PDA

View Full Version : Annoying DnD stereotypes



Pages : 1 [2]

JetThomasBoat
2012-08-02, 02:09 AM
And that's why you should always play characters with sexuality that exists outside of the binary of current society. Go Team Changling/Warforged/Mind Flayer PCs!

Didn't see this before. Anyway, when I was looking over the Expanded Psionics Handbook one time, I noticed that Dromites don't really have gender, so I was considering playing one what hit on everything.

Just a smooth talkin' little bug dude that loved the ladies :smallcool:

Manly Man
2012-08-02, 09:37 AM
And that's why you should always play characters with sexuality that exists outside of the binary of current society. Go Team Changling/Warforged/Mind Flayer PCs!

I never get to be with a DM who lets me do this. It makes me has a sad.

A mind flayer never puts his great intelligence to much greater of a use than to figure out ways to eat more brains.

A lich only studies out of books.

toapat
2012-08-02, 11:16 AM
{{scrubbed}}

Arbane
2012-08-02, 12:07 PM
Yeah, where are the REAL knights like Terry Jones described:

"Being a knight meant three things: learning how to kill people, making money, and getting famous!"

So, adventurers.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-08-02, 12:31 PM
The default alignment system is -not- subjective. I'll say no more on the matter in this thread.

Gnomish Wanderer
2012-08-02, 12:40 PM
Because a do or die situation involving sex is normally called rape.


Bingo. Give the man a cigar (or other appropriate prize if he's a non-smoker.) I wouldn't want to play with any DM that thought it was okay for a PC to be raped. It can get downright uncomfortable when it happens to an npc, "behind the scenes."

OH, you meant morally wrong. Well, yeah, I believe most people would see it that way. I thought you meant that the comment that crazyhedgewizard made was factually wrong in some way. Clarity of language and all that.

Also your mileage may vary. I like giving my players complex grown-up situations. In fact, I'm planning game right now that involves both being tempted/threatened into bed by the Goddess of Evil and also finding out that her good counterpart was raped. My group is 'adult' enough to handle that.
Note: That last sentence is not a swing at anyone, nor is it calling anyone immature. I'm simply stating an opinion about my own group. Figured I'd be clear


The default alignment system is -not- subjective. I'll say no more on the matter in this thread.
Nothing is true. Everything is permitted. :smalltongue:

BootStrapTommy
2012-08-02, 01:05 PM
{{scrubbed}}

snoopy13a
2012-08-02, 01:18 PM
The default alignment system is -not- subjective. I'll say no more on the matter in this thread.

Oops, I saw you meant the "default" alignment. That is, all of "species X" are chaotic awesome. :smalltongue:

This doesn't necessarily bother me because we are talking about non-human behavior. Since, we're entering uncharted territory, who is to say that non-humans can't trend towards one alignment or another. After all, what do we know what goblins are like? I've never met one :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, if one wants orcs in their campaign to be like humans in alignment choices, then that is easily done.



I think the good/evil axis is fairly objective*. It is the law/chaos axis that I think is confusing. I bet if you ask ten people about the law/chaos axis, then I fear you'd get ten different answers.

*Of course defining good and evil in real life isn't objective but this is "good" and "evil" in an artificial game system.

toapat
2012-08-02, 01:33 PM
*snip*

read the link, its long, and his entire arguement is a 3rd ed rulebook which is generally acknowledged to be crap. and is 3rd ed.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-08-02, 02:05 PM
read the link, its long, and his entire arguement is a 3rd ed rulebook which is generally acknowledged to be crap. and is 3rd ed.

Look, toapat, if you don't agree with me on the discussion in that thread, that's your prerogative. Hell, I even acknowledged that I wasn't objectively right. However, saying my argument is crap and implying that I'm an idiot who doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground is flaming, and against forum rules. Please stop doing so.

Also, not only BoVD; but BoED, HoH, SS, and UA all say that D&D's default alignment system is objective, not subjective. Some are 3.0 some are 3.5, but I suspect that, since they all say the same thing, the designers intended alignment to be objective.

lowfyr
2012-08-02, 02:18 PM
One of my pet peeves:

being good is just another meaning of being stupid.

Slipperychicken
2012-08-02, 05:12 PM
Yeah, where are the REAL knights like Terry Jones described:

"Being a knight meant three things: learning how to kill people, making money, and getting famous!"

This looks like a job for...[cue heroic music].. The Player Characters!



PCs' family members will always be endangered as a cheap plot hook.

PCs are always orphans, because families exist only as cheap plot hooks

PCs are only motivated by treasure

Kelb_Panthera
2012-08-02, 05:14 PM
This looks like a job for...[cue heroic music].. The Player Characters!



PCs' family members will always be endangered as a cheap plot hook.

PCs are always orphans, because families exist only as cheap plot hooks

PCs are only motivated by treasure

I can deal with those individually, but taken together like that..... grr. :annoyed:

toapat
2012-08-02, 09:20 PM
Also, not only BoVD; but BoED, HoH, SS, and UA all say that D&D's default alignment system is objective, not subjective. Some are 3.0 some are 3.5, but I suspect that, since they all say the same thing, the designers intended alignment to be objective.

because defining a Subjective set of rules completely is impossible. the number of scenarios is at least as many as the number of maps that Minecraft can generate with any one Worldcode.

UA: The Honor system is based off of Storytelling, not actual morals. Take Commander Hale from D3: He is so honorable to his lord that the only way he was able to be pulled off the front lines for a promotion, was to be accused of Treason.

SS: A ritual and some [Evil] outsiders? no.

BoED: unlike BoVD, a book which extrapolates the fact that Alignment is Subjective.

HoH: Ironic, you, who hold RAW as law, would even name the Book that actually makes Alignment anything more then a rigid deathmarch.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-08-02, 09:37 PM
because defining a Subjective set of rules completely is impossible. the number of scenarios is at least as many as the number of maps that Minecraft can generate with any one Worldcode.

UA: The Honor system is based off of Storytelling, not actual morals. Take Commander Hale from D3: He is so honorable to his lord that the only way he was able to be pulled off the front lines for a promotion, was to be accused of Treason.

SS: A ritual and some [Evil] outsiders? no.

BoED: unlike BoVD, a book which extrapolates the fact that Alignment is Subjective.

HoH: Ironic, you, who hold RAW as law, would even name the Book that actually makes Alignment anything more then a rigid deathmarch.

Bahamut's balls man, are you trying to misinterpret what I say intentionally?

I was going off of memory, so I admit that UA doesn't have the section I was thinking of, but I'm certain that each of the rest of those has a section on one or more variant alignment setups including the subjective alignment option. Also, I don't know where you get the notion that I hold RAW as law, but it seems to me you hold RAW in utter contempt. If the rules of the game bother you so much, why not play a different game?


....... we can't take this discussion any further without it turning into a flame war. I'm done.

BootStrapTommy
2012-08-02, 09:45 PM
read the link, its long, and his entire arguement is a 3rd ed rulebook which is generally acknowledged to be crap. and is 3rd ed.

I was more questioning what I thought was your implication that alignments WEREN'T objective. If I was wrong, I blame Internet Asperger's. If not, I'd love elaboration.

toapat
2012-08-02, 09:59 PM
I was more questioning what I thought was your implication that alignments WEREN'T objective. If I was wrong, I blame Internet Asperger's. If not, I'd love elaboration.

Alignment taken as Objective alone (Which is both for and against RAW) or Subjective alone, is wrong, because one applies to the game, the other to gameplay.

BootStrapTommy
2012-08-02, 10:06 PM
Also, not only BoVD; but BoED, HoH, SS, and UA all say that D&D's default alignment system is objective, not subjective. Some are 3.0 some are 3.5, but I suspect that, since they all say the same thing, the designers intended alignment to be objective.

I don't see the need to quote sources books in this argument. How about some common sense? How can you have an alignment system and it be subjective? An alignment system must be, within the campaign at least, objective in order for it to MEAN ANYTHING.

If any players can subjectively define Good/Evil, there is absolutely no reason a Paladin can't decide for himself what defines his laws and decide for himself what defines his good, and walk around burning villages, sacrificing innocent virgins, and wearing dead babies as a loin cloth. Because that's what a subjective Good/Evil would mean for the mechanics. So how can the alignment system be subjective?

If you happened to answer that rhetorical question with "the DM", you would actually be correct. This is one of the reasons the DM is there. For alignment to have meaning, alignment must be objective. The DM sets the objective standard.


Alignment taken as Objective alone (Which is both for and against RAW) or Subjective alone, is wrong, because one applies to the game, the other to gameplay.

No offense in anyway intended, but a lot of what you say seriously makes no sense to me, toapat. I must be running a bad bout of the dyslexia or something.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-08-02, 10:41 PM
I don't see the need to quote sources books in this argument. How about some common sense? How can you have an alignment system and it be subjective? An alignment system must be, within the campaign at least, objective in order for it to MEAN ANYTHING.

If any players can subjectively define Good/Evil, there is absolutely no reason a Paladin can't decide for himself what defines his laws and decide for himself what defines his good, and walk around burning villages, sacrificing innocent virgins, and wearing dead babies as a loin cloth. Because that's what a subjective Good/Evil would mean for the mechanics. So how can the alignment system be subjective?

If you happened to answer that rhetorical question with "the DM", you would actually be correct. This is one of the reasons the DM is there. For alignment to have meaning, alignment must be objective. The DM sets the objective standard.



No offense in anyway intended, but a lot of what you say seriously makes no sense to me, toapat. I must be running a bad bout of the dyslexia or something.

Unfortunately, "common sense" is one of the biggest misnomers in the english language. If it was at all common, then most societies would run immensely more smoothly.

I highlighted those sources because, with the exception of UA, they all flat-out say that D&D's alignment system is objective, usually more than once.

I admit that I was wrong about UA. It was what I hope was an understandable brain-fart on my part.

toapat
2012-08-02, 10:45 PM
No offense in anyway intended, but a lot of what you say seriously makes no sense to me, toapat. I must be running a bad bout of the dyslexia or something.

the Alignment System is Objectively defined, has Objective manifestations within game, but actions must be interpreted subjectively.

Wahrheit
2012-08-03, 06:51 AM
One that always bugs me: necromancers are creepy, antisocial, and always EEEEVVVVIIIILLLLL.

I actually tried to run a Good-aligned necromancer once, who asked relatives of the dead for permission to use their deceased family members to aid the fight against evil, didn't like wearing black because it was too gloomy, and was something of a bon vivant because his study of death had taught him to truly appreciate life.

The DM said no because raising undead is inherently evil regardless of any modifying circumstances.

*headdesk*

Sgt. Cookie
2012-08-03, 08:00 AM
People go off topic and debate alignment

Seriously, it happens all the time. It serves no purpose and simply derails the thread. Sadly, it happens when discussing D&D. All we can do is spot it and nip it in the bud.

toapat
2012-08-03, 08:28 AM
People go off topic and debate alignment

Seriously, it happens all the time. It serves no purpose and simply derails the thread. Sadly, it happens when discussing D&D. All we can do is spot it and nip it in the bud.

Any and all conversations about DnD lead in 1 of 2 dirrections, Punpun, or Alignment.

Sgt. Cookie
2012-08-03, 09:25 AM
Touche. *Tips beret*

faustin
2012-08-03, 10:38 AM
Back to topic. Witches are never old, ugly crones with dirty ragged clothes and missing teeth. Instead, they are hot, gothic chicks with curvy figures and big breasts with who usually wear very revealing clothes just for the sake of sexiness.

Water_Bear
2012-08-03, 10:56 AM
Back to topic. Witches are never old, ugly crones with dirty ragged clothes and missing teeth. Instead, they are hot, gothic chicks with curvy figures and big breasts with who usually wear very revealing clothes just for the sake of sexiness.

Not just Witches either; I think there's a law against having Sorceresses who aren't either sexy young women or Cougars who steal youth/beauty from younger women. Not to mention female Bards are all Idol Singers, Wizards are basically sexy librarians with spell slots, and Clerics, at least in my experience, are either loli's or naive 'girl-next-door' types.

Anyway;
Gnomes have somehow survived until the present despite being stupider than sacks full of rocks. No matter how many explosions or magical catastrophes they cause with their "wacky" inventions, it never puts a dent in their population.

NPC Wizards are either so scatterbrained you want to smack them, master villains, or both.

Kender exist. Full stop.

Swordguy
2012-08-03, 11:06 AM
I think the main thing to take away from this thread is that

Every idea or concept is an annoying sterotype to somebody

The Random NPC
2012-08-03, 11:14 AM
One that always bugs me: necromancers are creepy, antisocial, and always EEEEVVVVIIIILLLLL.

I actually tried to run a Good-aligned necromancer once, who asked relatives of the dead for permission to use their deceased family members to aid the fight against evil, didn't like wearing black because it was too gloomy, and was something of a bon vivant because his study of death had taught him to truly appreciate life.

The DM said no because raising undead is inherently evil regardless of any modifying circumstances.

