moral panic angle of the time that’s just toxic.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 25, 2021, 09:26:16 AM
Gary Gygax was very very very bad philosopher, and let's leave his analysis of D&D morality buried deep deep under rocks of Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: deathknight4044 on February 25, 2021, 09:34:00 AM
Gary Gygax was very very very bad philosopher, and let's leave his analysis of D&D morality buried deep deep under rocks of Wisconsin.

Your first mistake was looking for a philosophy lesson in a game about killing monsters and taking their shit. As for the accusations of all those Q and A threads not actually being Gary, is there any evidence for this?
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 25, 2021, 09:58:57 AM
Everything is philosophy.
Especially writers and creators debating about morality of their fictional worlds are philosophers - whether they want it or not.

And honestly if it was not philosophical - then Gygax would just say "whatever man, who cares, just kill them and take their stuff". He didn't. Therefore I can and I shall judge him as a philosopher. A bad philosopher.

Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Armchair Gamer on February 25, 2021, 10:27:44 AM
Your first mistake was looking for a philosophy lesson in a game about killing monsters and taking their shit. As for the accusations of all those Q and A threads not actually being Gary, is there any evidence for this?

   I think people are conflating "Gygax's Q&A" with "Sage Advice," which was run by Jean Wells for a time and could poke fun at some of the questions received.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: deathknight4044 on February 25, 2021, 10:40:05 AM
Everything is philosophy.
Especially writers and creators debating about morality of their fictional worlds are philosophers - whether they want it or not.

And honestly if it was not philosophical - then Gygax would just say "whatever man, who cares, just kill them and take their stuff". He didn't. Therefore I can and I shall judge him as a philosopher. A bad philosopher.


To quote Gary

Quote
I am not going to waste my time and yours debating ethics and philosophy. I will state unequivocally that in the alignment system as presented in OAD&D, an eye for an eye is lawful and just, Lawful Good, as misconduct is to be punished under just laws.

Lawful Neutrality countenances malign laws. Lawful Good does not.

Mercy is to be displayed for the lawbreaker that does so by accident. Benevolence is for the harmless. Pacifism in the fantasy milieu is for those who would be slaves. They have no place in determining general alignment, albeit justice tempered by mercy is a NG manifestation, whilst well-considered benevolence is generally a mark of Good.

Gary
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 25, 2021, 12:38:58 PM
Quote
I am not going to waste my time and yours debating ethics and philosophy. I will state unequivocally that in the alignment system as presented in OAD&D, an eye for an eye is lawful and just, Lawful Good, as misconduct is to be punished under just laws.

Lawful Neutrality countenances malign laws. Lawful Good does not.

Mercy is to be displayed for the lawbreaker that does so by accident. Benevolence is for the harmless. Pacifism in the fantasy milieu is for those who would be slaves. They have no place in determining general alignment, albeit justice tempered by mercy is a NG manifestation, whilst well-considered benevolence is generally a mark of Good.

Gary

Sounds awfully like ethics/philosophy description from a guy not wasting his times on such subjects :P
Really alignments get some decent re-enditions with time - but Gygaxian ones were just awful.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Chris24601 on February 25, 2021, 12:44:26 PM
Still, “have them raised rightly and educated in goodness until they’re the age of reason and have committed themselves to Law and Good... then run them through with a sword so they can never sin” is HORRIFIC by any standard.

Benevolence is for the innocent (as said Orc raised from infancy by lawful good guardians would be)... unless they’re an orc, then it’s better you run them through with a sword lest they commit a sin. Does this paladin also run through orphaned human guttersnipes because they might be tempted to steal bread to avoid starvation too?

“It’s a harsh world with harsh justice” is one thing... THAT is the sort of crap that almost makes the moral panic of the day look justified. Seriously, fuck that with a loaded shotgun. If that’s your standard of lawful good we shouldn’t ever play at the same table and possibly shouldn’t even use the same game system.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 25, 2021, 12:55:01 PM
Now of course alignment system was sort of fucked up from the beginning.
I mean it started up with just Law and Chaos understood in sort of Moorcockian way.

But with Good and Evil added it turned into unholy clusterfuck, and constant imbalance between cosmological, social and characterological elements were never well resolved.
Among any cosmological alignments based on some cosmic balance - Triad of WoD, Five Colours of MtG, Three opposites of Warcraft, truly this one is worst.

Also it's kinda pointless - if orcs are impossible to redeem then whole "make him confess LG" is stupid, no gods would be tricked by it, if they are redeemable - this is straight up murder.
Overall play stupid games, won stupid prizes.

Quote
Mercy is to be displayed for the lawbreaker that does so by accident.

That's not how mercy works dammit. Accidental hurt should be payed for, but still it's not being guilty of crime, killing someone for accidental material evil is not just lack of mercy, it's straight up murder. Mercy by default is towards guilty,
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: jhkim on February 25, 2021, 01:25:01 PM
The alignment stuff seems like a different topic to me. Regarding other D&D races:

It seems like splitting hairs to me to call Unearthed Arcana non-standard. It was official Gygax-written material that was sold as core rules - not optional or setting-specific.

To me, Standard is whatever you can play using the minimum amount of material released originally as "the game".

For D&D, that means the PHB, DMG and MM. For Warhammer FRP, it's just the one core book. Same for Star Wars in its D6 and D20 iterations (FFG has three core books, so you could have different Standards depending on which book you were using), so on and so forth.

Any books released after the core original release are supplements. It doesn't matter if they were written by the original author, if he decides to slap "Core Rules" on the cover or whatever else. Many groups will play with nothing but the original core, specially in places where the investment to get the books in the first place is substantial.

According to this, the standard for BD&D is to only ever play using the Basic Set -- and a group that uses the Expert Set is non-standard. Likewise, this means an AD&D DM who runs the Village of Hommlet and Temple of Elemental Evil in the World of Greyhawk is running a non-standard game -- but a DM who runs using only PH+DMG  in his own weird steampunk setting is running a standard game.

I think that's backwards. Standard should mean what is typically done and expected. Most groups did *not* play using only the Basic Set or PH+MM+DMG.

Among other games - I'm not sure about Warhammer or Star Wars, but (for example) I know most people playing Traveller did not use just Books 1-3. It was far more common to run using further books including the Imperium setting. Similar is true for many other games. A GURPS game that uses (say) GURPS Fantasy would be standard.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: BoxCrayonTales on February 25, 2021, 02:51:54 PM
This is why I like Warhammer 40,000's take on orcs the best.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on February 25, 2021, 02:58:30 PM
Even as much as he tried to obfuscate things by constantly bringing up supplemental material, Shasarak knew I was referring to the core books as standard when he was puzzled why a shift that lead to something becoming standard didn’t happen instantly:


Indeed the 3e Core rules had no more or less monster races then there were in the original ADnD rules written thirty years previously.

Even the revised 3.5 Core rule books had no extra monster races.

You are the only one I have seen try to say that it is not a thing.

+ bronze dragon’s post.

We both agree that 3e Core rules had no more or less monstrous races then previous Core rules and yet somehow we disagree that the cultural shift happened with 3e.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: BronzeDragon on February 25, 2021, 03:25:50 PM
According to this, the standard for BD&D is to only ever play using the Basic Set -- and a group that uses the Expert Set is non-standard. Likewise, this means an AD&D DM who runs the Village of Hommlet and Temple of Elemental Evil in the World of Greyhawk is running a non-standard game -- but a DM who runs using only PH+DMG  in his own weird steampunk setting is running a standard game.

I think that's backwards. Standard should mean what is typically done and expected. Most groups did *not* play using only the Basic Set or PH+MM+DMG.

Among other games - I'm not sure about Warhammer or Star Wars, but (for example) I know most people playing Traveller did not use just Books 1-3. It was far more common to run using further books including the Imperium setting. Similar is true for many other games. A GURPS game that uses (say) GURPS Fantasy would be standard.

Any campaign setting being used, other than the "assumed" one, is by definition non-standard, since groups will use different campaign settings, or homebrews. The PHB is the same everywhere, but a Dragonlance game and a Dark Sun one will likely be very different. The "assumed setting" of Greyhawk would possibly be the only Standard one by my definition (The Known World of Mystara in Basic, I think). Note also that if the DM changes the PHB at his discretion, we automatically assume that is non-standard and call it house ruling.

