Playing Monster characters in published modules

[Thrasher92]

My players and I are planning to play the published modules Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat.

Since Volo's Guide to Monsters came out some of them have been drooling over the possibility of playing monster characters like bugbears, goblins, and lizardmen.

I have read through the campaigns and I'm not sure how that would effect the module itself. Wouldn't the townspeople react poorly to monsters just walking into their town? Would the cultists accept them readily? In the later episodes of Hoard of the Dragon Queen you find out the lizardmen are allied with the cultists to help bring stuff to their fortress when the stuff is moved up north. Wouldn't they be able to walk in almost freely without being questioned nearly as much as a regular dwarf/elf/human party?

One of them even wants to play an evil character... which I usually frown upon in my games because that almost always ends up as a murder hobo campaign.

Any thoughts on this? Should I allow monster characters? If so, what should I change to the campaign to allow them?

[Tetrasodium]

My players and I are planning to play the published modules Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat.

Since Volo's Guide to Monsters came out some of them have been drooling over the possibility of playing monster characters like bugbears, goblins, and lizardmen.

I have read through the campaigns and I'm not sure how that would effect the module itself. Wouldn't the townspeople react poorly to monsters just walking into their town? Would the cultists accept them readily? In the later episodes of Hoard of the Dragon Queen you find out the lizardmen are allied with the cultists to help bring stuff to their fortress when the stuff is moved up north. Wouldn't they be able to walk in almost freely without being questioned nearly as much as a regular dwiarf/elf/human party?

One of them even wants to play an evil character... which I usually frown upon in my games because that almost always ends up as a murder hobo campaign.

Any thoughts on this? Should I allow monster characters? If so, what should I change to the campaign to allow them?

the problem is that FR as a setting still sorta rides in the childish black & white morality (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlackAndWhiteMorality) rather than a more nuanced form (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShadesOfConflict) of morality. Think more jim crowe style "I'm keeping am eye on your 'friend' over there". adventurers regukarly walk around equipped for war in gear that would cost more than a skilled tradesman (ie middle class) would make in a year & have enough power to slaughter large sections (if not all) of the town before simply leveling the place.

These are also great resources for more
http://keith-baker.com/dragonmark-926-what-makes-a-monster/
http://keith-baker.com/worldbuilding_taverns/
http://keith-baker.com/dragonmarks-66-droaam-and-the-daughters-of-sora-kell/

Rememmber though... when it comes to monsters & evil characters (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-0hgP1tNH8) "I live around here too!" there are plenty of motivations for why an evil character might spring for a lucrative career as a do-gooding adventurer.

Just the other day I was in a game where a LG human monk waltzes into the room where a barbarian& wizard had just cut down a couple cultists, with cultists still remaining in the fight, she declares that she wants to start eating one of the dead cultists... The entire group including the kobold druid jumped straight to "w.. what? wait... wtf? seriously wtf, there are like 3-4 guys left wanting to kill us." Fast forward through like 40 minutes of horrified debate & such where said monk is tied up & gagged. a player suggested tying her to the kobold moon druid bear's saddle -> "what? nooo I don't want that level of crazy anywhere near me! Tie the rope to the saddle & she can bounce along behind me at a safe distance" faced with a situation with a few doors & an overabundance of caution, the bear gets fed up & just starts charging through doors into empty rooms until finding a room with some cultists & prisoners being used as slave labor to turn a wheel. Someone casts a spell that badly damages & knocks prone cultistA, someone else trips & mildly damages cultistB. Bear declares that he's going to attack the closest one & gm informs druid that would be cultistB while cultistA is a lot more damaged & would probably die if chosen instead. Bear decides cultistB is better since he's feeling lucky. Bear double crit's bite/claw attacks & murders cultistB. prisoners are freed & make it a point of asking wtf "she" (the monk) did to get tied up like that when we let a bear roam free to murder people so horribly, so we warn them about the cannibal named whateveritwas. Now mind yu, said kobold druid once ordered "well since you mentioned it being on the menu sometimes, I'd love to have a bowl of the elf you mentioned" and spent quite a bit of time trying to convince the drow in the party to eat some of the elf to the hysterical delight of the party & once ate a weird fishy looking cultist while in giant toad form to end a debate over if it was human or what.

[SiCK_Boy]

Regarding monster races, I think you should allow it and just adapt your world around it. For example, the start of the adventure assumes the characters are expected in Greenrest, so make it so that the people over there are not surprised seeing a Bugbear coming to town accompanied by a bunch of dwarves, elves and humans. If you still want to stigmatize the character, just make sure you don't push too hard on this or you will just risk derailing your campaign anyway.

After that, have the character's reputation follow from step to step in the adventure. By the late stages of the module, the characters are a "known force" to their allies, so nobody should care about the character's race as long as he's fighting along against the Cult and Tiamat.

Regarding the evil character, again, it's not too hard to find motivation within the module even for an evil character (be it money, revenge, or just a sense of survival since the whole world is at stake). The risk has more to do with intra-party fighting, and this is something you need to clarify with the player right away (or make sure the whole group is fine with the situation). That evil player can make it easier to have the group ally with the Zentharim later in the adventure (rather than focus on the Harpers or Lord's Alliance).