*headdesk*

I've given up playing a Good-aligned necromancer for exactly this reason. I had this idea to take the undead familiar from UA and ranks in craft(chef). I'd make the party let me make dinner one day, and I'd make soup. As the broth is cooking, I'd grab a bone from my skeleton and toss it in. When my party members ask about it I'd say, "don't worry, he's 20 percent pig!"

toapat
2012-08-03, 11:31 AM
*Chainsword of Consiseness*

All women within DnD fall between a 7 and a 13 (Averaging a 9, because all the variance here is in personality), unless the women are of a monsterous non-humanoid race, or Dwarves. Dwarven Women are indistinguishable from male Dwarves.

This is because unlike male story roles, female roles other then evil witch dont call for any significant body types.

OtOH, who cares? Hot Protagonist <Insert Fanservice race here> when they dont suck.

Edit Edit: Ah, ok

PlusSixPelican
2012-08-03, 12:19 PM
On NECROMANCY. IS. EEEEEEEEEEVVVVIIILLLLLLL. Play the necromancer like someone who guides the dead on to the next part of existence, using them sometimes to further the ultimate goal of passing the dead on to their afterlife, rather than someone who defiles nature for lulz and profit. They consult spirits for guidance. That kind of dealie. xD

Monstrous females are never seen.
There should be more! They can be pretty or ugly or both. (You could even spice it up by having the helpful female Monster NPC be less-than attractive, and the hot one being the evil one. xD) On that note, there could be pretty orcs/trolls/gobbies of either gender, if their charisma was high enough.

Sgt. Cookie
2012-08-03, 12:27 PM
I, um, but. That doesn't, I don't. But, hang on.

Charisma is a measure of physical beauty

I mean, really? People seem to forget one important thing. Charisma is a MENTAL stat. NOT a physical one. So no, charisma is not a measure of physical beauty.

The Random NPC
2012-08-03, 12:33 PM
I, um, but. That doesn't, I don't. But, hang on.

Charisma is a measure of physical beauty

I mean, really? People seem to forget one important thing. Charisma is a MENTAL stat. NOT a physical one. So no, charisma is not a measure of physical beauty.

Yes it is, it says so under the Charisma block in the PHB. That being said, it shouldn't be.

Menteith
2012-08-03, 12:49 PM
Bluff is Magic
Telling someone that they're really a Turtle convinces them that they're a turtle, rather than simply convincing them that you truly believe they're a turtle.

toapat
2012-08-03, 01:20 PM
Bluff is Magic
Telling someone that they're really a Turtle convinces them that they're a turtle, rather than simply convincing them that you truly believe they're a turtle.

Bluff of significantly high DC exceeding replicates flawlessly the Alter Reality supernatural ability.

Menteith
2012-08-03, 01:25 PM
Bluff of significantly high DC exceeding replicates flawlessly the Alter Reality supernatural ability.

I wish.

Epic Uses of Bluff;
"The character can implant a nonmagical suggestion in a target, display a false alignment, or disguise his or her surface thoughts. "

What Suggestion can do;
"You influence the actions of the target creature by suggesting a course of activity (limited to a sentence or two). The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable. Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell."

What the Alter Reality (Su) can do;
"This ability is similar to the wish spell. The deity merely thinks of something and then makes it so. Doing this requires at least a standard action."

Bluff, no matter how high, isn't ever going to actually warp reality.

PersonMan
2012-08-03, 01:26 PM
Charisma is a MENTAL stat. NOT a physical one. So no, charisma is not a measure of physical beauty.


Yes it is, it says so under the Charisma block in the PHB. That being said, it shouldn't be.

There's an entire thread about this. Someone proposed a system of taking several different things (appearance, ability to lead, etc.) and averaging them to get Charisma, which I think is a good idea.

Mono Vertigo
2012-08-03, 02:01 PM
Yes it is, it says so under the Charisma block in the PHB. That being said, it shouldn't be.
Indeed. We've got several monsters that are positively horrible and disgusting by... anyone's standard, really. It's not just beauty, it's also something like strength of character and personality.

Menteith
2012-08-03, 02:07 PM
Indeed. We've got several monsters that are positively horrible and disgusting by... anyone's standard, really. It's not just beauty, it's also something like strength of character and personality.

Well, not by their own standard; I'm sure that Beholders find each other attractive. The big issue with it is that it was handled differently by different writers - some of them correctly figured out that beauty is a subjective quality, and that what one culture, or even person, finds attractive can be very different than another person, and these writers let Charisma be a mental stat measuring force of personality and drive. Other writers seemed to think that everything in the multiverse found the exact same thing beautiful (and generally speaking, it's the 21st, western ideal of beauty that they push), and that a higher Charisma made you more than more similar to that ideal (which is childishly simple). Changlings (who can easily look like an ideal of physical beauty) have no Charisma bonus, while a Lich gains Charisma as part of their transformation, which shows that physical looks and Charisma aren't inherently linked.

hamishspence
2012-08-03, 02:10 PM
Well, not by their own standard; I'm sure that Beholders find each other attractive.

Nope. In fact a Beholder will be utterly disgusted by the subtle differences between them and the other beholder- and promptly attempt to kill it.

They reproduce asexually- and tend to be extremely intolerant even of their own offspring.

Mono Vertigo
2012-08-03, 02:18 PM
Yeah, I obviously didn't mean "by the standard of their species". "Anyone" was a hyperbole. :smalltongue:

Menteith
2012-08-03, 02:19 PM
Nope. In fact a Beholder will be utterly disgusted by the subtle differences between them and the other beholder- and promptly attempt to kill it.

They reproduce asexually- and tend to be extremely intolerant even of their own offspring.

That's not really the important part of my post....replace "Beholder" with any alien creature with a Cha bonus who reproduces sexually, for the same effect.

toapat
2012-08-03, 02:21 PM
That's not really the important part of my post....replace "Beholder" with any alien creature with a Cha bonus who reproduces sexually, for the same effect.

Dragons, for example.

Half Dragon Ooze, explain that

Mixt
2012-08-03, 02:30 PM
The dragon was horny. The ooze happened to be there.
Stuff happened, the end.

Dragons are easy like that :smalltongue::smallamused:

Ranting Fool
2012-08-03, 02:44 PM
The dragon was horny. The ooze happened to be there.
Stuff happened, the end.

Dragons are easy like that :smalltongue::smallamused:

Everyone knows Dragons are horny! Or else there wouldn't be sooooo many half dragons and sorcerers! :smallbiggrin:

Lord Raziere
2012-08-03, 02:49 PM
Let see….

All monstrous races are evil

dragons will mate with anything

the party is a bunch of kleptomaniac sociopaths

All Paladins are dour, strict uptight people who stand in the way of fun.

barbarians are stupid axe-happy all-destroying juggernauts.

faustin
2012-08-03, 03:13 PM
Not just Witches either; I think there's a law against having Sorceresses who aren't either sexy young women or Cougars who steal youth/beauty from younger women. Not to mention female Bards are all Idol Singers, Wizards are basically sexy librarians with spell slots, and Clerics, at least in my experience, are either loli's or naive 'girl-next-door' types.



I like The Witcherīs explanation for that: girls who are sent by their parents to become sorceresses are usually ugly or at least not enough attractive to find an appropiate (enough rich) husband for them... until they learn magic (alchemical cosmetic REALLY does wonders).




One that always bugs me: necromancers are creepy, antisocial, and always EEEEVVVVIIIILLLLL.

I actually tried to run a Good-aligned necromancer once, who asked relatives of the dead for permission to use their deceased family members to aid the fight against evil, didn't like wearing black because it was too gloomy, and was something of a bon vivant because his study of death had taught him to truly appreciate life.

The DM said no because raising undead is inherently evil regardless of any modifying circumstances.

*headdesk*

I think we had a discussion about that in another thread. The question is, what is "necromancy" in your game setting? Possible answers:

a) animating corpses with magic, and medium duties. Not really evil per se.
b) violating the entire life-death circle. Stealing, trafficking, and corrupting souls. EVIL. Plain and simply evil. Moral justification (for the greater good, those bastard deserve it, etc...) are not excuse.

BootStrapTommy
2012-08-03, 04:01 PM
the Alignment System is Objectively defined, has Objective manifestations within game, but actions must be interpreted subjectively.

Now that's understandable.

You'll have to forgive me, I tend to blow any perceived vagueness in another's post out of proportion in my head, so that even the slightest vagueness leads me to question if I understood them right or not.

Manly Man
2012-08-03, 08:01 PM
Dragons, for example.

Half Dragon Ooze, explain that

I'm actually going to make a black pudding monster class now so that I can make one as a genuine player character.

Also, silver dragons are immune to acid; imagine how pretty a silver (black) pudding would look.

Dimers
2012-08-03, 10:09 PM
Formerly-EEEEEVIL monsters and characters can only be paragons of righteousness. If you mend your ways, you have to go whole-hog. No neutral for you.

Marlowe
2012-08-04, 12:04 AM
QUOTE=PersonMan;13665598]There's an entire thread about this. Someone proposed a system of taking several different things (appearance, ability to lead, etc.) and averaging them to get Charisma, which I think is a good idea.[/QUOTE]

Chivalry and sorcery method. We once rolled up a character with the lowest possible appearance (hideous facial scarring, we decided) whose intelligence and Bardic voice was so high he wound up with the highest Charisma in the party.

Arranis Thelmos
2012-08-04, 09:12 AM
Let see….


the party is a bunch of kleptomaniac sociopaths


I dare you to find me one that isn't. :smallwink:

Marlowe
2012-08-04, 09:17 AM
Here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=250590) We're just ruthless killers and...business people.

PlusSixPelican
2012-08-04, 09:32 AM
^ xD. Those were pretty monsters, but that might just be the art style. :3

Anyways, liches could be pretty. Just ya know, dem cheekbones. ^.^

Ghost49X
2012-08-04, 11:30 AM
Paladins are servants of a god: They are not. They are champions of the abstract forces of Good itself. Gods do not have to come into it, it freaking says basically this in its description of paladins in the PHB. It's a conflation of the holy warrior trope from our own culture with every paladin ever in DnD and it's irritating to me. One of these days I'm gonna roll me up an atheist, anarchist paladin and embody the paladin code to the nth degree at the same time.

Personally my palladins then to paragons of good (Angels) as their ideals and mentors.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-08-04, 11:33 AM
@Faustin: I'd spoiler that and add a tag about it having profanity. Great pic though. That artist did a fair amount of good work. I can't remember if it was a deviantart page or an elfwood page though. I have no idea who turned it into a demotivator.

PersonMan
2012-08-04, 01:15 PM
Am I allowed to post this ? :smalltongue:

Well, no, actually, the general rule (I think one could find it in one of the old Dungeons and Dames threads, due to its particular relevance there) is 'no nipples', which the spider-lady violates.

Oh, and profanity, but that's already been mentioned.

Mixt
2012-08-04, 01:25 PM
Looks more like a scorpion to me :smallconfused:

I approve of the dragon-shagging though :smallbiggrin:
Way to go bardman!

toapat
2012-08-04, 02:07 PM
Looks more like a scorpion to me :smallconfused:

I approve of the dragon-shagging though :smallbiggrin:
Way to go bardman!

it is a Scorrow

and ignoring both specialized violations, you need to have that /spoilered because it is a huge picture

faustin
2012-08-04, 02:51 PM
Well, no, actually, the general rule (I think one could find it in one of the old Dungeons and Dames threads, due to its particular relevance there) is 'no nipples', which the spider-lady violates.


No, really. Should I delete that before getting another infraction from the admin?:smallfrown:

Arbane
2012-08-04, 03:38 PM
Chivalry and sorcery method. We once rolled up a character with the lowest possible appearance (hideous facial scarring, we decided) whose intelligence and Bardic voice was so high he wound up with the highest Charisma in the party.

The Phantom of the Opera? (Or maybe Doctor Doom.)

PersonMan
2012-08-04, 04:16 PM
No, really. Should I delete that before getting another infraction from the admin?:smallfrown:

Yes, really.

Dark Elf Bard
2012-08-04, 06:16 PM
One that always bugs me: necromancers are creepy, antisocial, and always EEEEVVVVIIIILLLLL.

I actually tried to run a Good-aligned necromancer once, who asked relatives of the dead for permission to use their deceased family members to aid the fight against evil, didn't like wearing black because it was too gloomy, and was something of a bon vivant because his study of death had taught him to truly appreciate life.

The DM said no because raising undead is inherently evil regardless of any modifying circumstances.

*headdesk*
OH MY GOD this happened to me too.

Zeful
2012-08-04, 08:38 PM
Sorcerers must be related to dragons or other Monsters, despite how little logic that makes.
One of the things that will continue to piss me off about the various editions and discussions thereof, it was one line about societal perception, not a definitive statement of anything.