The Basic set thing is where this gets tricky, because I'm not sure if there was a plan to go all the way to 36th level right away, and the implementation in separate sets was how they wanted to do it, or if anything past 20th was decided on later, after the success of the earlier parts. What I am pretty sure of is that a group could absolutely play just the Basic set. It would mean retiring a lot more characters than normal, but still. The whole discussion breaks down however, when they introduce the Rules Cyclopedia collecting all the various sets into one coherent book.

As for GURPS, I can concede that generic systems essentially require an extra book in order to choose what genre you're playing. Here's where my minimum standard comes about. The minimum way to run GURPS Fantasy within the limitations of the ruleset is by having the GURPS core book and the GURPS Fantasy book.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: jhkim on February 25, 2021, 04:46:28 PM
According to this, the standard for BD&D is to only ever play using the Basic Set -- and a group that uses the Expert Set is non-standard. Likewise, this means an AD&D DM who runs the Village of Hommlet and Temple of Elemental Evil in the World of Greyhawk is running a non-standard game -- but a DM who runs using only PH+DMG  in his own weird steampunk setting is running a standard game.

I think that's backwards. Standard should mean what is typically done and expected. Most groups did *not* play using only the Basic Set or PH+MM+DMG.

Any campaign setting being used, other than the "assumed" one, is by definition non-standard, since groups will use different campaign settings, or homebrews. The PHB is the same everywhere, but a Dragonlance game and a Dark Sun one will likely be very different. The "assumed setting" of Greyhawk would possibly be the only Standard one by my definition (The Known World of Mystara in Basic, I think). Note also that if the DM changes the PHB at his discretion, we automatically assume that is non-standard and call it house ruling.

But Greyhawk isn't included in the PH+MM+DMG, so by your previous definition it is non-standard. For that matter, the drow as opponents are non-standard for 1E, since they aren't in the Monster Manual. I think this is where your "minimum" definition breaks down, and it makes more sense to talk about what is typically used. Greyhawk was the most official/assumed setting for 1E, so I'd say it is standard.

The Basic set thing is where this gets tricky, because I'm not sure if there was a plan to go all the way to 36th level right away, and the implementation in separate sets was how they wanted to do it, or if anything past 20th was decided on later, after the success of the earlier parts. What I am pretty sure of is that a group could absolutely play just the Basic set. It would mean retiring a lot more characters than normal, but still.

Here you're even saying yourself that it is "normal" for characters to continue past 3rd level. I think that "normal" and "standard" should mean roughly the same thing - the most common way(s) to play. Yes, it is possible for a group to play using only the Basic Set and retiring characters after 3rd level, but that isn't the standard.

As for GURPS, I can concede that generic systems essentially require an extra book in order to choose what genre you're playing. Here's where my minimum standard comes about. The minimum way to run GURPS Fantasy within the limitations of the ruleset is by having the GURPS core book and the GURPS Fantasy book.

People can and do play GURPS without using a specific genre book, though. I have run a number of HERO system games using only the core book, for example.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Pat on February 25, 2021, 04:59:13 PM
For that matter, the drow as opponents are non-standard for 1E, since they aren't in the Monster Manual.
*cough* *cough* look at the elf entry *cough* *cough*

The G and D series of modules predate the MM, which led to some weird half-mentions. The drow are mentioned in the MM's elf entry, though the full state writeup from the modules had to wait until the Fiend Folio came out. And both the mezzo- and nycadaemons, also from the FF, appeared earlier in the DMG's monster encounter tables, several magic item entries, and even are detailed in the section on flight.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: jhkim on February 25, 2021, 05:18:39 PM
For that matter, the drow as opponents are non-standard for 1E, since they aren't in the Monster Manual.
*cough* *cough* look at the elf entry *cough* *cough*

The G and D series of modules predate the MM, which led to some weird half-mentions. The drow are mentioned in the MM's elf entry, though the full state writeup from the modules had to wait until the Fiend Folio came out. And both the mezzo- and nycadaemons, also from the FF, appeared earlier in the DMG's monster encounter tables, several magic item entries, and even are detailed in the section on flight.

OK, fair enough. Checking my copies, you're right that there's a *mention* of the drow in the Monster Manual under elf, but there are no stats for them. To nitpick back, though, I don't think the G modules predate the MM. My module G1 is copyright 1978 while the Monster Manual is copyright 1977.

The point is still that if a DM uses official drow stats (as in G3 or FF), then they are using non-standard material according to Bronze Dragon's definition.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Pat on February 25, 2021, 07:26:25 PM
For that matter, the drow as opponents are non-standard for 1E, since they aren't in the Monster Manual.
*cough* *cough* look at the elf entry *cough* *cough*

The G and D series of modules predate the MM, which led to some weird half-mentions. The drow are mentioned in the MM's elf entry, though the full state writeup from the modules had to wait until the Fiend Folio came out. And both the mezzo- and nycadaemons, also from the FF, appeared earlier in the DMG's monster encounter tables, several magic item entries, and even are detailed in the section on flight.

OK, fair enough. Checking my copies, you're right that there's a *mention* of the drow in the Monster Manual under elf, but there are no stats for them. To nitpick back, though, I don't think the G modules predate the MM. My module G1 is copyright 1978 while the Monster Manual is copyright 1977.
Checking around, the G and D series were all released in 1978. They were the tournament modules at Origins (G) and GenCon (D) that year, or July/August, which is about 8 or 9 months after the first printing of the Monster Manual. The drow reference in the MM is vague enough and not really fully in accordance with the later version (weak fighters?), so it probably reflects the genesis of the idea, before it was fleshed out in the modules. OTOH the half dozen or so references to the daemons in the DMG are clearly based on the stats from the D series (dungeon level + maneuverability class ratings are too specific for a loose concept), though that was 1979 so it definitely post-dates the modules.

https://acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/monster.html
https://acaeum.com/ddindexes/modpages/g.html
https://acaeum.com/ddindexes/modpages/d.html

The point is still that if a DM uses official drow stats (as in G3 or FF), then they are using non-standard material according to Bronze Dragon's definition.
Don't care about your bronze drow dick comparison.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Omega on February 26, 2021, 12:51:37 PM
   I think people are conflating "Gygax's Q&A" with "Sage Advice," which was run by Jean Wells for a time and could poke fun at some of the questions received.

Agreed in that some are mixing up SA with what appears to be an online QA.

It does seem rather suspect. I know at least one White Wolf staffer who liked to get on forums and pose as TSR staff and spread all sorts of tales to make this or that person look bad. And theres been others since.

On the other hand while it seems very out of character for Gary. Totally would not surprise me he said that.

As for Jean Wells. She was not just poking fun at questions. She actually stated she did not like gaming and deliberately gave bad advice to discourage play. I've got alot of Dragon from that tenure and you can see the transition and wasnt just me who noted that the SA section was more than a little "off". I do though think she singled out the more oddball questions. Though we always wondered why they were even printed in the first place.

Others were just peculiar and we initially assumed it was just someone new on the staff unfamilliar with this or that. But after a brief span we all but stopped reading the Q&A/SA.

I really should dig out the issues and have a look through and see how things really went. I suspect, and hope, its not as weird as I recall.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Omega on February 26, 2021, 01:06:30 PM
Even the AD&D DMG has a little section on allowing players to play monster races and cautions about considering game balance and such before allowing something.

As for drow. In the MM the description made us believe drow were really just evil faeries. So we used the stats for pixies at first.  8)

addendum, its a not so little section in the DMG. Takes up a full page explaining why the setting is human-centric and the pros and cons of allowing monsters as PCs.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: BronzeDragon on February 27, 2021, 05:54:54 PM
But Greyhawk isn't included in the PH+MM+DMG, so by your previous definition it is non-standard. For that matter, the drow as opponents are non-standard for 1E, since they aren't in the Monster Manual. I think this is where your "minimum" definition breaks down, and it makes more sense to talk about what is typically used. Greyhawk was the most official/assumed setting for 1E, so I'd say it is standard.

