Quote from: markfitz;874271No Dragonborn either. I just don't get how you can get one of the ultimate thrills of the game finally encountering a dragon if you sort of are one.

But it could end with the most amazingly epic reveal: "OK, going left to right, I am your father, and your grandfather, and your half-nephew, and your great-great-uncle, and, you in the back, I'm your second cousin once removed, and ...".

honestly none of the above
i see no issue with any of those choices hell my 1st pc was a pally and he was cool never the so called lawful stupid he made sane choices the bigest thing is he was a little quicker to tell some dude he caved the nose in of to "drop the sword and never try that again" and that was cuz he didn't believe that every transgression should be met with death

Quote from: rawma;874403So, I don't know if the unsavory reputation really far exceeds its justification. How come anthropomorphic animal races don't have the same or worse reputation?

Cat people are a notorious red flag from what I've heard. Dog people less so for some reason (probably because they are super rare as an option and a request). Minotaurs and bird people don't seem to ring any alarm bells at all, and judging from my recent thread on lizard people, neither do they.

I wonder what makes the difference.

"Clinically insane person" IME is usually code for "fishmalk" which is really annoying attention whoring by way of trying to be funny and failing miserably.

Another one: "my character is a little kid" (anything under, I dunno, 16) is usually the same thing.

Drow, centaur, catfolk? Please. If Gary had a balrog PC, I suppose I can handle your snowflakiness. I'll still bust your balls about it, though.

Quote from: The Butcher;874420Another one: "my character is a little kid" (anything under, I dunno, 16) is usually the same thing.

My main PC in our DCC campaign is a bratty orphan girl who's studying sorcery by mail-order. I try to be very mindful of 'less is more' with her...

Quote from: The Butcher;874420If Gary had a balrog PC, I suppose I can handle your snowflakiness.

You'd have to be a total wanker to want to play a Balrog.

A woman in our Pathfinder group chose to play a 'dragon fairy' or 'fairy dragon'... or something... a kind of fae. She said it was a 'trickster' and played it as kind of annoying.
I think we ended up giving her so much shit about it (I started calling it 'bug' and name stuck) that she ended up letting it get killed off and made something more mainstream last session.
Thing is, I liked the character and I thought she played it just right... but characters like that do tend to end up being the butt of a lot of jokes and I guess she got tired of it.

I still feel a bit guilty though.

I almost selected cat humanoid but though better of it,  

So long as the furversion stays away I have no issue with cat people or other anthros as  context they can be pretty fun.

I've played cat folk now and again myself.

The poll doesn't let me select none.

It's all about context, in my opinion. In a decent setting with a decent player, any of these can be good concepts. However, they can often easily be done badly. I can think of characters I like for almost all of these.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;874438You'd have to be a total wanker to want to play a Balrog.

You'd be one to know.

Anything could work...typically though it doesn't, which is why I put everything but Paladin/Druid (if we're doing AD&D you'd have to roll those stats.)

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;874259Are you sort of saying that they've become comfortable cliches like elves and dwarves?

More like they are clichés from so long ago that someone actually playing them isn't doing so for the same fanboy-ism that they would have back in the heyday. Sure in 1996 someone wanting to play a vampire named "Lestat II" would make me want to throw them out of my gaming group. If they were to do it now, my mind would go, "wait, huh? Are you doing this ironically? Because if so, that ship has also sailed. Some weird joke or commentary? Nostalgia? Let's see what you're thinking of."  

QuoteCould you explain? I've heard many good criticisms of drow, but incoherence is not usually one of them.

Mostly I was being, "I have no problem with any of them. Except drow... because screw drow!" silliness. But in all seriousness, underground creatures who are deeply black skinned (instead of morlock-white to translucent like real cave creatures) who have elven lifespans and reproduction, yet have a 'abandon infirm babies' and 'backstab your way to the top' social success strategies do not make a lick of sense.

Quote from: The Butcher;874465You'd be one to know.

I was honestly worried nobody would catch that.

Lets see. As others have noted. System dependant. But assuming all were open to use. And AD&D and BECMI opened up a-lot of options. Here goes.

Centaur: Dragon article allowed them. Notes the various drawbacks. Ok for dungeoncrawling as most dungeons are built to accomodate large creatures. But the PC has to be aware that there are places they cannot go without magic. 2e allowed Wemics too so theres Lion-taurs. And Planescape had the goat-taurs.

Pixie/Faerie: Allowable in 2e D&D and T&T. Obvious advantages and disadvantages. Paul Kidd showed just how effective a Faerie can be as an adventurer.

Cat humanoid: Rakasta from Red Steel were playable race, and turtle people and others. Long as it isnt a power play then sure. Much like drow and tieflings, etc. Presentation as a viable character.

Drow & Tieflings: Like any other overall average demi-human race. Depends greatly on how the player present it as a character.

Half-Vampire: All the strengths and just about none of the weaknesses? Then no. Add in some notable drawbacks and tone down the strengths and might work.

Aquatic: As in non-amphibious? No if there is no way for them to function on land/out of water unless the campaign is geared to this undersea setting. BX/BECMI presented exactly that.

Amnesiac: Metamorphosis Alpha had that as a possible start option for cryo-sleep crew awakened. Really depends on what the character has forgotten? How extensive is the amnesia? Taken too far then the character may be useless. Hit a good balance and sure.

Brooding Loner: As in doesnt work with a group at all? Then no. But if can function fine in a group then ok. IE: coming out of their shell.

Dispossessed Noble: Another one of those. "Depends on the presentation" moments. Fairly common to see and when played well does not impact play.

Paladin/Druid/Monk: These all work when played well. But like the Thief class when played badly they can become a total problem. But that is not a factor of the class. ANY class played badly can be a problem.

Player gender opposite character gender: Who cares as long as they can play well. Another one of those "Problem only if someone makes it a problem".

Crazy: How insane? That is the big factor. Call of Cthulhu and Paranoia pretty much run on crazy. Like with Amnesia or a Thief. Can the character function with the group and not be disruptive? No? Then No. Not allowed.

And as mentioned above. You can apply this to the Thief/Rogue too. And the Assassin, and Half-Orcs, and Gnomes, and pretty much any class-race. Its a factor of play rather than the subject itself sometimes.

Are they going to be a problem? Can they function in a group? Can they function at all?

A simple bog standard Fighter in a group can be really disruptive in the wrong hands.

Quote from: Simlasa;874317Yeah, I don't know why this one is comparatively forbidden. As long as it's not some Pythonesqe falsetto and ridiculous stereotypes I'd have no issues with it.

It's happened three times in my campaign over the years.  The first was a guy who did, indeed, play a sex bomb courtesan type, but he wasn't obnoxious about it.  The second two were women who habitually played male characters because they were used to cementhead gaming circles where female characters turned out to be hassles.  The other women in my campaign explained "No, you don't need to, Bob isn't like that."  One switched, the other didn't.