Wizards will always form colleges or guilds and will always be willing to help other wizards out, no matter the circumstances.
Yet another thing that just annoys, given wizard fanboys talk like wizards are all big fraternaties that instantly accept any other wizard as "one of them" despite any cultural or organizational institutions that would outright prevent that.

faustin
2012-08-04, 08:56 PM
Sorcerers must be related to dragons or other Monsters, despite how little logic that makes.
One of the things that will continue to piss me off about the various editions and discussions thereof, it was one line about societal perception, not a definitive statement of anything.


It makes certain sense. In many mythologies, some heroes had special powers and abilities because their Godīs ascendance (like Heracles). And it was common in medieval mindset that witches used to copulate with demons in Aquelarres, breeding monsters and "guifted" children.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-08-04, 09:02 PM
Sorcerers must be related to dragons or other Monsters, despite how little logic that makes.
One of the things that will continue to piss me off about the various editions and discussions thereof, it was one line about societal perception, not a definitive statement of anything.

Wizards will always form colleges or guilds and will always be willing to help other wizards out, no matter the circumstances.
Yet another thing that just annoys, given wizard fanboys talk like wizards are all big fraternaties that instantly accept any other wizard as "one of them" despite any cultural or organizational institutions that would outright prevent that.

As for wizards, highly intelligent people do tend to congregate and compare theory. This is how the very first colleges were formed early in history. Some social segregation based on ethnicity or ideology is expected, but colleges will naturally form. This is especially true when you consider the fact that political boundaries mean very little to men who can rewrite reality with a few odd gestures and some bat poo.

Zeful
2012-08-04, 09:09 PM
It makes certain sense. In many mythologies, some heroes had special powers and abilities because their Godīs ascendance (like Heracles). And it was common in medieval mindset that witches used to copulate with demons in Aquelarres, breeding monsters and "guifted" children.
Doesn't make it any less trite, annoying and pigeonholing for people who don't want to be magic rape-babies.


As for wizards, highly intelligent people do tend to congregate and compare theory. This is how the very first colleges were formed early in history. Some social segregation based on ethnicity or ideology is expected, but colleges will naturally form. This is especially true when you consider the fact that political boundaries mean very little to men who can rewrite reality with a few odd gestures and some bat poo.

Only after formalized writing and mass production had been around for several years, before then the church pretty much ruled those parts of life.

Grimsage Matt
2012-08-04, 09:13 PM
Only after formalized writing and mass production had been around for several years, before then the church pretty much ruled those parts of life.

Isn't there a 1st level spell that does that:smallconfused: Wizards, they're the town printing press.

Zeful
2012-08-04, 09:26 PM
Isn't there a 1st level spell that does that:smallconfused: Wizards, they're the town printing press.

Probably as yet another "Wizards are perfect and awesome and must be better at everything ever" kind of logic that'll keep anything with the attached label of "D&D" from being anything other that a poorly designed and inherently broken game.

Grimsage Matt
2012-08-04, 09:31 PM
*War troll with high SR eating the archmage*
"Wha you mean wizards are better? They taste worse then kobolds."

*Rogue sneak attacks wizard*
*Wizard explodes from massive damage and poor fort save*

*Any build that accounts that you have to kill the wizard*
*Wizard cries as he realizes that all that work was for nothing*

Kelb_Panthera
2012-08-04, 10:42 PM
Doesn't make it any less trite, annoying and pigeonholing for people who don't want to be magic rape-babies.



Only after formalized writing and mass production had been around for several years, before then the church pretty much ruled those parts of life.

Most of the fantasy settings that have wizards -do- have formalized writing, and have for a good while. Hell, several of the great philosophers and mathemeticians; like plato, aristotle, and pythagoras; had rather significant followings before the wide-spread adoption of monotheism. There's nothing even remotely odd about wizards congregating in colleges, academies, or even just cabals. It's what smart people do.

The Glyphstone
2012-08-04, 11:07 PM
*War troll with high SR eating the archmage*
"Wha you mean wizards are better? They taste worse then kobolds."

*Rogue sneak attacks wizard*
*Wizard explodes from massive damage and poor fort save*

*Any build that accounts that you have to kill the wizard*
*Wizard cries as he realizes that all that work was for nothing*

*All other wizards laugh at the moron who called himself a 'wizard' without flight to defeat the troll or one of the million and a half ways to be immune to sneak attack, return to being invincible to anyone who isn't another wizard or shelling out amazing sums of money to pretend to be a wizard*

Morithias
2012-08-04, 11:23 PM
*All other wizards laugh at the moron who called himself a 'wizard' without flight to defeat the troll or one of the million and a half ways to be immune to sneak attack, return to being invincible to anyone who isn't another wizard or shelling out amazing sums of money to pretend to be a wizard*

A "True wizard" only cares about studying and getting more powerful. You'll never have an exalted wizard who wants to help the commoners, only ones who want to rule over them as pseudo-gods.

Seriously, this bugs the crap out of me.

Zeful
2012-08-04, 11:55 PM
Most of the fantasy settings that have wizards -do- have formalized writing, and have for a good while. Hell, several of the great philosophers and mathemeticians; like plato, aristotle, and pythagoras; had rather significant followings before the wide-spread adoption of monotheism. There's nothing even remotely odd about wizards congregating in colleges, academies, or even just cabals. It's what smart people do.

It's also not 100%. Glyphstone's post kinda being the Ur-example of my point. Quite frankly Wizarding communities would be more clique-ish and insular that most modern day high-schools, with all the bulling and other assorted BS that implies. So it's not going to be a grouping of "great philosophers and mathematicians," it's a group of super-powered bullies in a rule-set where they have absolute power.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-08-05, 01:16 AM
It's also not 100%. Glyphstone's post kinda being the Ur-example of my point. Quite frankly Wizarding communities would be more clique-ish and insular that most modern day high-schools, with all the bulling and other assorted BS that implies. So it's not going to be a grouping of "great philosophers and mathematicians," it's a group of super-powered bullies in a rule-set where they have absolute power.

Oh they'll be cliquish as hell. I couldn't deny that if I tried, but they will gather to form those cliques. It's unfortunate how many people never grow out of that "highschool" mindset. How do you know you're the best with nobody around to compare yourself to? Human nature is full of inconsistency and outright stupidity, but the fact we're social creatures almost forces us to inflict that stupidity and inconsistency on one-another. Magic won't change that. People of like interests gather, people of similar skills gather; ultimately, people gather. You don't have to like it, but there's really not much you can do to change it, short of changing humans into something else entirely or eliminating them altogether.

Arbane
2012-08-05, 02:02 AM
Doesn't make it any less trite, annoying and pigeonholing for people who don't want to be magic rape-babies.

Hey, a dragon's 20+ Charisma doesn't go away just because they shapeshifted, yaknow.

You might like Pathfinder, then - it's got a lot of different weird ancestors for sorcerers, and one of them is just 'Arcane': Someone who's the offspring of a powerful spellcaster, and inherited a bit of it.



As for wizards, highly intelligent people do tend to congregate and compare theory. This is how the very first colleges were formed early in history. Some social segregation based on ethnicity or ideology is expected, but colleges will naturally form. This is especially true when you consider the fact that political boundaries mean very little to men who can rewrite reality with a few odd gestures and some bat poo.

But keep in mind Terry Pratchett, who points out that the plural of 'witch' may be 'coven', but the plural of 'wizard' is 'argument'.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-08-05, 02:08 AM
Hey, a dragon's 20+ Charisma doesn't go away just because they shapeshifted, yaknow.

You might like Pathfinder, then - it's got a lot of different weird ancestors for sorcerers, and one of them is just 'Arcane': Someone who's the offspring of a powerful spellcaster, and inherited a bit of it.




But keep in mind Terry Pratchett, who points out that the plural of 'witch' may be 'coven', but the plural of 'wizard' is 'argument'.

Also since the sorcerous blood doesn't have to come from the most recent generation, rape-baby is probably way too strong. Your sorcerer may have had a kinky ancestor, but that could've been hundreds or even more than a thousand years ago. Where else do you get magical people if not from distant magical relatives?


About wizards, you didn't get to my more recent posts, did you?

Manly Man
2012-08-05, 02:12 AM
All dragons are stupid enough to not run away when necessary, and too short-sighted to realize that there is more treasure, but only one of their lives.

North_Ranger
2012-08-05, 04:02 AM
All dragons are stupid enough to not run away when necessary, and too short-sighted to realize that there is more treasure, but only one of their lives.

Pathfinder's Dragons Revisited actually subverts that. In its examples of various dragons, most of them flee when reduced below certain hp value - but fight to the death when it comes to defending their lair. I guess it's hard to find prime real estate when you're Huge or larger.

Silus
2012-08-05, 04:56 AM
Evil actions (or thoughts) always equal evil characters: Something I'm wrestling with in Pathfinder Society. Ties in with the "morality is subjective" thing.

So my Half-Elf Varisian Bard hates slavery more than puppy kicking. So she feels it's justified to make every slave trader/human(oid) trafficker pay a steep price for their apparent sins. So she's been really tempted to torch a slave ship after interrogating the crew and even more tempted to run through a few dock workers that willingly worked in a slave-trafficking warehouse, simply on principal.

I mean, it's legal in some nations, but it's still morally wrong in her eyes. And you wouldn't punish a Paladin for freeing slaves in a pro-slavery nation, would you? But apparently her methods are "evil".

faustin
2012-08-05, 07:11 AM
Originally Posted by Manly Man
All dragons are stupid enough to not run away when necessary, and too short-sighted to realize that there is more treasure, but only one of their lives.

Pathfinder's Dragons Revisited actually subverts that. In its examples of various dragons, most of them flee when reduced below certain hp value - but fight to the death when it comes to defending their lair. I guess it's hard to find prime real estate when you're Huge or larger

Somewhat, one of the things I liked from Shadowrun was the "High Dragon Corporative Manipulative Bastard" , like Lofwyr. Dragons knew how to climb into mundane, mortal society by any means necessary, and most of the times times, "fighting a thousand years old dragon per se " wasnīt near as bad as "fighting a dragon with a financial empire and a seat in the Elven Council"

Hyena
2012-08-05, 08:27 AM
The city watch, the goverment and other adventurers should simply put up with the gang of psycho murder hobos. If they don't, they really have no power to stop them or harm them.
Really no comments here.

The Glyphstone
2012-08-05, 08:32 AM
But keep in mind Terry Pratchett, who points out that the plural of 'witch' may be 'coven', but the plural of 'wizard' is 'argument'.

1 wizard = Wizard.
2 wizards = Argument.
3 wizards = blast crater(s).

toapat
2012-08-05, 12:45 PM
1 wizard = Wizard.
2 wizards = Argument.
3 wizards = blast crater(s).

correction: 3+ Wizards = War

Zeful
2012-08-05, 01:21 PM
Hey, a dragon's 20+ Charisma doesn't go away just because they shapeshifted, yaknow.

You might like Pathfinder, then - it's got a lot of different weird ancestors for sorcerers, and one of them is just 'Arcane': Someone who's the offspring of a powerful spellcaster, and inherited a bit of it.No, I hate pathfinder with a passion because it is pretty much an example of "Things you should not try to do to 'fix' 3.5 with."

In that particular example: the Pathfinder Sorcerer, as a whole, sucks. The entire heritage basis makes exploration of a character's history, an otherwise interesting way to get world building in, rote and boring, {{scrubbed}}

The Glyphstone
2012-08-05, 01:30 PM
Frankly, if you assume any mixed-race/species heritage can only be the result of rape, I think the problem there doesn't lie with the game designers...

For that matter, if your questions of sorcerous heritage end with 'what kind of magical creature did my great-great-great-grandparent bone that night at the Sigil Prep kegger?', that's also your fault. Knowing what type of creature is responsible for said powers can only be the beginning of the history and world-building, with a motivated player and creative DM.

Zeful
2012-08-05, 01:44 PM
Frankly, if you assume any mixed-race/species heritage can only be the result of rape, I think the problem there doesn't lie with the game designers...Good thing that's not what I said then, isn't it?


For that matter, if your questions of sorcerous heritage end with 'what kind of magical creature did my great-great-great-grandparent bone that night at the Sigil Prep kegger?', that's also your fault. Knowing what type of creature is responsible for said powers can only be the beginning of the history and world-building, with a motivated player and creative DM.
Also not what I said. If you could keep the strawmanning to a minimum it'd be greatly appreciated.

No, my problem is that having that answer, like poorly written twists in books, pretty much sucks all the mystique and interest out of the character's history. No point in trying to explore something when you're saddled with an element of blisteringly bad writing when you do so.

Blisstake
2012-08-05, 02:03 PM
No, my problem is that having that answer, like poorly written twists in books, pretty much sucks all the mystique and interest out of the character's history. No point in trying to explore something when you're saddled with an element of blisteringly bad writing when you do so.

Wow. Even this topic managed to turn into a Pathfinder debate. I think I'll just say I disagree strenuously on how they're presented in the books, and leave it at that.

Anyway, on topic:

Dungeons and other explorable locations stay unexplored

It doesn't matter if the PCs don't go after a particular hook for an artifact hidden in a dungeon far away, no one else would possibly want to go after it. The dungeon will stay there until they're ready to explore it. It's almost like they're the only adventurers in the world or something.