Greyhawk is present in the core books with different levels of prevalence, depending on edition. Place names, spell names and descriptions, a standardized Pantheon, references of all sorts. Hence it being the assumed setting.

Here you're even saying yourself that it is "normal" for characters to continue past 3rd level. I think that "normal" and "standard" should mean roughly the same thing - the most common way(s) to play. Yes, it is possible for a group to play using only the Basic Set and retiring characters after 3rd level, but that isn't the standard.

"Normal" based on what people expected before the Basic Set and pretty much every version of AD&D/D&D after that. They were already running campaigns where characters retired at higher, or much higher levels. However, the Basic Set can be run as a standalone game. As I said before, this argument becomes moot once the Rules Cyclopedia comes in and unifies BECMI.

People can and do play GURPS without using a specific genre book, though. I have run a number of HERO system games using only the core book, for example.

I have never seen a GURPS campaign that didn't use something else to set its genre and/or setting. I DMed a GURPS WWII campaign, and I most certainly needed the WWII core book. I also added a bunch of relevant sourcebooks to expand the campaign. Could I have run WWII with just the GURPS Basic Set? Maybe, but goddamn, that would've been a gigantic pile of work.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Cloyer Bulse on February 27, 2021, 08:26:19 PM
Quote
If the infant orc was not able to reason, the paladin would not slay it, possibly see to its care somewhere until it reached a state where reason was possible; but if and when the immature humanoid was able to reason, the paladin would make it swear its rejection of evil, confess its adherance to LG, and then execute it before it could recant. Thus the orc would be guaranteed acceptence in a more benign afterlife.

Cheers,
Gary

Makes perfect sense if the DM says that killing humanoid spawn is evil but killing humanoid adults is not. But of course SJWs think humanoids are blacks instead of cannon fodder for PCs, so I can see how this quote could spiral out of control. As per the DMG, monsters are of their alignment instinctually, so all orcs will default to their lawful evil alignment regardless of how they are raised, which means that letting them live is at best a chaotic act, as they will set about raping and killing as soon as they are left alone.

Quote
I am not going to waste my time and yours debating ethics and philosophy. I will state unequivocally that in the alignment system as presented in OAD&D, an eye for an eye is lawful and just, Lawful Good, as misconduct is to be punished under just laws.

Lawful Neutrality countenances malign laws. Lawful Good does not.

Mercy is to be displayed for the lawbreaker that does so by accident. Benevolence is for the harmless. Pacifism in the fantasy milieu is for those who would be slaves. They have no place in determining general alignment, albeit justice tempered by mercy is a NG manifestation, whilst well-considered benevolence is generally a mark of Good.

Gary

Gygax was talking about the imbecility of pacifism in the pulp fantasy/sci-fi/horror universe of AD&D.

Pacifism might seem rational in the context of a modern society where everyone lives in comfort and safety, and atrocities can be committed anonymously from a distance by using technology, but it is completely irrational outside of that context. Believe it or not, there are some that actually think it is inappropriate for a Catholic priest or a nun to carry a gun -- that they should just passively allow themselves to be murdered, or worse passively allow others to be murdered while they watch.

Given a typical AD&D game milieu, if you had two competing sects of LG, one willing to wage war and put enemies to the sword, and the other completely non-violent, the latter would quickly become extinct. It’s Dungeons & Dragons, not Safe Spaces & Snowflakes.

The point of the quotes is that Gygax cannot and will not pontificate to every DM how to judge good, they must use their own judgment within the context of their own campaigns. The DM’s own common sense trumps all other rules in AD&D 1e, and if he has a weird and wacky cosmology, then that’s just the way it is and players have to work around it.

As to the philosophy upon which AD&D is predicated,

Quote
Inspiration for all of the fantasy work I have done stems directly from the love my father showed when I was a tad, for he spent many hours telling me stories he made up as he went along, tales of cloaked old men who could grant wishes, of magic rings and enchanted swords, or wicked sorcerors and dauntless swordsmen. Then too, countless hundreds of comic books went down, and the long-gone EC ones certainly had their effect. Science fiction, fantasy, and horror movies were a big influence. In fact, all of us tend to get ample helpings of fantasy when we are very young, from fairy tales such as those written by the Brothers Grimm and Andrew Long. This often leads to reading books of mythology, paging through bestiaries, and consultation of compilations of the myths of various lands and peoples. Upon such a base I built my interest in fantasy, being an avid reader of all science fiction and fantasy literature since 1950. The following authors were of particular inspiration to me. In some cases I cite specific works, in others, I simply recommend all their fantasy writing to you. From such sources, as well as just about any other imaginative writing or screenplay you will be able to pluck kernels from which grow the fruits of exciting campaigns. Good reading!

-- Appendix N, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 224
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: RPGPundit on February 28, 2021, 12:40:24 AM
In the middle ages, if someone was arrested for say, heresy, and made confession and sought forgiveness, they would more often be spared than not, with the assumption being that obviously they'd face a terrible penalty should they repeat their former crime.

On the other hand, if someone were a murderer or a bandit, and they were captured, they could confess their sins and seek spiritual forgiveness, but they would usually (not always, but usually) still suffer the death penalty. The important difference from the medieval point of view was that by receiving confession, their immortal soul stood a good chance of not going to hell.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 28, 2021, 06:35:06 AM
Quote
Makes perfect sense if the DM says that killing humanoid spawn is evil but killing humanoid adults is not.

No. Not really. If they are iredeemable, that's pointless distinction.

Quote
But of course SJWs think humanoids are blacks instead of cannon fodder for PCs, so I can see how this quote could spiral out of control.

Thinking about anything as cannon fodder for PC's is bad GMing and bad worldbuilding for me.
Making bad excusions for cannon fodder existing with twisted logic is just stupid, and pointing this out has nothing to do with SJW.


Quote
As per the DMG, monsters are of their alignment instinctually, so all orcs will default to their lawful evil alignment regardless of how they are raised, which means that letting them live is at best a chaotic act, as they will set about raping and killing as soon as they are left alone.

>Orcs by default LE
>letting them live - CHAOTIC.

Also if it's inavoidable instinct then there should be no problem with killing children.

Quote
Pacifism might seem rational in the context of a modern society where everyone lives in comfort and safety, and atrocities can be committed anonymously from a distance by using technology, but it is completely irrational outside of that context. Believe it or not, there are some that actually think it is inappropriate for a Catholic priest or a nun to carry a gun -- that they should just passively allow themselves to be murdered, or worse passively allow others to be murdered while they watch.

Well that's true. Eastern Orthodox norms are even harsher - priest who would kill even in self-defence would be defrocked. And that's correct. Christianity grows from blood of martyrs. And various people serves various purposes - religious folk lies down their arms as martyrs of old do. Of course that rule does not oblige - quite contrary - layfolk, and defending themselves - or priests even - is proper and lawful. This it TBH very important part of not only Christian but Traditional Lawfulness - various people have different taboos and different obligations.
And TBH D&D keeps vestige of those old customs - with this pseudmythical notion of clerics using only blunt weapons to not spill blood.

Quote
Given a typical AD&D game milieu, if you had two competing sects of LG, one willing to wage war and put enemies to the sword, and the other completely non-violent, the latter would quickly become extinct. It’s Dungeons & Dragons, not Safe Spaces & Snowflakes.

Well as adventuring PC's sure. As pacifistic agriculture cult tending to peasants in relatively peaceful kingdom - not necessary.

Quote
The point of the quotes is that Gygax cannot and will not pontificate to every DM how to judge good, they must use their own judgment within the context of their own campaigns. The DM’s own common sense trumps all other rules in AD&D 1e, and if he has a weird and wacky cosmology, then that’s just the way it is and players have to work around it.


That's good that Gary does not try to force this weird philosophy on people - but that does not make it less bad philosophy and I still gonna criticize it.

Quote
In the middle ages, if someone was arrested for say, heresy, and made confession and sought forgiveness, they would more often be spared than not, with the assumption being that obviously they'd face a terrible penalty should they repeat their former crime.

