Favorite Subverted Trope/Cliché In a Campaign

[GenericGuy]

We all know some campaigns can be terribly clichéd, but still fun, so I was wondering if anyone would share a time when in a certain campaign something went against their expectations? Or a specific clichés/trope you like to subvert regularly in your campaigns?

An Ex: I love making Empires, in all their conquering glory, the “good guy” country.

[Cahokia]

I do a lot of fantasy subversion in my setting (see Dawning in my sig). The most notable subversions are probably keeping the elves in the forests but turning them into terrifying savages who have absolutely zero compunctions about using violence to solve their problems, and pairing the Orcish emphasis on strength of body with strength of mind, turning their homeland into a rationalist nation of philosopher-diplomats based on the Classical Greeks.

[ffone]

Paladins who are personable, educated, and reasonable (just as they are supposed to be) rather than fascist idiots (as they're usually portrayed). Also the 'good conquering empire' mentioned above.

Also:

-nobles / rich merchants are more likely to be nice and good than the underclass, who tend to be more cutthroat and just as status-conscious (just at a pettier level)
- groups of rebels are usually just thief gangs with either good marketing or self-delusion

[broli]

in my current campaing, there is a torunament that decides the fate of the world. the good people that was going to participate reprensenting "our" side are missing.
instead of elevating the party againts imposible odds in a epic campaing of good, i placed them in a search and "give the problem to others" campaing

[TinselCat]

One of my players became convinced that the mayor of the port city they were in was accepting bribes during a time of diplomatic maneuvering. It wasn't true, just what the shopkeeper was speculating about. So now my players don't automatically assume all authority figures are corrupt.

[Volos]

The Overlord Guide is something that my BBEGs read religiously. (There is actually a god of BBEGness in some of my settings)

Just because the theocratic empire is nice to their citizens, they treat 'pagan heathens' with distrust or outright violence just like a certain theocratic empire that was on the earth a while back. (And for some reason my players immediately distrust or hate said theocratic empire without me having to drop obvious clues)

Monsters seem to be of either neutral or good alignments more often than usual in my campaigns. This kinda tosses my players for a loop. Low level adventurers trying to figure out how to take out a small army of goblins end up running into a chaotic good goblin interested in overthrowing the current cheif. So my players learn to not judge books (or monsters) by their covers. Though if you ever find a tomb with a cover that appears to be made of pure flame, don't open it.

[boomwolf]

The villan of more then one of my games looked like an ordinary peasent despite everyone describing him as a total monster.

Heck, they even met one of them once early during the game and "protected" him from bandits (they didn't know he could kill them all within seconds...he sure doesnt look like it.)

[Prime32]

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=3995

[Maho-Tsukai]

One of the main ones that both my girlfriend and I almost always break/subvert is the "always chaotic evil" races being, well...always chaotic evil. We both enjoy making our monsters 3D characters and not every orc you meet is a bloodthirsty killer and not every lizard man wants to snack on you for lunch. Inteligent orcs, good-aligened goblins ect... all exsist in our settings and being from an 'always chaotic evil" race dose not make a creature automaticly evil.

Another one that we do alot is have drow matriarchs actually wear some cloths rather then look like scantaly clad dominatrix-types. We also LOVE dragons, we love them a lot. We love them so much that we NEVER have any quests which involve killing a dragon in our games. In fact, the "good knight, evil dragon" cliche' is something we alwayd flip around. We always portray dragons as extremely inteligent, wise, powerful beings who, while many times evil(We play with evil parties more then good), are still presented as the pinacle of mythical creatures and one step below gods or many times the gods themselves.

Dragon Slayers are thus almost always protrayed as brutish, stuiped, crude, bloodthirsty murderers who take great pride(and most of them are usually popmpus enough to match the ego of Vegeta or Seto Kaiba) in slaying the most beautiful and inteligent creatures on earth. Simply put, there is no prince charming here, and as odd as it may be in one campaign in which a dragon captured a princess, the princess actually WANTED TO STAY WITH THE DRAGON and the party ended up siding with the princess and the dragon, raising an entire kingdom with the help of the dragon and the princess(who for the party's luck happened to also be a sorceress.) to allow the princess and the dragon to live happily ever after in a blighted tyranical kingdom in which everybody is their slaves...yeah, we where evil too, but despite our evil-ness the party was portrayed as the ones in the right because the life of one dragon is worth far more then the life of countless humans, at least in our games.

[ffone]

One of the main ones that both my girlfriend and I almost always break/subvert is the "always chaotic evil" races being, well...always chaotic evil. We both enjoy making our monsters 3D characters and not every orc you meet is a bloodthirsty killer and not every lizard man wants to snack on you for lunch. Inteligent orcs, good-aligened goblins ect... all exsist in our settings and being from an 'always chaotic evil" race dose not make a creature automaticly evil.


I would argue that this has become the dominant trope ("misunderstood" characters) and that a campaign where some races are reliably evil is in fact the subversion.

It may be true that almost all of some race in a campaign are evil , simply b/c most dnD campaigns feature more enemies to fight and loot than NPCs to make friends with....but I have never, not once, seen a PC roleplayed with a worldview other than "we can't judge people as evil b/ of their race" or a DM who, if asked, would not say that they worldbuild with the same philosophy.

And good-aligned half-orcs and drow are popular. Among PCs and 'individualized' NPCS (those not one-shot fodder) easily more popular than evil.

[ffone]

The Overlord Guide is something that my BBEGs read religiously. (There is actually a god of BBEGness in some of my settings)

Just because the theocratic empire is nice to their citizens, they treat 'pagan heathens' with distrust or outright violence just like a certain theocratic empire that was on the earth a while back. (And for some reason my players immediately distrust or hate said theocratic empire without me having to drop obvious clues)
.

I see the same thing. Players will dislike anything with a whiff of a 'historical ____' feel to it and assume it's corrupt (or at least annoyingly moralizing.) Perhaps b/c DnD players perceive real-life _____ as considering their hobby satanic?

(____ = religion everyone reading this knows I'm referring to, but which I won't name since there might be some mod rule against bringing it up)

[Vangor]

Strength of the leader is a major one. The central figure of any group, or the true power behind the throne, is the strongest person of the group. Usually, our leaders are experienced, but experienced in roleplaying games means higher in level. Me, I prefer to think of the leaders as intelligent and charismatic, more demagogues or salesmen than fonts of sorcery or masses of muscle.

For my current campaign, no main enemy is the greatest, singular mechanical threat in combat. The experience lends them more followers, more ways to keep hidden, greater perception, and similar. Stopping them is not done via one on one combat, but vigilance and relentless pursuit.