Giegue
2012-08-05, 02:28 PM
Here's a few that annoy me

Bards are foppish pansies, comic relief characters or both at the same time.

See basically every neverwinter nights game for this sterotype. Bards can be seriously ******, and don't HAVE to sing or play an instrument. They can be grizzled battlefield commander who use preform oratory to shout out commands and rousing battle cries and give pre-battle speeches....or whatever else. They don't have to sit around in battle singing, dancing and playing a lute. How you fluff and play them is very open-ended. It's kinda a shame bards are always stereotypically portrayed as lute-playing foppish dandies because that imagery turns off a LOT of people to an otherwise cool class

Good is pretty and evil is ugly.

Sccubi aside, most evil monsters are butt ugly. Seriously. Just flip through the monster Manuel and you will clearly see how nasty many evil monsters tent to look. However, while some pretty evil monsters exist, it a nigh impossible task to find a good-aligned monster that is ugly. Good monsters are automatically pretty, so it seems, and there are even less ugly good monsters then there is pretty evil ones. Heck, there is even the "willing deformity" feats which are evil only and fluffed as your character willingly making themselves uglier.

Morithias
2012-08-05, 02:42 PM
Here's a few that annoy me

Bards are foppish pansies, comic relief characters or both at the same time.

Good is pretty and evil is ugly.



1. I agree, the bard is so much more than a stupid comic relief. Perform with ANY kind of instrument is sub-par, and singing is useless for stealth. You want to play a bard take perform (acting) which a. useful in the Baatorian courts (Fiendish codex 2), and b. Due to the wide range of "acting" can be used for almost any thing (ever hear of improv?).

2. If you play in one of my campaign NEVER assume that. I am a big fan of the high-class pretty boy or seducers. Assuming the pretty girl won't stab you in the back when you're not looking is suicide (it doesn't help that my setting is heavily populated by changlings).

Ranting Fool
2012-08-05, 03:36 PM
Dungeons and other explorable locations stay unexplored

It doesn't matter if the PCs don't go after a particular hook for an artifact hidden in a dungeon far away, no one else would possibly want to go after it. The dungeon will stay there until they're ready to explore it. It's almost like they're the only adventurers in the world or something.

hehe ah I crush this stereotype when ever I can..... if the players find out about a lost tomb by any way that other people could find (research, map from a bloke in the pub, bumped into it on the way somewhere else) then lots of other adventuring types could come along and do the same :smallbiggrin: There are a few exceptions.

Any "Small" race should be a supporting role and never a front line fighter. Yes yes the -2 str most of them get is a bit sad for dps but it's hardly the end of the world. And as for the +4 to being grappled ect well that isn't the end of the world either.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-08-05, 03:39 PM
Good thing that's not what I said then, isn't it?


Also not what I said. If you could keep the strawmanning to a minimum it'd be greatly appreciated.

No, my problem is that having that answer, like poorly written twists in books, pretty much sucks all the mystique and interest out of the character's history. No point in trying to explore something when you're saddled with an element of blisteringly bad writing when you do so.

But you don't have the answer, beyond, "there's something supernatural in my heritage." Dragons are a common source, since they breed with pretty much anything, but your sorcerous blood could just as easily be from fey, fiend, or celestial heritage. There are dozens of different types of dragons, and hundreds of different types of outsiders, any of whom could have a different impact on what kind of people you and your family are. If you don't demand mechanical support for your choice, you could even be a sorcerer because one of your great-grandparents was a wizard who was a little too fond of transmutations, or a cleric who trafficed with outsiders in a non-copulatory manner, or even just touched by a god of arcane magic. You're only pigeon-holed if you choose to be, or lack the creativity to branch out from what's printed.

Zeful
2012-08-05, 03:53 PM
But you don't have the answer, beyond, "there's something supernatural in my heritage." Dragons are a common source, since they breed with pretty much anything, but your sorcerous blood could just as easily be from fey, fiend, or celestial heritage. There are dozens of different types of dragons, and hundreds of different types of outsiders, any of whom could have a different impact on what kind of people you and your family are. If you don't demand mechanical support for your choice, you could even be a sorcerer because one of your great-grandparents was a wizard who was a little too fond of transmutations, or a cleric who trafficed with outsiders in a non-copulatory manner, or even just touched by a god of arcane magic. You're only pigeon-holed if you choose to be, or lack the creativity to branch out from what's printed.

I'd care more if I didn't think the entire idea is so mindbogglingly stupid for the design of a base class, and there had been a single good implementation of the idea.

I do think such, and there hasn't been.

The Glyphstone
2012-08-05, 04:26 PM
But you don't have the answer, beyond, "there's something supernatural in my heritage." Dragons are a common source, since they breed with pretty much anything, but your sorcerous blood could just as easily be from fey, fiend, or celestial heritage. There are dozens of different types of dragons, and hundreds of different types of outsiders, any of whom could have a different impact on what kind of people you and your family are. If you don't demand mechanical support for your choice, you could even be a sorcerer because one of your great-grandparents was a wizard who was a little too fond of transmutations, or a cleric who trafficed with outsiders in a non-copulatory manner, or even just touched by a god of arcane magic. You're only pigeon-holed if you choose to be, or lack the creativity to branch out from what's printed.

It sounded like he was saying the only possible question was finding out what that supernatural heritage was, since having it answered mechanically (because each heritage is unique in what bonuses it gives) ends the whole thing on a flat note. I disagree, in that it's not an ending but only a beginning...so you know you have Efreeti heritage, that's motivation for you to someday travel to the Plane of Fire to meet your great-great-great-great-grandfather if you want, or simply knowing you have a draconic ancestor doesn't tell you which dragon or anything else beyond that they existed, or finding out you have an Aboleth for an ancestor only creates more bizarre questions like 'how drunk was my great^x grandparent?". It's a wealth of storytelling opportunities, rather than a lame explanation.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-08-05, 05:03 PM
I'd care more if I didn't think the entire idea is so mindbogglingly stupid for the design of a base class, and there had been a single good implementation of the idea.

I do think such, and there hasn't been.

But unless you pick up a heritage feat, or something to that effect, there is nothing in the design of the sorcerer class that demands a supernatural heritage. I even gave two examples that skipped right past your heritage, specifically trafficking with outsiders and being chosen by a god.

enderlord99
2012-08-05, 05:57 PM
This has to do with a couple things mentioned.
I once played a wizard, who was a paragon of righteousness. He would go to slums and hand out tons of money, and pay for healing for poor people. He also enjoyed necromancy. I designed him specifically to mess with people's heads.

He should have theurged.:smalltongue: (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=250524)



But unless you pick up a heritage feat, or something to that effect, there is nothing in the design of the sorcerer class that demands a supernatural heritage. I even gave two examples that skipped right past your heritage, specifically trafficking with outsiders and being chosen by a god.

Please don't feed Schrodinger's Troll.

(I can't tell if he's actually a troll or not) (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PoesLaw)

Lvl45DM!
2012-08-06, 09:31 PM
Evil Characters have to be Stupid Evil

No my Chaotic Evil assassin does NOT have to kill the innocent defenseless virgin. my level 14 character does not CARE about the 10 gold pieces she might have or find the sight of blood beautiful.He might generally enjoy killing and exerting his power but he is aware that wanton murder has consequences. Thats why he's an adventurer!!! So he can kill things without being chastised! He can respect authority without direct threats of violence. He doesn't like to but he's smart and knows that slaughtering these level 4 guards might be easy but that just means bounty hunters and higher level guards and problems. I am not the Joker! I can be the Penguin or the Riddler too!

Halflings aren't racist
Dwarves hate goblinoids and giants, gnomes hate kobolds and giante, elves hate orcs and drow, humans can be all over the place but halflings are NEVER racist! Bugs me to no end! My halfling hates all "big races" which is pretty much major race except halflings and gnomes. Dwarves might not be that big but they act big so they suck too.

Marlowe
2012-08-06, 09:56 PM
Fantastic Racism in general.

Firewind
2012-08-07, 09:56 AM
Always Chaotic Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlwaysChaoticEvil)

This trope in it's entirety. It's one reason why I really like how 4e made alignment irrelevant.

Not that it stops some DMs and Players of course...

navar100
2012-08-07, 05:35 PM
But unless you pick up a heritage feat, or something to that effect, there is nothing in the design of the sorcerer class that demands a supernatural heritage. I even gave two examples that skipped right past your heritage, specifically trafficking with outsiders and being chosen by a god.

Welcome to Pathfinder, where Sorcerers have a bloodline and get various class features and bonus spells known based on it.
:smallbiggrin:

SoC175
2012-08-07, 06:21 PM
The war god is male and evil.The two biggest D&D settings respectively have a good (Greyhawk) and a neutral (FR)

I'm well aware that this was historicaly accurate, but in DnD? Not so much.How did you come to this conclusion? The D&D sourcebooks, adventures and novels have plenty of unhonorable or evil knights

Monstrous females are never seen.
There should be more! They can be pretty or ugly or both. (You could even spice it up by having the helpful female Monster NPC be less-than attractive, and the hot one being the evil one. xD) On that note, there could be pretty orcs/trolls/gobbies of either gender, if their charisma was high enough.That also sounds like a stereotype of a personal campaign, as D&D modules and novels have plenty of females of the various monster races

Doesn't make it any less trite, annoying and pigeonholing for people who don't want to be magic rape-babies. Why do they have to be? Could just as well have been a mutual union that lasted a lifetime

Kelb_Panthera
2012-08-07, 06:56 PM
Welcome to Pathfinder, where Sorcerers have a bloodline and get various class features and bonus spells known based on it.
:smallbiggrin:

Ah, I see. I am not a pathfinder player.

I actually like 3.5 just the way it is, flaws and all.

Zeful
2012-08-07, 07:07 PM
Why do they have to be? Could just as well have been a mutual union that lasted a lifetime

{{scrubbed}}

Heritage based classes only really work when it's something the player must choose to invest in for the purpose of making the character's heritage matter. This means that developing a base class in a heritage direction when before it was such a minor part of the archetype as to be myth (the actual case of the Sorcerer in 3 and 3.5) and there were perfectly valid reasons to choose that class outside of the heritage is a dumb move, as not only does it alienate those who had not even considered the heritage aspect and picked it for other reasons, it renders the choice of heritage less impactful due to frontloading the questions.

So I say again: If people are going to shoe-horn in the heritage crap where it doesn't belong (and for completeness' sake: in where does is belong? Feats and PrCs, where the choice is for it's own sake, not because bad writers got a hold of something), {{scrubbed}}

Lord_Gareth
2012-08-07, 07:08 PM
Regardless of alignment, sorcerers cannot organize worth crap

Look people. They cast with Charisma. They're obviously people-people or they wouldn't be any good as Sorcerers. Why can't mine be part of an organization?

Erik Vale
2012-08-07, 07:58 PM
Same goes with warlocks. You would think that eventually all those dispised warlocks would get their act together and start organising themselves.

Blisstake
2012-08-07, 07:59 PM
So I say again: If people are going to shoe-horn in the heritage crap where it doesn't belong (and for completeness' sake: in where does is belong? Feats and PrCs, where the choice is for it's own sake, not because bad writers got a hold of something), I'm going to shoe-horn in the sexual assault angle.

Okay. Then I guess I won't do that and instead choose to have fun with my sorcerers using the variety of fun options that can be tailored to my backstory however I see fit.

The Random NPC
2012-08-07, 08:02 PM
Heritage based classes only really work when it's something the player must choose to invest in for the purpose of making the character's heritage matter. This means that developing a base class in a heritage direction when before it was such a minor part of the archetype as to be myth (the actual case of the Sorcerer in 3 and 3.5) and there were perfectly valid reasons to choose that class outside of the heritage is a dumb move, as not only does it alienate those who had not even considered the heritage aspect and picked it for other reasons, it renders the choice of heritage less impactful due to frontloading the questions.

So I say again: If people are going to shoe-horn in the heritage crap where it doesn't belong (and for completeness' sake: in where does is belong? Feats and PrCs, where the choice is for it's own sake, not because bad writers got a hold of something), I'm going to shoe-horn in the sexual assault angle.

I don't understand what you're trying to say, is it that the heritage aspect isn't prominent enough? Or that the heritage aspect shouldn't be part of the class at all?

Grimsage Matt
2012-08-07, 08:12 PM
I'm a (insert class that uses heritage here). Now, who (not what) is my ancestor? How did they and my other ancestor meet? Is it possible they're still around? Is it possible that they're involved in my groups activitys? I think I'd like to (Learn more about them/Meet them/Go all murderhobo on them[default]). Maybe I inheritated something more then these powers from them?

Some small things that make it seem less like a shoehorn, and more like a peice of family lore/you managed to figure it out without a massive involved storyline, a [ruined city/long lost tablets/powerful sages] AND 1001 skill checks. my take on it.

enderlord99
2012-08-07, 08:15 PM
I don't understand what you're trying to say, is it that the heritage aspect isn't prominent enough? Or that the heritage aspect shouldn't be part of the class at all?