[Sigreid]

I think it can work though you may have to adjust things a little bit. For example, should the party come across a city or village that is under attack and save the town, the town may be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt so long as they behave themselves. Do better deeds and they may get a letter of introduction from a lord vouching for them. Eventually they may even be known well enough that their heraldry will suffice.

Don't make it easy. It should be a long road but it could be fun.

[Findulidas]

Lizardfolk werent listed under the monster races though.

[Sigreid]

Lizardfolk werent listed under the monster races though.

Maybe not, but most mammalian people will get a little nervous when they see an alligator with a battle ax stroll into town.

[JellyPooga]

Regarding monster races, I think you should allow it and just adapt your world around it.

I very much disagree with this sentiment; part of the point of playing a no-human Race is to actually roleplay the implications of doing so. A Dwarf walking around an Elf village should not expect to have an easy time of it in a setting where Elves and Dwarves don't get along that well, for example and part of the fun of playing a Dwarf in such a setting would be to actually experience that aspect of the setting. For "monster" races, this aspect is amplified and to deny that aspect to the player of that "monster" is to take some of that roleplaying opportunity away.

To give an example from personal experience; I once played a Half-Ogre (Monk) character in a 3.5 game and the most fun I had with him was when we finally got to civilisation (I'd joined the party in the wilderness, having just left the monastery). Innthe dungeon, I was just another dude; accepted by my colleagues (after some very interesting introductions!) as just another party member. When we got to the city, though, where we had trouble simply getting through the gates until we explained to the guards that I was the party fighters "indentured servant" (I wasn't, but it was a convenient lie); that was great. It vindicated my choice to play something unusual. Throughout the ciry-based section of that campaign, we faced problems and came up with solutions that would not have been possible if I had not been a "monster".

If the GM had just swept my monstrous status under the rug, it would have diminished my experience of playing that character and that of the other players for having that character to play alongside. If nothing else, the constant question of why no-one is batting an eyelid at the goblin or orc strolling around in their midst, despite those races reputations, is something that tends to break immersion.

Let monster characters be monsters. To do otherwise is to lose sight of the entire point of playing a monster. Othewise, you're just playing a human with different stats.

[Tetrasodium]

I very much disagree with this sentiment; part of the point of playing a no-human Race is to actually roleplay the implications of doing so. A Dwarf walking around an Elf village should not expect to have an easy time of it in a setting where Elves and Dwarves don't get along that well, for example and part of the fun of playing a Dwarf in such a setting would be to actually experience that aspect of the setting. For "monster" races, this aspect is amplified and to deny that aspect to the player of that "monster" is to take some of that roleplaying opportunity away.

To give an example from personal experience; I once played a Half-Ogre (Monk) character in a 3.5 game and the most fun I had with him was when we finally got to civilisation (I'd joined the party in the wilderness, having just left the monastery). Innthe dungeon, I was just another dude; accepted by my colleagues (after some very interesting introductions!) as just another party member. When we got to the city, though, where we had trouble simply getting through the gates until we explained to the guards that I was the party fighters "indentured servant" (I wasn't, but it was a convenient lie); that was great. It vindicated my choice to play something unusual. Throughout the ciry-based section of that campaign, we faced problems and came up with solutions that would not have been possible if I had not been a "monster".

If the GM had just swept my monstrous status under the rug, it would have diminished my experience of playing that character and that of the other players for having that character to play alongside. If nothing else, the constant question of why no-one is batting an eyelid at the goblin or orc strolling around in their midst, despite those races reputations, is something that tends to break immersion.

Let monster characters be monsters. To do otherwise is to lose sight of the entire point of playing a monster. Othewise, you're just playing a human with different stats.


Agreed, playing a monster race can open a lot of interesting doors, but in regards to the OP's question about monstrous races in "published modules", there is a second problem in that most of them leave very little from or guidance for improv & not every gm will be up to the task. If the gm is up to it & comfortable, great... If the gm is still getting their legs under them, err more towards "they are unusual & not super well liked but sometimes tolerated with a hairy eyeball"

[SiCK_Boy]

The OP seemed worried about the impact of a monster race and the interaction it would create with the module he intends to run. I simply suggested a solution that would allow his player to play what he wants while not derailing the adventure module.

Obviously, not knowing the player's motivations for wanting to play monster characters, it's difficult to judge if they're looking for the kind of experience you are describing (facing racism and ostracism at every corner). If that's what they want, sure, let the DM and the players work around this. But that will require more adjustment to the module for the DM.

Nothing impossible, just more work for him.

[JellyPooga]

Agreed, playing a monster race can open a lot of interesting doors, but in regards to the OP's question about monstrous races in "published modules", there is a second problem in that most of them leave very little from or guidance for improv & not every gm will be up to the task. If the gm is up to it & comfortable, great... If the gm is still getting their legs under them, err more towards "they are unusual & not super well liked but sometimes tolerated with a hairy eyeball"

True enough. My response to the OP, in that light, would be not to allow "monstrous" races if they're not comfortable with that level of work or improv. It's not to anyones discredit to learn to walk before learning to run and accomodating monstrous player characters in published adventures that don't typically account for them is definitely in the "running" category.

I'm not familiar with HotDQ myself, so can't advise directly on the OPs problem, but the "sweep it under the rug" method of treating monsters as ordinary folk is definitely the worst approach IMO.