On the other hand, if someone were a murderer or a bandit, and they were captured, they could confess their sins and seek spiritual forgiveness, but they would usually (not always, but usually) still suffer the death penalty. The important difference from the medieval point of view was that by receiving confession, their immortal soul stood a good chance of not going to hell.

That's proper doing indeed. As in good scene in "Feast for Crows" ser Bonnifer Hasty said about potential repenting of banites he was hunting "

“I suppose you would forgive them, in my place?”

“If they made sincere repentance for their sins... yes, I would embrace them all as brothers and pray with them before I sent them to the block. Sins may be forgiven. Crimes require punishment.”
"

I'd have no problem with paladins executing bandits (aside of fact that in most lands they would be overstepping on someone's elses duties without proper permission from rulers).
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: deathknight4044 on March 01, 2021, 07:16:55 AM
Quote
Thinking about anything as cannon fodder for PC's is bad GMing and bad worldbuilding for me.
Making bad excusions for cannon fodder existing with twisted logic is just stupid, and pointing this out has nothing to do with SJW.

Do you think that xenomorphs are bad villains because they're inherently cruel and homicidal? Or that berserk style trolls or goblin slayer style goblins are inferior villains to world of warcraft or elder scrolls orcs because the latter examples arent irredeemably evil?
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Chris24601 on March 01, 2021, 09:34:08 AM
Do you think that xenomorphs are bad villains because they're inherently cruel and homicidal? Or that berserk style trolls or goblin slayer style goblins are inferior villains to world of warcraft or elder scrolls orcs because the latter examples arent irredeemably evil?
First, a side-bar: Xenomorphs aren’t villains any more than hungry wolves chasing a man through the woods are. They’re threats, but not villains.

To the main question at hand though, the comment was that thinking about an entire race/culture as existing only to be cannon fodder is poor world building. It is.

Let’s take the xenomorphs you brought up. Leaving aside that the first outing featured just one (making it anything but cannon fodder; it was a Freddy or Jason or Michael Myers); the writers didn’t just grab a scary-looking piece of Geiger art and have it start attacking for no reason.

They gave it a parasitic life cycle where it needs to plant an egg in a host to reproduce. The sequel further establishes that it is only the queen that reproduces, the default xenomorph is essentially a soldier insect that exists to protect the queen and the hive.

So rather than just attacking without reason, the xenomorphs are a hive-based lifeform that attacks humans because it needs warm bodies to hatch their eggs and because when humans counter-attack they are threatening the queen/hive. Their biological drive to expand and need for human hosts makes them a threat. Their hive-based society means they respond to threats by throwing drone soldiers at them.

In other words there’s more to them than just existing as sacks of xp for the PCs to mow down.

In a more practical real-world example. The entire term “cannon fodder” dates back to the 16th century when military commanders considered their soldiers as nothing more than food to be fed into the war machine to achieve victory. Men were called cannon fodder centuries before it applied to orcs or goblins or xenomorphs.

Was every German soldier in the World Wars just an irredeemable thing born and existing for no reason other than so that valorous allied troops could mow them down?

You COULD write a game or story where every German is an evil monster that fights because they hate everyone else and want them all dead and thus the only just thing to do is slaughter them to the last man, woman and child... but such a story would be shallow (or satire) at best, and more likely be seen as the ravings of a psychopath.

You could write a game or story where orcs are willless meat robots who exist only to kill all other lifeforms... but that’s going to be shallow at best, and frankly, boring and beneath even the complexity of an old Saturday morning cartoon.

Even just adding “they were created by a wizard to get revenge/conquer the world” has more nuance (it also might make the orcs willless automatons lacking agency and destroying them regardless of their age... no morally different than smashing a tank on the assembly line before it can be used in war).

And that, I believe, is Wicked Woodpecker’s point. Evil for evil’s sake is boring and childish. Villains and even just animalistic threats need some sort of motivation beyond simple malignance. Even the Devil himself doesn’t lash out for evil’s sake, but from wounded pride and spite.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on March 01, 2021, 03:09:37 PM
And that, I believe, is Wicked Woodpecker’s point. Evil for evil’s sake is boring and childish. Villains and even just animalistic threats need some sort of motivation beyond simple malignance. Even the Devil himself doesn’t lash out for evil’s sake, but from wounded pride and spite.

In other words because he was the worlds biggest arsehole.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Chris24601 on March 01, 2021, 05:39:04 PM
In other words because he was the worlds biggest arsehole.
Basically, yes. One Catholic interpretation is that, as the mightiest of God’s creations (a Seraph, the highest and closest to God) Lucifer expected to be gifted with the Hypostatic Union (a merger of God with a lesser being), but God instead chose to gift this union to Man, as He intended to enter His creation and experience it.

This incensed Lucifer to take up arms against God and declaring that he could be like God. Only a lowly archangel (second lowest choir of the heavenly host) had the courage to stand up for God against Lucifer. He fought the Great Serpent (seraph means serpent) and, by the power of God, cast Lucifer down with the finishing cry of “Who is Like God?”

For this act of faith the archangel was elevated to the highest place; replacing Lucifer as the chief of God’s host and taking his new name from his cry to Lucifer... Who is Like God; Mika-el/Michael.

Lucifer was so wounded in pride and spiteful that he lashed out in a perfect supervillain “If I can’t have it, no one can!” by approaching Man (again seraph means serpent) and tempting him to sin against God as well. Since God could only enter what is holy and pure Lucifer reasoned that God would thereby be denied Hypostatic Union with mankind (which require a virgin conceived without sin to fulfill God’s desire to enter the world; not just to experience it now, but to redeem it) and he would continue to poison men against God, not because he had any hope of winning, but simply to tear as many souls away from God as he could because every man who chooses Hell over God causes God pain.

So, yeah, the greatest self-entitled asshole in Creation.

I ended up adapting the tale above as part of the cosmology of my setting, with a few additional elements. Lucifer became Lightbringer/The Demon Emperor; and Michael became Stormbringer, once a humble breeze spirit, who courageously entered the world conquered by the Demon Emperor, gathered a group of men, dwarves and even a rebellious malfean to form The First Adventurers who raised an army against the Demon Empire and faced the Demon Emperor (in the form of a dragon) in an epic battle that ended the Demon Empire’s reign.

For this Stormbringer was elevated to leader of the primal spirits and the legend of the First Adventurers echoed down through history such that, whenever dangers threaten it is expected that the bravest and most capable will join together into a band of adventurers to protect mankind from the threat.

So not only do I get to incorporate one of my favorite tales into my setting; it is also the reason that Adventurers aren’t seen as dangerous misfits by the people (as they would be in the genuine medieval period), but as a culturally acceptable occupation worthy of respect.

ETA: sidebar that the Catholic story above would make a kickass summer blockbuster in my opinion... I mean, the hero is an underdog who goes up against a massive dragon in the final battle. It practically writes itself.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on March 01, 2021, 09:12:17 PM
Quote
Do you think that xenomorphs are bad villains because they're inherently cruel and homicidal? Or that berserk style trolls or goblin slayer style goblins are inferior villains to world of warcraft or elder scrolls orcs because the latter examples arent irredeemably evil?

I mean it all depends of a situation. Xenomorph is basically a beast, goblins in Goblin Slayer too I think (though isn't this series bit of parody of jRPGs?).
Problem is when you get people and civiisation. Because it's hard to really get rationally one based on absolute evil for evil's sake. Tolkien landed with orcs due to dual pagan/Catholic origin of his setting and he realised after a time that he sort of fucked up (also he get soft and wanted to retcon that any elves were tortured really really bad).

Quote
And that, I believe, is Wicked Woodpecker’s point. Evil for evil’s sake is boring and childish. Villains and even just animalistic threats need some sort of motivation beyond simple malignance. Even the Devil himself doesn’t lash out for evil’s sake, but from wounded pride and spite.

Yes, indeed.