I think he's saying the second one.

He's also being just as confusing as [redacted] was.

toapat
2012-08-07, 08:24 PM
I think he's saying the second one.

He's also being just as confusing as [redacted] was.

he feels the Sorcerer inherent heritage is crowbarred in.

honestly, i like it more then the normal Sorcs have the blood of dragons somewhere down the line.

The Random NPC
2012-08-07, 08:26 PM
I think he's saying the second one.

He's also being just as confusing as [redacted] was.

If that's the case, and I may be wrong, I believe that draconic heritage isn't fact, but simply the most popular theory.

enderlord99
2012-08-07, 08:47 PM
If that's the case, and I may be wrong, I believe that draconic heritage isn't fact, but simply the most popular theory.

He's talking Pathfinder. Not 3.5.

Zeful
2012-08-07, 09:21 PM
I don't understand what you're trying to say, is it that the heritage aspect isn't prominent enough? Or that the heritage aspect shouldn't be part of the class at all?
Both, actually. And this is where things get hard to explain.

In an ideal scenario, anything that can affect a character's progression as a personality (magic heritage, or the escaped clone flaw from Shadowrun) should be chosen for it's own sake, it should have a relevant effect (flaws should penalize you, magic heritage should do something), but it's existence in the system should only be for it's own sake. It's something you add specifically for all those posts explaining how I'm doing this wrong upthread. The Sorcerer however, was not originally created for that purpose, it was an alternate wizard for the people that didn't want to have to prepare spells every day with some variation handwaved in so that they looked different. Picking one line from that handwave and building that as the sole progression of the class is not adding something for it's own sake. Heritage Sorcerers aren't being designed as this thing you pick for exploring an interesting character backstory, it's for "balancing" the weaker of the two core arcane caster. This is like Shadowrun, deciding all it's mages are wize cracking drunkards, and adding the addiction to booze to the Magician Quality outright. It's forcing character traits on to characters (yes, you can refluff it, just like you can refluff the change to the Magician quality I posited above, but forcing a player to refluff a basic option of the game is poor design, especially when this is a change from a previous version, only added as a balance patch).

Heritage Sorcerer ACFs would be fine. Prestige Classes for Heritage Sorcerers would be fine. Adding default Heritage fluff and mechanics to the Sorcerer? Not fine, it will never be fine, because saying so excuses poor design direction.
And yes, this is about the Pathfinder Sorcerer, and every homebrewer that decides to make add heritage to sorcerers to "fix" them, which is an annoying stereotype to me, hence my posting it in this thread. I was not trying to derail the thread like this.


I think he's saying the second one.

He's also being just as confusing as [redacted] was.
I'm using game design to frame my arguments, if you're not well-versed in it, I can see how it could be confusing.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-08-07, 09:22 PM
He's talking Pathfinder. Not 3.5.

Which seems to be causing no small amount of confusion.

Zeful
2012-08-07, 09:26 PM
Which seems to be causing no small amount of confusion.

Well the impulsive and automatic addition of heritage to Sorcerers as a balance patch is a Stereotype, within D&D (as much as Pathfinder is part of D&D, which the board supports putting them in the forum with 3.5) that annoys me. Which sounds like it fits the scope of the thread, no?

enderlord99
2012-08-07, 09:34 PM
I'm using game design to frame my arguments, if you're not well-versed in it, I can see how it could be confusing.

No, the confusing thing is that you were contradicting yourself.

As in, "always play either a spell-to-power erudite or a domain wizard, but never use cheese."

At least you didn't threaten to murder anyone.

EDIT: at least you've clarified it now.:smallsmile:

Kitten Champion
2012-08-07, 09:35 PM
Always Chaotic Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlwaysChaoticEvil)

This trope in it's entirety. It's one reason why I really like how 4e made alignment irrelevant.

Not that it stops some DMs and Players of course...

It's funny how the message of so many stories are "don't judge a book by the cover" on the one hand, yet on the other were riddled with ugly=evil or black-evil.

It has some unfortunate if hopefully unintentional implications.

Eldest
2012-08-07, 11:04 PM
I'm using game design to frame my arguments, if you're not well-versed in it, I can see how it could be confusing.

I am well versed in game design terms, as I am a game designer, and no. You actually have been fairly confusing. However, you have cleared it up fairly well. I disagree that the heritage is a large part of the class. I think that while the bloodlines mechanic is central to the "crunch" of the class, the flavor is mainly to explain why a sorcerer is especially good at one kind of magic or another, and can be easily changed. Calling all sorcerers rape babies was a bit much. The class "forces" you to play as being distantly related to a magical being (not even always, see the verdant bloodline) but the loss in player agency doesn't have a matching loss of character agency.

Lvl45DM!
2012-08-08, 04:32 AM
Fantastic Racism in general.

See I don't mind Fantastic Racism in general, theres usually a damn fine reason for it. Dwarves hate goblins and giants since goblins and giants live in the mountains and under the mountains they live in and they have different societies. I'm not saying its moral but its...
sensible? mostly. But the fact that halflings don't just makes me feel like designers don't give a rats butt around them. They are also the only major race without an evil version. Duegar Drow and Spriggans but no monstrous halflings.

Ranting Fool
2012-08-08, 07:19 AM
See I don't mind Fantastic Racism in general, theres usually a damn fine reason for it. Dwarves hate goblins and giants since goblins and giants live in the mountains and under the mountains they live in and they have different societies. I'm not saying its moral but its...
sensible? mostly. But the fact that halflings don't just makes me feel like designers don't give a rats butt around them. They are also the only major race without an evil version. Duegar Drow and Spriggans but no monstrous halflings.

If there was an evil halfling version it would be either "Deep" or "Dark" halfling :smalltongue::smallbiggrin:

Always Good That BBEG can't be an Elf! He has to be a Drow because they are the Evil Elves! Everyone knows Elves are good, poncy, tall and thin. :smalltongue:

Which reminds me I need to stick in some more Fat Elves and nibble dwaves since I have fat as well as thin halflings :smallbiggrin:

Gravitron5000
2012-08-08, 07:56 AM
See I don't mind Fantastic Racism in general, theres usually a damn fine reason for it. Dwarves hate goblins and giants since goblins and giants live in the mountains and under the mountains they live in and they have different societies. I'm not saying its moral but its...
sensible? mostly. But the fact that halflings don't just makes me feel like designers don't give a rats butt around them. They are also the only major race without an evil version. Duegar Drow and Spriggans but no monstrous halflings.

What the heck are Kender, then?

Giegue
2012-08-08, 08:11 AM
Anyway, to get back on topic...here are some more...

Always Evil Schools: The BBEG is a specialist wizard! Can you name his school? If you said Enchantment or Necromancy, congratulations, because it's almost guaranteed to be one of those two! If the BBEG wizard is male, expect Necromancy. If the BBEG wizard is female and attractive, expect enchantment. If she's still female but old and/or ugly then expect Necromancy. No matter what, though, a BBEG wizard who is a specialist will pretty much always specialize in one of these two schools, with Necromancy being the more common and cliche'd of the two.

Dragonomics: Dragons are intelligent. Dragons hoard gold. Thus, dragons who live a long time have LOTS of gold. Why, then, hasen't a smart dragon decided to increase their hoard even more by investing said gold and buying out a massive mercantile empire or something? For creatures meant to be greedy, dragons sure don't have a head for business because if they did they'd be using all that stored up treasure to monopolize every business there is. Yet instead they just let it sit around and draw greedy homicidal hobos(aka adventurers.) to their caves to kill them. Smart dragons....very, very smart.

Kesnit
2012-08-08, 08:22 AM
Dragonomics: Dragons are intelligent. Dragons hoard gold. Thus, dragons who live a long time have LOTS of gold. Why, then, hasen't a smart dragon decided to increase their hoard even more by investing said gold and buying out a massive mercantile empire or something? For creatures meant to be greedy, dragons sure don't have a head for business because if they did they'd be using all that stored up treasure to monopolize every business there is. Yet instead they just let it sit around and draw greedy homicidal hobos(aka adventurers.) to their caves to kill them. Smart dragons....very, very smart.

You just gave me an idea... :smallbiggrin:

The Random NPC
2012-08-08, 08:28 AM
If there was an evil halfling version it would be either "Deep" or "Dark" halfling :smalltongue::smallbiggrin:

Always Good That BBEG can't be an Elf! He has to be a Drow because they are the Evil Elves! Everyone knows Elves are good, poncy, tall and thin. :smalltongue:

Which reminds me I need to stick in some more Fat Elves and nibble dwaves since I have fat as well as thin halflings :smallbiggrin:

Little known fact, elves are about a foot shorter than humans, on average.

faustin
2012-08-08, 08:50 AM
Always Good That BBEG can't be an Elf! He has to be a Drow because they are the Evil Elves! Everyone knows Elves are good, poncy, tall and thin

And, at some point, the "gay elves" jokes begin to annoy a lot :smallannoyed:

Thank goodness Terry Pratchett put the elves into their Fair Folk shoes again.

Menteith
2012-08-08, 09:03 AM
See I don't mind Fantastic Racism in general, theres usually a damn fine reason for it. Dwarves hate goblins and giants since goblins and giants live in the mountains and under the mountains they live in and they have different societies. I'm not saying its moral but its...
sensible? mostly. But the fact that halflings don't just makes me feel like designers don't give a rats butt around them. They are also the only major race without an evil version. Duegar Drow and Spriggans but no monstrous halflings.

Jerren (Book of Vile Darkness, p13) are corrupt, cannibalistic halflings who hunt down and consume those who cross over their lands. They spread plague intentionally, produce only weapons, torture equipment, and poison (and steal the rest of what they need), and are apparently all sadists who ritually scar themselves.

Water_Bear
2012-08-08, 09:27 AM
Jerren (Book of Vile Darkness, p13) are corrupt, cannibalistic halflings who hunt down and consume those who cross over their lands. They spread plague intentionally, produce only weapons, torture equipment, and poison (and steal the rest of what they need), and are apparently all sadists who ritually scar themselves.

A Wild D&D Stereotype Appears!

Evil Races Aren't Subtle

Usually Good races like Dwarves/Elves/Halflings get to have prejudices or cultural blind-spots (Dwarven Greed, Elven Arrogance, Halfling Sloth) but Evil races must be completely one-dimensional Evil. Even Evil variants of Good races are vile to a completely unproductive extreme.

faustin
2012-08-08, 09:40 AM
Jerren (Book of Vile Darkness, p13) are corrupt, cannibalistic halflings who hunt down and consume those who cross over their lands. They spread plague intentionally, produce only weapons, torture equipment, and poison (and steal the rest of what they need), and are apparently all sadists who ritually scar themselves.


Dark Sunīs usual concept of halflings.

SoC175
2012-08-10, 02:38 PM
Always Good That BBEG can't be an Elf! He has to be a Drow because they are the Evil Elves! Everyone knows Elves are good, poncy, tall and thin. :smalltongue:Also not really an D&D sterotypes. Especially the FR are full of elven villians. In fact it has been so overdone that all gold elves are seens as "nazi herrenelves" by many people because of how elitist and racist they have been portrayed in the novels to the extent of wondering if the elves didn't drive the wrong sub-race into the underdark.

Dr.Epic
2012-08-10, 02:39 PM
Elves are always either great wizards or great archers.

Morithias
2012-08-10, 02:41 PM
Elves are always either great wizards or great archers.

Elves are always the greatest wizards even though the lesser tiefling is better made for a wizard. (Hell better made for the archer too, no con score lacking)

Drako_shorty
2012-08-10, 04:59 PM
Clerics are only good for healing.


I actually made a cleric who is specifically very skilled in combat as well, I took Weapon Focus (Mace) and beat someone to death with it (He was the BBEG who was a henchman to an even bigger BBEG) He was however also insanely skilled with healing and was given power from his gods that made him a little OP, but it was a solo and so she just made tougher foes. I also beat a god down with their bane item.


-The Airship will always have Magical flapping wings, or Propeller blades, it can never be advanced looking.

One of my favorite campaigns we has an airship that was run with a magical engine that cast an infinite fly spell on it and there were controls that allowed it to land and sail. It looked like a normal boat.

SpamandEggs
2012-08-10, 07:27 PM
A lich must always be a rotting skeleton, even though, by definition, they are high-level spellcasters who could make themselves look like whatever they want with some fairly simple spells.

Seriously, the fact that liches live isolated lives is stupid. They have magic, they could be anyone.

Sgt. Cookie
2012-08-10, 08:14 PM
Technicly speakng, a Lich doesn't even need to look undead. Meaning that you could look perfectly normal and still be a lich.

Grimsage Matt
2012-08-10, 08:16 PM
Undead count as corpses, and gentle repose is a 1st level spell. They never age for some reason....

Archpaladin Zousha
2012-08-10, 11:17 PM
If there was an evil halfling version it would be either "Deep" or "Dark" halfling :smalltongue::smallbiggrin:

Always Good That BBEG can't be an Elf! He has to be a Drow because they are the Evil Elves! Everyone knows Elves are good, poncy, tall and thin. :smalltongue:

Which reminds me I need to stick in some more Fat Elves and nibble dwaves since I have fat as well as thin halflings :smallbiggrin:
This frustrates me to no end. As someone who prefers a heftier physique, it ultimately means elves don't excite me at all. What is it about them that demands they have an ungodly fast metabolism? :smallannoyed:

Greyfeld85
2012-08-10, 11:36 PM
Every Druid is a Hippie: There are four possible alignments a Druid can have, why does there only seem to be one personality? To say nothing of the fact that what "nature's way" is isn't exactly set in stone.

My two favorite druid characters were a plant-centric herbalist that loved to attend parties and mingle with the "human folk" in his spare time, and a city-dwelling druid who was part of the local grove that worked alongside the local farmers to increase crop production.

Unfortunately, both game fell through not a week after they started.

Maugan Ra
2012-08-11, 12:07 AM
Dragonomics: Dragons are intelligent. Dragons hoard gold. Thus, dragons who live a long time have LOTS of gold. Why, then, hasen't a smart dragon decided to increase their hoard even more by investing said gold and buying out a massive mercantile empire or something? For creatures meant to be greedy, dragons sure don't have a head for business because if they did they'd be using all that stored up treasure to monopolize every business there is. Yet instead they just let it sit around and draw greedy homicidal hobos(aka adventurers.) to their caves to kill them. Smart dragons....very, very smart.

I'd like to introduce you to the Great Dragon Lofwyr, CEO of Saeder-Krupp Heavy Industries, and one of the richest beings in the world of Shadowrun. He wields significantly more financial and political influence than most countries, and combined with the sheer physical and magical abilities that come from being a Greater Dragon, he has a decent claim at being the most dangerous individual on Earth.

He has a wonderful reputation among Shadowrunners as both paying marvelously for success, and delivering truly terrifying reprisals for incompetence and any hostilities taken against his interests. A smart team sticks an extra 20% on to their price at the slightest mention that they'll be going against Saeder-Krupp, and only the most idiotic accept direct work against the dragons pet projects.

I do wish there were more dragons like him in fantasy...

Morithias
2012-08-11, 12:51 AM
Snip

What do you think of my dragons?

In the beginning there were 4 races, the fiends, the celestials, the dragons, and the humans. During their human beginnings many of the humans were too weak or uneducated to aid themselves against the harsh realities of nature, and as no Humans had ascended to heaven to become the first gods the creator could not make clerics to aid them (a no-interference clause, the creator has), as such the raising and guidance of humans was left to the dragons, especially the great platinum dragon bahamut (sp?).

A few thousand years later the humans have become self-self-sufficient, along with the other races that either evolved or were created via cross-breeding wit the celesials, fiends and dragons (elves, dwarves, halflings, etc), and the dragons have retreated into hiding, however they are there. Watching for when they are needed, and taking human form to continue their quest for the creator, to make a world where the creator is no longer needed, yet free will still exists the "Utopia" they call it.

faustin
2012-08-11, 06:09 AM
I'd like to introduce you to the Great Dragon Lofwyr, CEO of Saeder-Krupp Heavy Industries, and one of the richest beings in the world of Shadowrun. He wields significantly more financial and political influence than most countries, and combined with the sheer physical and magical abilities that come from being a Greater Dragon, he has a decent claim at being the most dangerous individual on Earth.

He has a wonderful reputation among Shadowrunners as both paying marvelously for success, and delivering truly terrifying reprisals for incompetence and any hostilities taken against his interests. A smart team sticks an extra 20% on to their price at the slightest mention that they'll be going against Saeder-Krupp, and only the most idiotic accept direct work against the dragons pet projects.

I do wish there were more dragons like him in fantasy

I mentioned Lofwyr earlier. Donīt forget he has a seat on the Elven Council too. As far I know, Samuel Verner is the only shadowrunner who has managed to mess with him and get away (and only because he was a protagonist).

Hyena
2012-08-11, 09:50 AM
The druids are either hippies or man-killing animal wrongs eco-terrorists. Okay, I'm pretty guilty of this.

navar100
2012-08-11, 10:56 AM
A lich must always be a rotting skeleton, even though, by definition, they are high-level spellcasters who could make themselves look like whatever they want with some fairly simple spells.

Seriously, the fact that liches live isolated lives is stupid. They have magic, they could be anyone.

I wonder how many liches will now be Voldemort-inspired villains. "Horcrux" is easier to say than "phylactery". :smallbiggrin:

faustin
2012-08-11, 12:20 PM
A lich must always be a rotting skeleton, even though, by definition, they are high-level spellcasters who could make themselves look like whatever they want with some fairly simple spells

Azalin Rex disagrees.

Manly Man
2012-08-11, 06:30 PM
Succubi are only good at seduction.

toapat
2012-08-11, 06:35 PM
Succubi are only good at seduction.

it is in their nature though...

would you really want one in a government office though?

Morithias
2012-08-11, 06:54 PM
it is in their nature though...

would you really want one in a government office though?

well in pathfinder's kingmaker rules for running kingdoms if two rulers are married they get to add BOTH their charisma mods to the checks...so yes.

enderlord99
2012-08-12, 09:27 AM
well in pathfinder's kingmaker rules for running kingdoms if two rulers are married they get to add BOTH their charisma mods to the checks...so yes.

...You would honestly want a demon in a government office.:smallsigh:

Are you part of a conspiracy group or something?

Yora
2012-08-12, 10:13 AM
Succubi are only good at seduction.

they are not even good at it. "hey, want to have sex with a random stranger who appeared from nowhere?"

Zombimode
2012-08-12, 11:25 AM
Seriously, the fact that liches live isolated lives is stupid.

It only is when you assume that there is no difference in being a normal living creature and being an undead.

toapat
2012-08-12, 12:22 PM
...You would honestly want a demon in a government office.:smallsigh:

Are you part of a conspiracy group or something?

i wasnt even getting at that she is a Chaotic Evil manifestation

I was getting at the fact that at least half the Succubus' mind is dedicated to sex, flirting, and sex

Kelb_Panthera
2012-08-12, 01:40 PM
they are not even good at it. "hey, want to have sex with a random stranger who appeared from nowhere?"
You'd be surprised at how often that line works just fine. If you're an at least moderately attractive woman, you can say that to most of the men in a bar and get a response of, "Heck, yes. Your place or mine?"

well in pathfinder's kingmaker rules for running kingdoms if two rulers are married they get to add BOTH their charisma mods to the checks...so yes.

You'd have a demon, a living embodiment of chaos and evil, as your queen?

That sounds like a remarkably bad idea.

Morithias
2012-08-12, 02:39 PM
You'd have a demon, a living embodiment of chaos and evil, as your queen?

That sounds like a remarkably bad idea.

The current "queen" in our war campaign is an evil aasimar who is a cleric of Bel, while the other "queen" (there are two princes who rule), is a disciple of dispater. I think a succubus that's CN or CG would be a step up almost.

Blisstake
2012-08-12, 02:58 PM
The current "queen" in our war campaign is an evil aasimar who is a cleric of Bel, while the other "queen" (there are two princes who rule), is a disciple of dispater. I think a succubus that's CN or CG would be a step up almost.

Evil aasimar? That's so hipster.

http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/6383/hipsternualiax.jpg

Hopeless
2012-08-12, 03:05 PM
The "were-" in "werewolf" means "man". A "werehuman" makes as much sense semantically as a superhero called "Man-man" ("he has the strength of one man!").

So wolfwere then?

Outside of Werewolf the Apocalypse has a wolf cursed with the form of a man ever been as troublesome as a werewolf?

Kelb_Panthera
2012-08-12, 03:13 PM
The current "queen" in our war campaign is an evil aasimar who is a cleric of Bel, while the other "queen" (there are two princes who rule), is a disciple of dispater. I think a succubus that's CN or CG would be a step up almost.

Ah........ well in that case I suppose a succubus would be a step up. At least people would get a little more freedom, maybe. (probably not.)

Hopeless
2012-08-12, 03:36 PM
Yeah. What also strikes me as odd is why dragons are attracted to humans and other creatures(horses, panthers, etc.) even though it'd make more sense for them to be more attracted to members of their own species. Not that I'm saying love between a dragon and a human or other non-dragon creature shouldn't happen, say, if they're attracted to each other's personalities or something, or as it's sometimes justified, superior minion creation, but I don't get why the creators decided to give dragons, who are supposed to be wise and intelligent in their doings and magic and such, such a primal lust for everything with a pulse. Sort of feels like a character flaw tacked on.

Given their spellcasting is sorceror based that with their Charisma it might actually be easier for them to get laid with a member of another race than one of their own?
Given the ability to shapeshift how the heck will the non-dragon side of the relationship ever figure out who they need to find regarding paternity and as for the female side of things... well you better just pay up or else!

Hopeless
2012-08-12, 03:40 PM
Only Orangutans can run Magical Libraries

Certainly makes it easier to bribe them doesn't it?:smallbiggrin:

Yora
2012-08-12, 03:44 PM
You'd be surprised at how often that line works just fine. If you're an at least moderately attractive woman, you can say that to most of the men in a bar and get a response of, "Heck, yes. Your place or mine?"
but that still does not make them good at seduction. that takes as much skill as fighting enemies who attack your sword with their bare neck.:smallbiggrin:

Morithias
2012-08-12, 04:00 PM
Evil aasimar? That's so hipster.


When you're a paladin of tyranny/blackguard on one side, and a ancestral speaker cleric on the otherside, the +2 wis +2 cha is a powerful bonus.

I didn't pick it cause it was hipster, I picked it cause it was simply the best option. Hell originally the concept was just "evil princess" and "black knight" until a lot of rewriting and new concepts caused the gender reversal.

WildPyre
2012-08-12, 04:02 PM
Two of mine are

Goblins are stupid and barbaric

While at the same time

Every Goblin alchemist is a pyromaniac

First off, if goblins are stupid and barbaric how would they even learn alchemy? Not to mention that the average goblin would have the same int and wis of your average human. Pathfinder even goes so far as to have them fear the act of writing something down and being universally illiterate. I mean seriously? So now they're stupid little barbaric pyros that don't write anything down...

MrRigger
2012-08-12, 04:06 PM
Given their spellcasting is sorceror based that with their Charisma it might actually be easier for them to get laid with a member of another race than one of their own?
Given the ability to shapeshift how the heck will the non-dragon side of the relationship ever figure out who they need to find regarding paternity and as for the female side of things... well you better just pay up or else!

I imagine part of the reason for it is because romance between dragons would be dangerous, especially for chromatic dragons. Dragons are major predators, so any other dragons moving in would force you to protect your territory against intruders, even if both of you are looking to reproduce. And that's just for civil metallic dragons, chromatic dragons have to be on the watch for double-crosses by their mate. Romancing other species isn't necessarily a matter of preference, it's a matter of safety. Though preference might come into it, I remember coming across one town where everything was half Black Dragon. Everything. From the commoners to the cows to the cats. It was really kind of creepy.

MrRigger

Slipperychicken
2012-08-12, 04:08 PM
but that still does not make them good at seduction. that takes as much skill as fighting enemies who attack your sword with their bare neck.:smallbiggrin:

Then it's just a question of how good you have to be. Perhaps they just get lazy/sloppy from not having a challenge.

Besides, how hard do you really need to try when you've got Charm Person and Change Shape at-will? :smallbiggrin:

Kelb_Panthera
2012-08-12, 04:35 PM
Then it's just a question of how good you have to be. Perhaps they just get lazy/sloppy from not having a challenge.

Besides, how hard do you really need to try when you've got Charm Person and Change Shape at-will? :smallbiggrin:

Cheating does make things alot easier. :belkar:

Blisstake
2012-08-12, 04:36 PM
When you're a paladin of tyranny/blackguard on one side, and a ancestral speaker cleric on the otherside, the +2 wis +2 cha is a powerful bonus.

I didn't pick it cause it was hipster, I picked it cause it was simply the best option. Hell originally the concept was just "evil princess" and "black knight" until a lot of rewriting and new concepts caused the gender reversal.

That was what we call a joke.

Kitten Champion
2012-08-12, 04:37 PM
I think the effort involved in seduction would be considerably greater when outside of a relaxed social situation. Turning people into submissive slaves and clouding the minds of even those who are trying to slay them should be an impressive ability. More terrifying in concept than simply being attacked physically.

I've yet to encounter a succubus/incubus in a campaign, but I know enchanters can be extremely annoying to deal with if you're weak willed.

Morithias
2012-08-12, 04:41 PM
That was what we call a joke.

I lack the ability to read between the lines. Sorry, can you put it in blue or something next time? I apologize.

Zale
2012-08-12, 04:42 PM
Sorceress is really code for "Half-Naked Magical Bimbo".