Religious off-topic: In case of Saint Michael I must say I've never heard really zero to hero version of his story and as much as it's great archetype for a story and mythos I'm sort of doubting it angelologically speaking as I've read angels are not just Celestial Buerocracy with ranks, but every kind of angel is basically separate being not sharing one nature with others as humans do - due to our breeding. So to make Saint Michael seraphin in such situation would be to... destroy him, which seems weird. (Now TBH all this story sounds very much like antropomorphic personifications considering we speak about pure spirits/intellects kind of beings.) So generally my notion was always that either Saint Michael is seraphin who was called archangel in Old Testament due to wel.. Old Testament not really using specifically later Pseudo-Dionysius angelology - so just because some being is called archangel doesn't mean it's from choir of archangels, it may just mean VERY BIG AND IMPORTANT ANGEL. Other was that he was basically always Lord of Celestial Host (ergo archangels per se, because warfare seems to be low on prestige lists of heaven) and he did precisely what he meant to do (because angels basically can go either perfect paragon or perfect renegade) and declared war upon Lucifer in a moment of his creation.
Less inspiring maybe, and less human, but then I've seen what popculture do... when it starts to humanize angels, and just... don't.

On the other hand - adding Hypostatic Union to Lucifer's ambitions list... that somehow seems rad and cool, and while still well bit humanizing - I think that could make sense theologically speaking, and make very random pride, more specific cause. Finally cause I can imagine Lucifer to have without being absolute dumbass.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Omega on March 02, 2021, 12:37:19 AM
Well there's allready a few loons preaching that we should worry about the feelings of NPCs in video games because sprite lives matter or god knows what they want. Its just one step down from believing you are the reincarnation of a videogame character or channelling the spirit of one. I wish I were joking.

Bleeding Hearts are allways going to bleed. That rabid dog just needs a hug! The bear trying to eat you is misunderstood. Murderers have feelings too you know! Who cares if that publisher robbed people? You MUST buy their product or they will starve!!!
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Shasarak on March 02, 2021, 12:42:04 AM
Well there's allready a few loons preaching that we should worry about the feelings of NPCs in video games because sprite lives matter or god knows what they want. Its just one step down from believing you are the reincarnation of a videogame character or channelling the spirit of one. I wish I were joking.

Bleeding Hearts are allways going to bleed. That rabid dog just needs a hug! The bear trying to eat you is misunderstood. Murderers have feelings too you know! Who cares if that publisher robbed people? You MUST buy their product or they will starve!!!

Xenomorphs are not evil, everyone needs to eat!
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: deathknight4044 on March 02, 2021, 01:28:47 AM
Quote
To the main question at hand though, the comment was that thinking about an entire race/culture as existing only to be cannon fodder is poor world building. It is.

Let’s take the xenomorphs you brought up. Leaving aside that the first outing featured just one (making it anything but cannon fodder; it was a Freddy or Jason or Michael Myers); the writers didn’t just grab a scary-looking piece of Geiger art and have it start attacking for no reason.

They gave it a parasitic life cycle where it needs to plant an egg in a host to reproduce. The sequel further establishes that it is only the queen that reproduces, the default xenomorph is essentially a soldier insect that exists to protect the queen and the hive.

Quote
So rather than just attacking without reason, the xenomorphs are a hive-based lifeform that attacks humans because it needs warm bodies to hatch their eggs and because when humans counter-attack they are threatening the queen/hive. Their biological drive to expand and need for human hosts makes them a threat. Their hive-based society means they respond to threats by throwing drone soldiers at them.

In other words there’s more to them than just existing as sacks of xp for the PCs to mow down.

I think a lot of this is opinion and preference passed off as universal truths of writing/world building. It's also talking about different things imo. A villains complexity is independent from whether or not the creature is irredeemably evil, which is also seperate from how effective they are as villains.

I prefer the dark spawn from dragon age over goblins from guild wars as antagonists (for example), despite the guild wars goblins not being confined to evil behavior I think dark spawn are more effective as villains. Deadites from evil dead have simple motivations and were completely evil, but made great villains while the cenobites from hell raiser became weaker villains the more there was an attempt to humanize them as the films went on.

All of this is to say I see the irredeemably evil trait as having no bearing on whether or not world building is lazy or its villains are effective. My preference is having the antagonist monsters of a setting act truly monsterous, and find it more engaging when they're innately evil with a completely different psyche than humanity.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: jhkim on March 02, 2021, 03:30:02 AM
But Greyhawk isn't included in the PH+MM+DMG, so by your previous definition it is non-standard. For that matter, the drow as opponents are non-standard for 1E, since they aren't in the Monster Manual. I think this is where your "minimum" definition breaks down, and it makes more sense to talk about what is typically used. Greyhawk was the most official/assumed setting for 1E, so I'd say it is standard.

Greyhawk is present in the core books with different levels of prevalence, depending on edition. Place names, spell names and descriptions, a standardized Pantheon, references of all sorts. Hence it being the assumed setting.

Greyhawk isn't mentioned in the 1E books, and there is no standardized pantheon. That only came in later editions. Still, if someone bought and used a Greyhawk book for a 1E AD&D campaign, I wouldn't call them "non-standard". Likewise, if they used the official stats for the drow as monsters, I would call that "non-standard" even though it means they bought the Fiend Folio or G/D series. And if someone played a barbarian from Unearthed Arcana, I also wouldn't call that non-standard.

All of these are standard because they're part of the main line, and were considered part of the core releases.


On the broader topic of evil races,

Quote
Do you think that xenomorphs are bad villains because they're inherently cruel and homicidal? Or that berserk style trolls or goblin slayer style goblins are inferior villains to world of warcraft or elder scrolls orcs because the latter examples arent irredeemably evil?

I mean it all depends of a situation. Xenomorph is basically a beast, goblins in Goblin Slayer too I think (though isn't this series bit of parody of jRPGs?).
Problem is when you get people and civiisation. Because it's hard to really get rationally one based on absolute evil for evil's sake. Tolkien landed with orcs due to dual pagan/Catholic origin of his setting and he realised after a time that he sort of fucked up (also he get soft and wanted to retcon that any elves were tortured really really bad).

The xenomorphs in Alien are not just beasts. They aren't technological, but they are still clever and intelligent in their thinking. Still, I think the real villain in Aliens is Burke. He's who you really love to hate.

As far as evil, even in D&D, I prefer to just ditch alignment and just let players decide for themselves what is evil and good. I'll include plenty of stuff that I personally consider evil, but there's also plenty of grey and room for disagreement.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Armchair Gamer on March 02, 2021, 08:15:28 AM
Religious off-topic: In case of Saint Michael I must say I've never heard really zero to hero version of his story and as much as it's great archetype for a story and mythos I'm sort of doubting it angelologically speaking as I've read angels are not just Celestial Buerocracy with ranks, but every kind of angel is basically separate being not sharing one nature with others as humans do - due to our breeding.

  It's not de fide or defined doctrine, but it does show up in private revelations and other things that are not binding but may be worthy of belief. There is actually an oblique gaming connection: when reworking Dragonlance's mythology for my own preferences, I made Chaos Luciferian/Morgothic in power and motive, and borrowed the 'elevated Michael' motif to allow Paladine to confront and defeat him. This even made it into the since-disavowed Appendix to Dragons of a Vanished Moon.

Quote
So to make Saint Michael seraphin in such situation would be to... destroy him, which seems weird. (Now TBH all this story sounds very much like antropomorphic personifications considering we speak about pure spirits/intellects kind of beings.) So generally my notion was always that either Saint Michael is seraphin who was called archangel in Old Testament due to wel.. Old Testament not really using specifically later Pseudo-Dionysius angelology - so just because some being is called archangel doesn't mean it's from choir of archangels, it may just mean VERY BIG AND IMPORTANT ANGEL.

   The issue here seems to be conflating two different hierarchies--that of nature (by which Michael is and remains Lucifer's inferior) and that of grace (which Lucifer forfeited and in which Michael was elevated). By nature, for example, the Blessed Virgin is less than the least angel, but by grace, she excels them all.

Quote
On the other hand - adding Hypostatic Union to Lucifer's ambitions list... that somehow seems rad and cool, and while still well bit humanizing - I think that could make sense theologically speaking, and make very random pride, more specific cause. Finally cause I can imagine Lucifer to have without being absolute dumbass.

  That one, I haven't heard, and I think Lucifer's good enough at metaphysics to know that he couldn't receive the Hypostatic Union without destruction of his personhood. What has been speculated is that Lucifer regarded the elevation of human nature by the Hypostatic Union and/or the raising of the Blessed Virgin above him by grace as an affront to his dignity.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Chris24601 on March 02, 2021, 11:14:54 AM
I prefer the dark spawn from dragon age over goblins from guild wars as antagonists (for example), despite the guild wars goblins not being confined to evil behavior I think dark spawn are more effective as villains.
Again, you miss the point.

The Darkspawn are great antagonists, but they’re no more evil or villains than zombies directed by a necromancer is. They’re an infection spread by blood created by ancient mages that, like the xenomorphs, is driven to spread and reproduce. Even the Arch-demon is just an Old God corrupted by the same infection and retaining enough intellect to coordinate the Darkspawn through their hivemind (of note; the Grey Wardens get their special abilities by basically using a potion to build up a tolerance to the Darkspawn toxins and ability to tap into without being controlled by the hivemind).

So, again, the Darkspawn do not exist just as a thing to be cannon fodder that is attacking because it is “evil.” There is motivation and a reason for their existence separate from the fact that they are used as antagonists.

One may as well label a virus “evil” by your definition.

Basically; evil, antagonist and threat are not synonymous, no matter how much you’re trying to conflate them.

Sidebar: the Deadites are a parody of evil for evil’s sake. Their entire existence points out how ridiculous and shallow the concept is when placed into practice. When the audience is more likely to laugh at your monster it’s NOT genuine evil.

It’s akin to lining up an entire army about to go on an obviously doomed mission and every last one of them is in a red shirt and named Kenny. You can do it, but don’t expect it be taken seriously.

I made Chaos Luciferian/Morgothic in power and motive, and borrowed the 'elevated Michael' motif to allow Paladine to confront and defeat him. This even made it into the since-disavowed Appendix to Dragons of a Vanished Moon.
Yeah, definitely not official doctrine, but something that very much aligns with the general Biblical themes of God elevating the weak, disfavored, second/youngest sons, etc. to bring low the strong and mighty and with the Prayer to St. Michael where his ability to cast Satan into Hell is not by his own ability, but “by the Power of God.”

It also aligns REALLY well with gaming’s “zero to hero” motiff which makes it something worth adapting into the mythology of many fantasy settings.

One of the things I always appreciated about the 4E cosmology was that it incorporated a Kaoskampf that was basically a D&D campaign writ large (the gods teaming up to fight the stronger, but solitary primordials) such that adventuring parties are literally written into the setting’s cultural DNA.

Which is why I pretty much combined both into my own setting’s mythology. God/The Source is beyond human comprehension, but my Michael analogue was close enough to humanity to have actually embodied itself in the world to face down my Satan analogue (which in turn foreshadows the promise of the Incarnation).

Quote
The issue here seems to be conflating two different hierarchies--that of nature (by which Michael is and remains Lucifer's inferior) and that of grace (which Lucifer forfeited and in which Michael was elevated). By nature, for example, the Blessed Virgin is less than the least angel, but by grace, she excels them all.
That does pretty well nail it. I think it also aligns well in that it would fit the pattern that God would not desire a general so disconnected from humanity given His ultimate plans for humanity (the higher orders dealt with forces and aspects of the cosmos that never interacted with humanity... the seraphs were so close to God they were virtually incapable of perceiving anything else).

It would gall Satan eternally that he wasn’t even bested by God directly (thus confirming his greatness), but by one of the lowest orders of the angels. That that angel was then elevated by grace to a position where even a seraph must obey his commands just pours salt in the wound.

Quote
That one, I haven't heard, and I think Lucifer's good enough at metaphysics to know that he couldn't receive the Hypostatic Union without destruction of his personhood. What has been speculated is that Lucifer regarded the elevation of human nature by the Hypostatic Union and/or the raising of the Blessed Virgin above him by grace as an affront to his dignity.
I’ve heard both versions.

The one involving Lucifer desiring the Union focused on his vanity being so great that he would embrace his own destruction simply for the prestige of being so elevated.

I went with that version in explaining it because it aligned with the ultimate fate of my Satan expy in my own setting; that he grew to so hate God/The Source for the slight that he essentially destroyed his own personhood (as a sapient being) in order to enact his revenge on The Source’s beloved Creation; channeling his very being into The Shadow, the power source of all the undead and which poisons the hearts of all who allow it into them, driving them to hate all life and light... the utter spite of the Demon Emperor echoing in each soul corrupted by The Shadow.

I chose this as a logical fantasy extension of the idea that sin clouds the will and intellect and so if one is completely divorced from God then what’s left isn’t some rational and plotting entity but a virtually mindless force of spite and hatred that spews whatever lies best align with what will draw the subject towards their own self-destruction by rote reflex not conscious thought.

It’s also why an important element of my cosmology is that demons can only be let into the world by the free will of a mortal and that one can only become undead by your free choice (this isn’t to say your body couldn’t be animated, but there is no binding a soul against its will).
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on March 02, 2021, 11:31:56 AM
Quote
I prefer the dark spawn from dragon age over goblins from guild wars as antagonists (for example), despite the guild wars goblins not being confined to evil behavior I think dark spawn are more effective as villains. Deadites from evil dead have simple motivations and were completely evil, but made great villains while the cenobites from hell raiser became weaker villains the more there was an attempt to humanize them as the films went on.

Not sure about first two, but deadites and cenobites are more into eldritch horror category, alien horror, not you know people kind of villains.
I do not deny such beings can be good villains. Even if their motivations are beyond understanding.

Quote
The xenomorphs in Alien are not just beasts. They aren't technological, but they are still clever and intelligent in their thinking. Still, I think the real villain in Aliens is Burke. He's who you really love to hate.

Well they are very clever with low animalistic cunning, not sure how very conciouss and thinking.

Quote
As far as evil, even in D&D, I prefer to just ditch alignment and just let players decide for themselves what is evil and good. I'll include plenty of stuff that I personally consider evil, but there's also plenty of grey and room for disagreement.

Often too, but that's more because I consider alignment chart in every editions I've seen to be just... shoddy and clunky.
Also: it's really good call if you want to present D&D gods as polytheistic pantheon, not squabbling monolatristic quasi-churches.

Quote
  It's not de fide or defined doctrine, but it does show up in private revelations and other things that are not binding but may be worthy of belief.

Ah, those ones. I must say as I have no problems using prayers and rituals with such origin, I generally avoid private revelations as such.

Quote
  The issue here seems to be conflating two different hierarchies--that of nature (by which Michael is and remains Lucifer's inferior) and that of grace (which Lucifer forfeited and in which Michael was elevated). By nature, for example, the Blessed Virgin is less than the least angel, but by grace, she excels them all.

Quote
  That one, I haven't heard, and I think Lucifer's good enough at metaphysics to know that he couldn't receive the Hypostatic Union without destruction of his personhood. What has been speculated is that Lucifer regarded the elevation of human nature by the Hypostatic Union and/or the raising of the Blessed Virgin above him by grace as an affront to his dignity.

That's to be honest is problematic claim for me - not sure if it's dogmatic or something. For me intuitively - angels are BELOW in nature to humanity (at least humanity unfallen). Mankind are Crown of Creation, Children of God, as ancient Fathers said - made to link whole Creation with God. And technically Angels are also part of Creation. If we are made to be it's crown - if that's humanity's telos - then overall it would be higher than angelic. Angels while they excell in funcitons given to them beyond human possiblities are much more limited in those functions. Difference between heir and exalted servants. That's why only known human being full of grace and absolutely sinless is beyond seraphs - meanwhile angels are either also full of grace on their personal level, or absolutely void of grace, while most of mankind works on like 10% or something.

Quote
It would gall Satan eternally that he wasn’t even bested by God directly (thus confirming his greatness), but by one of the lowest orders of the angels. That that angel was then elevated by grace to a position where even a seraph must obey his commands just pours salt in the wound.

This works very well for mythology, but in terms of abstract theology of angels it somehow irks me. But then I guess it's hard to speak about anything inhuman in really inhuman terms, as we lack those.

Quote
I chose this as a logical fantasy extension of the idea that sin clouds the will and intellect and so if one is completely divorced from God then what’s left isn’t some rational and plotting entity but a virtually mindless force of spite and hatred that spews whatever lies best align with what will draw the subject towards their own self-destruction by rote reflex not conscious thought.

That's quite fine deduction, though unfortunately real-life angelology it seems does not makes fallen mindless. Pity. It would make life bit easier, maybe.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: deathknight4044 on March 02, 2021, 11:49:58 AM
Quote
Again, you miss the point.

The Darkspawn are great antagonists, but they’re no more evil or villains than zombies directed by a necromancer is. They’re an infection spread by blood created by ancient mages that, like the xenomorphs, is driven to spread and reproduce. Even the Arch-demon is just an Old God corrupted by the same infection and retaining enough intellect to coordinate the Darkspawn through their hivemind (of note; the Grey Wardens get their special abilities by basically using a potion to build up a tolerance to the Darkspawn toxins and ability to tap into without being controlled by the hivemind).

So, again, the Darkspawn do not exist just as a thing to be cannon fodder that is attacking because it is “evil.” There is motivation and a reason for their existence separate from the fact that they are used as antagonists.

One may as well label a virus “evil” by your definition.

Basically; evil, antagonist and threat are not synonymous, no matter how much you’re trying to conflate them.

Sidebar: the Deadites are a parody of evil for evil’s sake. Their entire existence points out how ridiculous and shallow the concept is when placed into practice. When the audience is more likely to laugh at your monster it’s NOT genuine evil
.


My point is that irredeemably evil monsters dont have to be shallow or boring. You just described an irredeemably evil foe (darkspawn) and explained why they're not shallow. So I'm not certain what you're exactly arguing against?
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on March 02, 2021, 11:55:01 AM
They are when aside of that they are basically like humans or close, not proxy of Eldritch Power of Anihillation.
If they are inhuman then fine.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Omega on March 02, 2021, 02:04:52 PM
Quote
The xenomorphs in Alien are not just beasts. They aren't technological, but they are still clever and intelligent in their thinking. Still, I think the real villain in Aliens is Burke. He's who you really love to hate.

Well they are very clever with low animalistic cunning, not sure how very conciouss and thinking.

off topic, kinda

So far in the movies they are just clever animals very good at what they do. Probably as smart as a cat. And cats can figure out doors and orher objects through observation or even exploration. Replace the aliens with say a tiger, mountain lion or panther that has learned to hunt humans and same result really. And these things are likely bioweapons specifically designed for the task. (ignoring the covenant movies)

In the comics they have been depicted as up to even being able to reason to some degree. In one they try to get one captive to breed with another so they can have more hosts or a queen. The queens have been shown to be observant and clever enough to try and sneak eggs off ship while captive.

Of course in the original script for the movie the alien kills Ripley. Then sits down in the chair and calls for help in her voice.

On topic.

As noted. Theres allways going to be the Bleeding Hearts who preach that no "whatever" should be depicted allways evil, or more often, evil at all.
In some cases its just another branch of the moral guardian nuttery wanting to sanitize everything and remove all violence from media because that will really real cure all violence in the world!
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Chris24601 on March 02, 2021, 02:44:03 PM
Ah, those ones. I must say as I have no problems using prayers and rituals with such origin, I generally avoid private revelations as such.
For me it’s the distinction between what is necessary for the Faith and what enriches the Faith. One is not required to believe in the visions at Fatima to be a faithful Catholic, but there is nothing that contradicts the Faith in the message and I find the Faith richer for what it adds.

And in this case, that particular story adds a richness to my setting’s mythology that aligns with the expected actions of the PCs within the setting; i.e. by banding together to overcome the threats and dangers to civilization you are aligning yourself with the mythology of Stormbringer and the First Adventurers and the populace is also inclined to view such groups in that light unless they prove otherwise.

Quote
That's quite fine deduction, though unfortunately real-life angelology it seems does not makes fallen mindless. Pity. It would make life bit easier, maybe.
Real life angelology is pretty much the embodiment of private revelation though and much of it not even that. A heap of the demonology side is literally just recontextualizing pagan myths into the Christian worldview... which is where much of the idea of “demonic intelligence” derives.

By contrast, real life exorcists have repeatedly stressed that demons are just not bright at all; when they communicate at all it’s the same stupid threats and bargaining every time. They’re practically robotic in their maliciousness... it’s like they have a “what do you most desire” and “which sin are you most prone to” detectors and just drop those into a standard script of “you can get what you most desire if you just commit the sin you’re most prone to.”

They’re also utterly single-minded; one exocist likened them to those telemarketers who aren’t allowed to take no for an answer and you just have to hang up on. Exorcism isn’t about convincing the demon to leave, it’s about giving the possessed the spiritual strength and encouragement to hang up the phone.

Angels seem to require more intelligence and freedom because it’s easy to tear things down using a standard script, repairing a soul takes the ability to understand and adapt to all the unique ways it can be broken, particularly since that soul is free-willed itself.

That’s the tact I tried to adhere to in presenting my angels/primal spirits and demons in my setting. Demons particularly are better defined as forces than intellects. To manifest in the material world they must have a tether and a human will... and to the extent a manifested demon has a personality it is a twisted version of the human will they’re connected to.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on March 02, 2021, 04:49:39 PM
<double post - cut>
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on March 02, 2021, 04:51:11 PM

Quote
For me it’s the distinction between what is necessary for the Faith and what enriches the Faith. One is not required to believe in the visions at Fatima to be a faithful Catholic, but there is nothing that contradicts the Faith in the message and I find the Faith richer for what it adds.

I get it. My own sentiment is quite opposite, they add more confusion for me, and even more their results among ecclesia (especially you know folk who despite doctrine claims you have to believe it, or bad things happen, and so on, and they usually choose most apocalyptic exegesis of such apparition possible.)

Quote
And in this case, that particular story adds a richness to my setting’s mythology that aligns with the expected actions of the PCs within the setting; i.e. by banding together to overcome the threats and dangers to civilization you are aligning yourself with the mythology of Stormbringer and the First Adventurers and the populace is also inclined to view such groups in that light unless they prove otherwise.

I definitely agree. It's good story, good mythical brick to use, I have no doubts about it.
Now that I think about it, I think I could even use it in setting I'm thinking on, despite it's well having little to do with real metaphysics.

Quote
Real life angelology is pretty much the embodiment of private revelation though and much of it not even that. A heap of the demonology side is literally just recontextualizing pagan myths into the Christian worldview... which is where much of the idea of “demonic intelligence” derives.

By contrast, real life exorcists have repeatedly stressed that demons are just not bright at all; when they communicate at all it’s the same stupid threats and bargaining every time. They’re practically robotic in their maliciousness... it’s like they have a “what do you most desire” and “which sin are you most prone to” detectors and just drop those into a standard script of “you can get what you most desire if you just commit the sin you’re most prone to.”

They’re also utterly single-minded; one exocist likened them to those telemarketers who aren’t allowed to take no for an answer and you just have to hang up on. Exorcism isn’t about convincing the demon to leave, it’s about giving the possessed the spiritual strength and encouragement to hang up the phone.

Angels seem to require more intelligence and freedom because it’s easy to tear things down using a standard script, repairing a soul takes the ability to understand and adapt to all the unique ways it can be broken, particularly since that soul is free-willed itself.

That’s the tact I tried to adhere to in presenting my angels/primal spirits and demons in my setting. Demons particularly are better defined as forces than intellects. To manifest in the material world they must have a tether and a human will... and to the extent a manifested demon has a personality it is a twisted version of the human will they’re connected to.

In terms of angelology I'd say that's its mostly ancient theology based more about on philosophical analysis and Bible than visions.
I mean all three highest choirs are described in Bible, that I'm sure.

With demonology yeah it's much more murky, much of it are some info get from exorcists who... for reason I do not understand as it seems to have neither scriptural nor patristis basic often assumes these days information gathered from demons... is... trustworthy? So I take all possible classifications circling around with big grain of salt, and eventually as RPG material ;)

Quote
By contrast, real life exorcists have repeatedly stressed that demons are just not bright at all; when they communicate at all it’s the same stupid threats and bargaining every time. They’re practically robotic in their maliciousness... it’s like they have a “what do you most desire” and “which sin are you most prone to” detectors and just drop those into a standard script of “you can get what you most desire if you just commit the sin you’re most prone to.”

They’re also utterly single-minded; one exocist likened them to those telemarketers who aren’t allowed to take no for an answer and you just have to hang up on. Exorcism isn’t about convincing the demon to leave, it’s about giving the possessed the spiritual strength and encouragement to hang up the phone.

That's quite interesting, though demons during exorcists are in... specific situation let's say. Nevertheless aside of this I think there is enough in Scripture itself to show some sort of intelligence.
Tainted of course, very tainted, but nevertheless.

Quote
That’s the tact I tried to adhere to in presenting my angels/primal spirits and demons in my setting. Demons particularly are better defined as forces than intellects. To manifest in the material world they must have a tether and a human will... and to the extent a manifested demon has a personality it is a twisted version of the human will they’re connected to.


I think it's suitable to overall themes even if not precise theologically. Then you have banished angels in forms of unicorns so Congregation of Doctrine and Faith is already monitoring you ;)
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: jhkim on March 03, 2021, 07:03:03 PM
Quote
The xenomorphs in Alien are not just beasts. They aren't technological, but they are still clever and intelligent in their thinking. Still, I think the real villain in Aliens is Burke. He's who you really love to hate.

Well they are very clever with low animalistic cunning, not sure how very conciouss and thinking.
off topic, kinda

So far in the movies they are just clever animals very good at what they do. Probably as smart as a cat. And cats can figure out doors and orher objects through observation or even exploration. Replace the aliens with say a tiger, mountain lion or panther that has learned to hunt humans and same result really. And these things are likely bioweapons specifically designed for the task.

I don't think there's any way that a tiger could operate an elevator, while the aliens do. Operating an elevator is pretty simple to a human, but I'm not sure that even a chimpanzee would figure it out on their own. Also, the aliens coordinate their attacks extremely well, and are not thrown into confusion by modern weapons. We don't see enough to be completely sure, but it seems to me that they are able to plan and express plans to each other.


On topic.

As noted. Theres allways going to be the Bleeding Hearts who preach that no "whatever" should be depicted allways evil, or more often, evil at all.
In some cases its just another branch of the moral guardian nuttery wanting to sanitize everything and remove all violence from media because that will really real cure all violence in the world!

Given the Internet, I'm sure that some people out there was zero violence in their RPGs. However, it seems to me that even among liberal RPG publications, there is still plenty of violence and evil - in games like Thirsty Sword Lesbians, Bluebeard's Bride, and so forth. Overall, I don't see that liberal-themed RPGs are any less violent or dark than more traditional RPGs.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Omega on March 03, 2021, 10:22:57 PM
I don't think there's any way that a tiger could operate an elevator, while the aliens do. Operating an elevator is pretty simple to a human, but I'm not sure that even a chimpanzee would figure it out on their own. Also, the aliens coordinate their attacks extremely well, and are not thrown into confusion by modern weapons. We don't see enough to be completely sure, but it seems to me that they are able to plan and express plans to each other.

I had a cat that knew what a doorknob was and its function, and reeeeeallllly wanted to open that door. But lacked the means to turn it. But shelf doors they could open and one cat would teach another how even. I've also seen a cat that knew what a light switch does and was able to use it. So a chimp or an alien figuring out that button = up/down wouldnt surprise me overly.

In the comics as noted theyve ranged everthing from utterly mindless to able to reason and plan and in one case even semi-communicate.

Though I do not recall that in the original two movies or the later two movies? Something from the Covenant set?

Everyone has their wn ideas on what these things should be and eventually we WILL have someone complaining that killing these things is bad and wrong and all they need is a (face)hug(er).  8)

Really. It does not matter what you do. Dealing with the insane you can not win, you can not break even, and you can not get out of the game.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Steven Mitchell on March 04, 2021, 04:48:28 PM
I've known one cat that could open a door with a circular, conventional doorknob and heard of another that could do it.  She leaped up, manipulated the knob with her paws, twisting it in the correct direction, while swinging her body into the door to get it to open.   As far as I know, she never learned how to use the key.  Though now that I think about it, she might have been an alien. :D


Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Zalman on March 04, 2021, 08:27:29 PM
I've known one cat that could open a door with a circular, conventional doorknob and heard of another that could do it.  She leaped up, manipulated the knob with her paws, twisting it in the correct direction, while swinging her body into the door to get it to open.   As far as I know, she never learned how to use the key.  Though now that I think about it, she might have been an alien. :D

I had a cat that did it just like that.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 04, 2021, 09:13:38 PM
Shall we mention the shenanigans octopi get up to?

I think the schtick is that the xenomorph is of unknown intelligence. "How can they cut the power, man? They're just animals!" Are they? We don't know.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: BoxCrayonTales on March 05, 2021, 02:13:07 PM
I don't think the goblins from Goblin Slayer are a good example. They were originally created on a 2chan thread and their backstory is that they were created by a sadistic DM (the setting is literally somebody's D&D campaign) to cause pain and suffering. They target women and girls for their sadism with extreme prejudice, and reproduce exclusively by raping women and girls.

I think a better example would be the Magog from Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda. They eat humans and other intelligence species (including each other), lay eggs inside targets of any sex through their teeth (including each other), and were engineered by the personification of Love/Gravity to collapse the universe into a singularity (including each other). They are, however, capable of learning to respect the rights of other species and one of the main characters for the first two seasons was a Magog who'd converted to space Taoism.

Of course, YMMV. If you think Goblin Slayer is a modern classic, then I'm not going to try convincing you otherwise.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: RPGPundit on March 05, 2021, 10:40:00 PM
Meatball knows not only how to pull open a kitchen shelf, but to put herself in and somehow close it from the inside. Though after that she usually has trouble working out how to open it up again.

Meanwhile, Big Chungus forgets where her own foodbowl is sometimes.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on March 07, 2021, 08:46:42 PM
So random 2d6 roll for intelligence of each cat and xenomorph?
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Steven Mitchell on March 07, 2021, 09:37:44 PM
So random 2d6 roll for intelligence of each cat and xenomorph?

With cats, you need to reroll it every time you need the score.  Most cats, their elevators go all the way to the top, but they don't stop on every floor. 

With xenomorphs, I can think of worse ways to simulate how alien their thought processes are. :D
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on March 08, 2021, 08:40:33 AM
Quote
With xenomorphs, I can think of worse ways to simulate how alien their thought processes are. :D

4d4? :O
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: jhkim on March 08, 2021, 11:59:06 AM
Shall we mention the shenanigans octopi get up to?

I think the schtick is that the xenomorph is of unknown intelligence. "How can they cut the power, man? They're just animals!" Are they? We don't know.

It's absolutely not proven one way or another -- but dramatically, the point of that line is that Hicks looks stupid, and it is implied that they are more than just animals.
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Chris24601 on March 08, 2021, 12:00:06 PM
Quote
With xenomorphs, I can think of worse ways to simulate how alien their thought processes are. :D

4d4? :O
Nah, the neglected and alien d12 feels a better fit... or maybe 1d12+1d4 to be even more weird?
Title: Re: Self-Involved Narcissism vs Myth
Post by: Omega on March 09, 2021, 05:23:43 AM
So random 2d6 roll for intelligence of each cat and xenomorph?

With cats, you need to reroll it every time you need the score.  Most cats, their elevators go all the way to the top, but they don't stop on every floor. 

With xenomorphs, I can think of worse ways to simulate how alien their thought processes are. :D

I think it may possibly be that the aliens are really good at pathing and if they are bioweapons they may be actually coded with some build in knowledge of basic things. Or they may just be coded to be explorative. All they'd need is the basic problem solving skills of a squirrel and raccoon and they could cause all sorts of havoc given the time to figure any obstacle out.

But still. The bleeding hearts will eventually moan that these poor killing machines just need a hug and fighting them is bad and wrong. Just like they cycle through everything else.