Yora
2012-08-12, 05:01 PM
Sorceress is really code for "Half-Naked Magical Bimbo".

like Qara from NWN2.

in fact, "like NWN2" could be said about the whole thread.:smallamused:

Eldan
2012-08-12, 05:04 PM
Hey, how else would you represent your sorceress' "charisma" in game?

(I kid, I kid.)

Yora
2012-08-12, 05:09 PM
"no, they all have that power"

Blisstake
2012-08-12, 05:11 PM
I lack the ability to read between the lines. Sorry, can you put it in blue or something next time? I apologize.

I forgot about the blue text thing. I will keep that in consideration next time, thank you.

Slipperychicken
2012-08-12, 05:41 PM
I think the effort involved in seduction would be considerably greater when outside of a relaxed social situation. Turning people into submissive slaves and clouding the minds of even those who are trying to slay them should be an impressive ability. More terrifying in concept than simply being attacked physically.


You'd have to be an idiot to try that in the heat of battle. Succubi have above-average Int and Wis, so they probably had this realization long before the encounter began. Also, it seems like their schtick is just Draining people to death, rather than making them slaves.


Well, the most obvious tactic is to Detect Thoughts to determine preferences, then Change Shape and nab a PC while he's alone. Taking 10, she has a 37 Disguise, nearly impossible to see through. Then she spams Charm until it seems to stick, and Drain him to death.

Sith_Happens
2012-08-12, 07:18 PM
I lack the ability to read between the lines. Sorry, can you put it in blue or something next time? I apologize.

Blue text is for squares.

Manly Man
2012-08-13, 08:12 AM
Any Tome of Battle character has to yell out the name of their maneuver as it's performed.

Dimers
2012-08-13, 10:59 AM
Every Goblin alchemist is a pyromaniac

Nonsense. Many of them are quite satisfied destroying themselves, each other, enemy combatants, buildings, and large swathes of forest with poisonous acid clouds instead of fiery explosions. :smallbiggrin:

Raimun
2012-08-13, 01:10 PM
"Someone should play a healbot."

Luckily, the iconic healbot class, the Cleric is so uber-powered it breaks the mould of tank-healer-mezzer-dpr.

... The mould being a general thing I don't like in any games. I think people make at least subconsciously most parties balanced. I can't remember any D&D-party where all players described their characters as warriors or holymen or members of the thieves guild or scholars from an arcane academy, even though it would make sense for them to band up:

"We are the mercenary warband from the far north! The War Guys!" :smallfurious:
...or something like that. :smalltongue:

My point is, now days, a party of fighters or rogues or whatever would actually be a more rag tag bunch of misfits than the standard issue rag tag bunch of misfits, who have nothing in common.

Hiro
2012-08-13, 02:27 PM
Two Words:

Drizzt Wannabes.

Zale
2012-08-13, 04:09 PM
Always Evil Creatures Are Never Evil. Instead, They Have Inverted Alignments And Angst Constantly About Their EVUL Nature.

Morithias
2012-08-13, 04:28 PM
Always Evil Creatures Are Never Evil. Instead, They Have Inverted Alignments And Angst Constantly About Their EVUL Nature.

Always Evil creatures are always evil, so it's safe to bash their brains in on looks alone creating horrible racial implications!

(Yeah somehow you get both of these)

Lanaya
2012-08-13, 04:46 PM
Any Tome of Battle character has to yell out the name of their maneuver as it's performed.

I think that only really applies to FIVE-SHADOW CREEPING ICE ENERVATION STRIKE! Because there's no way you could use a manoeuver with a name like FIVE-SHADOW CREEPING ICE ENERVATION STRIKE! without yelling FIVE-SHADOW CREEPING ICE ENERVATION STRIKE!

Eldan
2012-08-13, 05:42 PM
Which clearly indicates that most maneuvers just have the wrong names.

Raging Black Mongoose Claw Battle Jump!
Wing of the Golden Phoenix Sevenfold Firestorm!
Deadly Manticore Supreme Parrying Strike!

Kane0
2012-08-13, 06:21 PM
Undead are eeeevil
There is no such thing as 'affably evil'
Eeeevil cannot be polite, friendly or benign in any way
Detect Evil/Good/Law/Chaos is a license to kill
The world scales in power relevant to your own
There will always be something/someone to keep you in check

Arbane
2012-08-13, 06:50 PM
There is no such thing as 'affably evil'
Eeeevil cannot be polite, friendly or benign in any way


If it doesn't talk before the battle starts, it's OK to kill it.

(I've noticed very few DMs I've played with have ANY 'chatty' enemies.

Kane0
2012-08-13, 07:13 PM
If it doesn't talk before the battle starts, it's OK to kill it.

And by extension of these, adventurers can kill with little to no consequence

Actually got averted in one session where our trigger happy gunslinger killed the slave-master mayor (who was seeking shelter in our fort because of a war nearby) then got put on trial by the king for killing his brother in law. He didn't learn though.

Sith_Happens
2012-08-13, 07:30 PM
I think that only really applies to FIVE-SHADOW CREEPING ICE ENERVATION STRIKE! Because there's no way you could use a manoeuver with a name like FIVE-SHADOW CREEPING ICE ENERVATION STRIKE! without yelling FIVE-SHADOW CREEPING ICE ENERVATION STRIKE!

I believe you mean SHADOW HAND STYLE: FIVE-SHADOW CREEPING ICE ENERVATION STRIKE! Because there would be no point in organizing maneuvers into disciplines if you weren't supposed to yell out the discipline names too.:smalltongue:

Marillion
2012-08-13, 09:46 PM
"no, they all have that power"

Would that be a Calvin and Hobbes reference? :smallbiggrin:

Manly Man
2012-08-13, 10:02 PM
Eeeevil cannot be polite, friendly or benign in any way

I once had my players get a personal invitation by the guy that they knew to be the Big Bad to his keep for tea to discuss what exactly they were planning. Unfortunately, only the warforged wasn't killed by the arsenic in the scones, and he almost died as he bailed.

Yora
2012-08-14, 02:54 AM
Would that be a Calvin and Hobbes reference? :smallbiggrin:

indeed :smallwink:

Man on Fire
2012-08-14, 11:33 AM
- Goblins, kobolds, and other stock humanoid monster races are always evil and deserving to be killed. The Giant and his comic are doing a much better job at explaining what's wrong with that train of thought than I.

Amen to that.


- All adventurers are male. If they aren't, then they are defined by their unrestrained sexiness or their chastity, but are always pretty and sufficiently young. Ahahahahah... no. Just no. Look around you IRL. There are many women who have diverse goals and personalities, and few look like top models. And they almost always fall somewhere between "sex goddess" and "prude virgin". That's because they're people too. It's more than okay to play a woman whose sexuality doesn't influence most of her decisions, or who has little charisma. If you can play fantasy races "right" without actually having seen any of them IRL, then playing a 3-dimensional female shouldn't be that hard.
- Following on that, All physical warriors are male. Unless they're also stealthy or look really pretty while fighting, in which case they're female. I'm not talking about amazons, I'm talking about warriors wearing decent armor and combating with sufficient strength, who also happen to be female. Similarly, graceful mystical warriors can be male. And not gay. Really.


I managed to avoid those two with character in Orc pbf Campaing. She is Frenzied Berserker and is, as physical describtion says "muscular, even for an Orc" and her sexuality don't come into play at all.


I'm not opposed or bothered by this. But, nor am I bothered by people distrusting new party members. Nothing is more painful than party members who can't work together. The game can come to a standstill because one player won't share character knowledge or something. But, I ultimately agree it is more realistic to role play in an untrusting way. Another annoying thing playing a sneaky or less than trustworthy character. Say... A spider clan goji assasin masquerading as a honorable Lion.
Acting check exceeded 50? Sorry all NPCs and PCs don't trust you for no apparent reason. It's irritating listening to player trying to justify their distrust. It's kinda silly, because sometimes my character will be a flawless liar and they magically distrust him. Despite having no clear idea of why.

Look at this that way: you and your buddies are playing football every day, you're a team and you know what to expect from one anothern you know and trust each other. When the new guy joins your team, you don't know him, you don't know what to expect from him, when you should give him the ball, what are his good and bad sides. Because of that your first early games will be quite off, as you learn what new guy is good at and how to play with him. So should be adventuring parties when new member joins them - first few games together should be about characters getting to know and trust each other and learning what to expect from each other in combat.


There's a reason for this one, if another party is equal or more effective, why is it your party is the one to save the world? It would be best to hire them both, and since they probably have the same leads, they'll be joining you. All of a sudden, you have a DMPC party joining the regular one. Watch them be awesome!

The other party do their own stuff and probably save the world from other threats. Bards in tavers sometimes sings about heroic deeds of your party and sometimes about that other guys. Then, one day your party is hired to retrive an artifact from a tomb and finds out somebody else hired those other guys for the same purpose. Adventure just writes itself.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-08-16, 12:50 AM
Wizards are basically sexy librarians with spell slots

I refuse to see the problem with this.


, and Clerics, at least in my experience, are either loli's or naive 'girl-next-door' types.

Other than Jaela and deliberate parody characters I've not once ever seen this.

Agrippa
2012-08-16, 12:58 AM
Clerics, at least in my experience, are either loli's or naive 'girl-next-door' types.

I tend to imagine clerics more like Paladin Anderson (http://hellsing.wikia.com/wiki/Alexander_Anderson) in many ways. So shouldn't a female cleric basically be a female Anderson?

Man on Fire
2012-08-16, 06:52 PM
Any Half-Human Hybrid with exceptions of half-elf ad half-dragon is a result of rape and If you have bloodline of any creature, except an elf or dragon, it means your ancestor was raped.

I realized those two from reading few pages in this thread.

Marlowe
2012-08-16, 10:42 PM
I tend to imagine clerics more like Paladin Anderson (http://hellsing.wikia.com/wiki/Alexander_Anderson) in many ways. So shouldn't a female cleric basically be a female Anderson?

Because then either nobody else in the party would get a word in, or they'd all join in and the world would be destroyed by their sheer concentrated power of Ham.

And ditto to never, ever having seen a female Cleric who was a little girl or a naive girl next door. If anything, Clerics are well-meaning not-very clever men with silly haircuts. is more the rule I've seen.

Slipperychicken
2012-08-17, 01:56 AM
And ditto to never, ever having seen a female Cleric who was a little girl or a naive girl next door. If anything, Clerics are well-meaning not-very clever men with silly haircuts. is more the rule I've seen.

That's what you get when you try to root out injustice, but don't have Sense Motive as a class skill, and a list of abilities which pretty much command you: "Cast this spell, shine with the (un)holy brilliance, then cave someone's skull in with a mace".

Blisstake
2012-08-17, 07:18 AM
I tend to imagine clerics more like Paladin Anderson (http://hellsing.wikia.com/wiki/Alexander_Anderson) in many ways. So shouldn't a female cleric basically be a female Anderson?

I misread that as Pamela Anderson. I was confused for a bit.

Marlowe
2012-08-17, 07:20 AM
Ouch. Now I'm imagining Pamela Anderson as Seras Victoria.:smalleek:

Krazzman
2012-08-17, 08:16 AM
Ouch. Now I'm imagining Pamela Anderson as Seras Victoria.:smalleek:

That woudl have been fanservice... about 10+ years ago...

navar100
2012-08-17, 01:14 PM
Sisterhoods in fluff and game settings and female-only prestige classes, but never only a Brotherhood. No, it's always modified as Brotherhood & Sisterhood. The only male-only prestige class is the Eunuch.

Morithias
2012-08-17, 01:17 PM
Sisterhoods in fluff and game settings and female-only prestige classes, but never only a Brotherhood. No, it's always modified as Brotherhood & Sisterhood. The only male-only prestige class is the Eunuch.

There is a male only prestige class I believe it's the demon prince of giant's (I forget his name they're all so hard to remember) thrall class. It was male only, but unfortionately it was underwhelming. It was similar to the dragon disciple in that it's just better to slap half-Minotaur on a human than bother with the giant transformation the class gives you.

Roguenewb
2012-08-17, 02:49 PM
All Bad Guys Wanna Fight: Sigh, the number of fights that didn't help...Sometimes the bad guy wants to run a farm, or will surrender at the sight of swords.

The Shopkeeper With a Scroll Library: Oh the number of times "I go to the shop and buy a scroll of this spell that's in one rare splatbook that only helps in one circumstance and was invented only once" has happened in my games.

Full Attacks Only: I don't care if this is mechanically a good idea, but the number of melee characters who refuse to do anything besides a character based on full attacks...annoys me. I *like* moving around the battlefield, and re-engaging where it's needed. One of the best reasons to like Tome of Battle in my opinion, is that it fought this. Everyone just freaking forget about Lion Spirit Totem Barbarian please...it should never have been.

Marlowe
2012-08-17, 11:14 PM
That woudl have been fanservice... about 10+ years ago...

It also has the problem of involving Pamela Anderson playing a virgin.

Slipperychicken
2012-08-18, 03:24 PM
Full Attacks Only: I don't care if this is mechanically a good idea, but the number of melee characters who refuse to do anything besides a character based on full attacks...annoys me. I *like* moving around the battlefield, and re-engaging where it's needed. One of the best reasons to like Tome of Battle in my opinion, is that it fought this. Everyone just freaking forget about Lion Spirit Totem Barbarian please...it should never have been.

Honestly, the Full Attack is by far the most efficient action a non-spellcasting fighting-character can take. The game assumes you'll try to take one at every opportunity, and you end up dealing way more damage. You'll probably want another system which encourages that kind of thing, or allow Full Attacks and movement in the same action.

toapat
2012-08-18, 04:36 PM
Honestly, the Full Attack is by far the most efficient action a non-spellcasting fighting-character can take. The game assumes you'll try to take one at every opportunity, and you end up dealing way more damage. You'll probably want another system which encourages that kind of thing, or allow Full Attacks and movement in the same action.

The full attack action is most optimal for a character who does not have access to high level maneuvers or spellcasting.

the problem is support wasnt made for it, which took the poor balance of spellcasting vs normals and just stomped it into the dirt.

Randumbness
2014-08-07, 08:30 PM
Chaotic Good drow elf with two scimitars.

Jakodee
2014-08-07, 10:17 PM
All pantheons have gods of all alighnments. This historically wasn't usually true.

" Humans are always the most populous race " look up the Codex Alera series for a subversion.

Jakodee
2014-08-07, 10:48 PM
Dragons are uber powerful.
For the record I use dragons as the original interpretation of a man to elephant sized lizard monster.

Arbane
2014-08-07, 10:56 PM
Dragons are uber powerful.
For the record I use dragons as the original interpretation of a man to elephant sized lizard monster.

Preach it, brother.

A dragon is a flying, fire-breathing, intelligent Tyrannosaurus Rex! Adding spellcasting on top of that is just excessive.

Lord Raziere
2014-08-07, 11:15 PM
Evil orcs, goblins, dragons, trolls, ogres, undead, drow,.....pretty much almost everything except demons being always evil. and they only get a pass because they are basically made of evil.
-I prefer how Eberron handles such things

wizard Batman wannabes
-its always "wizards are about preparing for this and that" as if Batman is the greater hero ever and he was freaking magical when the entire point of him was that he didn't use magic

that elves are always arrogant evil racist elitists.
-seriously, when are we going to just ignore any fluff that implies this and just make them nicer and more reasonable? just because a lot of authors use them poorly doesn't mean you should.

AMFV
2014-08-07, 11:54 PM
Evil orcs, goblins, dragons, trolls, ogres, undead, drow,.....pretty much almost everything except demons being always evil. and they only get a pass because they are basically made of evil.
-I prefer how Eberron handles such things

Well I think even in Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance "Always Evil" doesn't really mean always evil. Hell, even Demons aren't as we have seen with the succubus Paladin character presented by Wizards.

[QUOTE=Lord Raziere;17902713]
wizard Batman wannabes
-its always "wizards are about preparing for this and that" as if Batman is the greater hero ever and he was freaking magical when the entire point of him was that he didn't use magic


I always thought the point of Batman was that he was psychotic. I mean he certainly goes beyond what any normal human being would, if you want a proper "mundane" or "underpowered" hero look to Green Arrow or the Question, or the Huntress. Batman can (and has under the pen of some writers) go toe to toe with Superman, that puts him well out of mundanity into something much much more.



that elves are always arrogant evil racist elitists.
-seriously, when are we going to just ignore any fluff that implies this and just make them nicer and more reasonable? just because a lot of authors use them poorly doesn't mean you should.

Well being arrogant and racist isn't necessarily a bad characterization. Good characters have good bit and bad bits. You could be a Good character and be an arrogant elitist and a racist. Just because somebody has flaws doesn't deprive them of the ability to be Good.

Sith_Happens
2014-08-08, 12:34 AM
Necromancy. Totally over-done.

Frozen_Feet
2014-08-08, 01:15 AM
How about necromancy that's all about animating the dead and not a single bit about divining from or negotiating with them.

SiuiS
2014-08-08, 03:34 AM
half orcs

elves

Y'all know exactly what i mean.

but to specify for those who don't, every half orc is a mindless dolt useful for nothing more the "Grok smash!!!" and born of rape.

The last half-Orc I saw in play was a paladin. He didn't palad in towns or cities though. He traveled the wilds to bring justice and light, but hated civilization. Sullen, ugly, ragged, he would sit when necessary in the seediest pub and avoid everyone. He took great pleasure in hurting those who tried to be too keen on him. Good is good, but is not nice.

Was a fun run. Definitely worth subverting the stereotype.


For half elves, the last two decades have sense them slowly becoming a bad nazi stereotype of racial purists who despise their place as half-beings, so I don't think I've seen that stereotype.



And every elf is an arrogant, stuffed up prick who thumbs his nose to the other races while trying to systematically push their ways upon others in a close to genocidal way.

That's just bad reading. Elves are, by the book, either reclusive survivalists who have only the barest numbers, or have retreated to Elf Reservations in the deep mountains where they pretend to be important in peace.


When a monster race mates with a non-monster race, the result will be a paladin who strives to be unfettered by his less civilised half.

Heh. Crossed the streams on that one. <_<


Paladins can't eat babies. Pleease. I can have legitimate reasons, you know.

Eggs, for example. No one minds a paladin eating chicken babies but you bring in a sentient race and oooooh!


Re: Annoying DnD stereotypes

There will always be something/someone to keep you in check

You have no idea how boring things can get when this isn't true. It's not a stereotype, it's a meta rule.

nedz
2014-08-08, 04:06 AM
People coming across a random old thread on the internet, creating an account, and then committing thread necromancy.

LockyTheSwifer
2016-11-28, 03:58 AM
Broke the stereotype.
When it was time to choose a character for a new campaign,i thought "what's the weirdest combination i can think about?"
The answer came to be my new character-Kutash tree-hugger,the hippy half-orc barbarian.
He is tons of fun to play,and i haven't found any refference for a half orc hippy,let alone a barbarian one.

Stealth Marmot
2016-11-28, 07:49 AM
Every Sorcerer is gay. Goddamn that guy in the PHB with his ridiculous outfit.

I imagine Hennet finds your concepts of hetero/homosexuality to be dull and limiting. Dude looks like he would try to seduce an iron golem.

My new headcanon is that Hennet is essentially the Jack Harkness of D&D.


Paladins can't eat babies. Pleease. I can have legitimate reasons, you know. "A paladin eating babies!" "Dude, it's veal." "That's cow babies!" "If I get the salad will you actually shut up?" "Nope." "Double helping of veal for me, a tall glass of shutting the hell up for my comrade please."

Edit: I have one, the Gods are always some sort of Greco-Roman style personified deities who almost always appear humanoid. And, as mentioned before, they always run the full gamut of alignments. And even better, there is almost always a racial deity for every race BUT humans.

Oh and they are also all white. Seriously, with the gamut of ethnicities that humans can have in these games, I don't often see a deity that appears human that has a skin color that isn't either caucasian or "exotic" skin colored. (grey, green, ebony black, blue, etc). Also, the pretty gods are mostly good aligned. It's like they have the casting director of Gods of Egypt.

I purposely subverted this one when I made my "gods" to be more pantheistic and abstract, not having physical bodies, personalities, or even true morality.

slachance6
2016-11-28, 10:09 AM
Necromancy. Totally over-done.

Especially thread necromancy.

wumpus
2016-11-28, 11:29 AM
Fighters are either Knights or Mercenaries.

Paladins are always Noble and never evil. Otherwise, they are Blackguard or whatever.



This is one I'd love to subvert (mostly the nobility, although in practice that might be required). All the publicly known orders of Paladin are noble. There is another one, the Order of Pelar (aka the sewer paladins). They protect urchins, beggars, and other types often trampled by "real paladins" while going from palace to palace.

While the thieve's guild may know and fear this group, your typically up and coming paladin has never heard them. This is typically encouraged by senior paladins so when one of the new paladins eventually exhibits the Sin of Pride (pretty inevitable and likely develops along with the stick), they take him into the sewers...

"Be on your guard (draws sword)".
[they rush into a room with a surprisingly hale man in the center]
[then crash on their knees, sword outward... "master, we have come..."]

At this point, the paladin learns the rest of the story. All orders defer to the Order of Pelar, and their master is effectively "lord of all paladins" (the crashing on the knees annoys him greatly, and this little ceremony is partly the other orders jealousy of Pelor's favor). Other bits of the story include how each order tends to have a nasty fallen blackguard in living memory, the High Priest of Pelar is OoP's "fallen paladin", he followed Pelar so closely he is now Neutral Good (he literally "fell up").

NecroDancer
2016-11-28, 03:42 PM
Given my hatred of half-orcs are products of rape trope almost all my campaigns include at least a few villages that has a 90%-100% half-Orc population. In fact I stay that's half-orcs are there own race at this point and very few come from Orc/human coupling

Jamgretter
2016-11-28, 09:37 PM
Given my hatred of half-orcs are products of rape trope almost all my campaigns include at least a few villages that has a 90%-100% half-Orc population. In fact I stay that's half-orcs are there own race at this point and very few come from Orc/human coupling

Volo's has made it very clear that (at least 5e) orcs don't rape. They don't find "pleasure" in sex the same way humans or other races do, and only mate with those who they believe will improve the Orcish gene pool.

Stormwalker
2016-11-29, 02:41 AM
It's been said, but I really hate this idea that many players have that Paladins and other Lawful Good characters have no fun and no sense of humor.

Granted, Lawful Good types tend to prefer not to find humor in making others miserable. It goes against their principles. Even so, nothing (except over-optimized builds that massively dump INT, perhaps) prevents a Paladin from appreciating a witty turn of phrase, or making a timely response.

One of my favorite characters ever was a Paladin with a bunch of ranks in Bluff... not so that he could lie (he rarely did) but rather to be unreadable to his enemies. He had a brilliant poker face, and one of his uses for it was a masterful command of deadpan. Most of the NPC'S thought he WAS the stereotype humorless paladin... but the party knew better. He was really fun to play and the other players loved him.

He also had a penchant for gallows humor, which always seemed to loosen up the rest of the party in tense moments. I figured that if a paladin doesn't fear death, why shouldn't he find humor in the face of it?

Sometimes the most fun response to an annoying stereotype is to riff on it.

CrazyPenguin
2016-11-29, 04:15 PM
Bards are physically incapable of keeping it in their pants.

Dr paradox
2016-11-29, 04:31 PM
There's a reason for this one, if another party is equal or more effective, why is it your party is the one to save the world? It would be best to hire them both, and since they probably have the same leads, they'll be joining you. All of a sudden, you have a DMPC party joining the regular one. Watch them be awesome!

I've toyed with this, to limited effect. The party met each other in response to an open job posting, and I made sure that there were also a bunch of really inept would-be mercenaries who got disqualified, plus one badass who passed the job up because he didn't want to share such a paltry payout. ultimately, though, it just cluttered up the scene without seeming to do much good increasing immersion for the players.

Strigon
2016-11-29, 04:38 PM
(Snip)

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--U5qXgeN9--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/dpylnhdwrio5cakmnnno.jpg

Stealth Marmot
2016-11-29, 08:09 PM
PIC

Zoë: Preacher, don't the Bible have some pretty specific things to say about killin'?
Book: Quite specific. It is, however, somewhat fuzzier on the subject of kneecaps.

Ron Glass, RIP. Yet one more victim of 2016.

Squiddish
2016-11-29, 09:32 PM
Elves are always mary sues I hate this one. It started as a mix of stereotypes, and then became one of its own.

Lord Raziere
2016-11-29, 10:21 PM
Elves are always mary sues I hate this one. It started as a mix of stereotypes, and then became one of its own.

My character Meffelkrow would like to disprove this:
Basically he is an Elf Oracle. He is thin, but looks like anything but a graceful beautiful elf: he has floppy ears, his black hair is incredibly messy, his eyes are sunken and baggy as if he hasn't had enough sleep, he wears ragged patchwork robes, his voice is growly and scratchy, combine with unusually grey skin and bad posture and ignorant villagers often mistake him for a zombie. He is incredibly bitter because of his ability to see the future making him think he is being controlled by abstract god-like entities, as well as no one believing his warnings when he tells them and they just think he is a madman, and his ability to see the future is all because he made a deal with the abstract providence of time for it to help find his parents in exchange for following its directions to fight evil. He always has a frown on his face, he always tells the truth, he is never surprised when no one believes him and thinks that if they don't listen to his warning they don't deserve further consideration. The being he made a deal with is the Mystery of Time by the way, and he did it because he was an orphan. Yup he originally set out as adventurer to FIND his parents and over decades, still has found them even with future vision, mostly because he has no control over what future info he is given.

BootStrapTommy
2016-11-30, 12:15 AM
Especially thread necromancy. No kidding. I noticed this thread was checked, and I did a double take, like "When did I post in that?"

This was one of the first threads I ever posted in. Got my first warning in this thread, triple post on page 7. Got in my first alignment argument too. Good times... :smalltongue::smallwink: