Annoying DnD stereotypes

[Fatebreaker]

And Fatebreak, my comments here are basically about someone calling it good. Honorable, sure, but good? I dare you to find a value system operating with the terms good and evil that would call Rokugan good.

The Rokugani value system would, I imagine, classify their own society as "good."

Any value system which values some combination of family, honor, duty, loyalty, sacrifice, humility, hierarchy, etiquette, stability, cunning, bravery, and tradition will find something of value in the Rokugani system.

Value systems which elevate equality and tolerance will find... less of value.

It all depends on what is most important to you.

Also, for that matter, those stereotypes are quite modern and have little relationship with any medieval'ish society, being based on Meiji, Taisho and Showa-era ideals and foreign stereotypes of Japan that were created during those periods.

"It should be noted that L5R is not about playing a real-world samurai, but rather about the romanticized vision of samurai found in stories and film."

"Players and GMs are creating the mythical and legendary tales of samurai who excel in their station."

"So if you don't know all the details of how samurai addressed each other, if you don't remember the myriad subtle difference between the Heian, Kamakura, Muromachi, Nara, Edo, Toyotomi, and Tokugawa eras of historical Japan -- don't sweat it too much! Rokugan is ultimately a fantasy world, a fusion of Asian culture from many eras and many peoples."

The game is pretty clear about being a game about stylized, not historical, samurai.

That said, it does have all sorts of nifty little sidebars and subsections describing variants for increasing or decreasing the realism. But those are options for the folks who want that sort of thing. The game isn't setting out to recreate the Sengoku Jidai. So who cares if it's historically accurate or not? It's not trying to be. It's just trying to create an interesting setting for players and GMs to tell interesting stories in. And it certainly does that!

[Pyromancer999]

Generally, the fact that humans will be the clearly dominant race, despite having no obvious advantages that would make them so.

Honestly, I think it's most likely a combination of humans breeding like rabbits(when compared to other races) and not enough people really noticing them until it was too late to take care of them without it being a hassle.

Also, what's up with dragons mating with everything? Given all the half-dragons of all types running around(human, elf, troll, crocodile), it's sort of a surprisethat every single creature in D&D isn't descended from a dragon.

[toapat]

Also, what's up with dragons mating with everything? Given all the half-dragons of all types running around(human, elf, troll, crocodile), it's sort of a surprisethat every single creature in D&D isn't descended from a dragon.

they are, its just that its so watered down we only get sorcerers

[Cerlis]

Mushroom beer. Heh.
That could be, umm... enlightening and mind-opening.

@toapat: Meh, everyone knows that Hill Dwarves aren't REAL dwarves.

Indeed, its suggested that that is why Dwarven beer is so strong/pungent, since its made from mushrooms.

In Dragonlance i believe Raistlin narrowly keeps his party from eating the original mushrooms, which are deadly unless brewed

[Kelb_Panthera]

Maybe, but it's the view hammered home by a large part of the fandom. I've had GMs from both the official winter courts, as well as at least two of the freelancers doing writing for both third and fourth edition defend this view of the setting quite strongly.

Also, a lot of the things are indisputably there. The Otomo really do make sure that the clans are constantly fighting each other so they won't get any ideas about changing the status quo. The Matsu really do ask kids who fail gempukku to commit seppuku. It really is legal to kill heimin if you feel they were rude to you and given that it is a capital crime to associate with foreigners, the racism is rather well entrenched too. Also, the books are pretty open about loyalty and honor tending to override the other tenets of bushido.

And Fatebreak, my comments here are basically about someone calling it good. Honorable, sure, but good? I dare you to find a value system operating with the terms good and evil that would call Rokugan good. Also, for that matter, those stereotypes are quite modern and have little relationship with any medieval'ish society, being based on Meiji, Taisho and Showa-era ideals and foreign stereotypes of Japan that were created during those periods.

I never said that you were wrong, just that the way you phrased it sheds the worst possible light on the culture. Rokugani peasants aren't any more ignorant or oppressed than the peasants of any other fantasy kingdom, and in any but scorpion lands the samurai aren't that abusive. A little pushy certainly, but I doubt seriously that most samurai would decapitate every peasant that made a social misstep. Besides, the peasants on the whole believe that the samurai are descended from the setting's gods and I imagine they fear change as much as any humans. Also, if I was a monarch of a nation surrounded by hostile people on all sides, I'd be more than a little leary of foreigners too. Finally, rokugani law is mostly self-enforced, and not upheld all that strongly except in important cases. The rokugani culture, imo, holds to LG reasonably well. They just hold way tighter to the L than the G.

[WarKitty]

Honestly, I think it's most likely a combination of humans breeding like rabbits(when compared to other races) and not enough people really noticing them until it was too late to take care of them without it being a hassle.

Also, what's up with dragons mating with everything? Given all the half-dragons of all types running around(human, elf, troll, crocodile), it's sort of a surprisethat every single creature in D&D isn't descended from a dragon.

Humans mating with everything. That one bothers me too. We should see more hybrids that don't include human or dragon, if it's really that easy.

[Terraoblivion]

The Rokugani value system would, I imagine, classify their own society as "good."

Any value system which values some combination of family, honor, duty, loyalty, sacrifice, humility, hierarchy, etiquette, stability, cunning, bravery, and tradition will find something of value in the Rokugani system.

Value systems which elevate equality and tolerance will find... less of value.

It all depends on what is most important to you.

Which is why I said value systems that care about good and evil. Looking at human value systems there is a pretty clear divide between honor-based ones and ones caring about morality, frequently existing in an uncomfortable balance with each other. Vikings would find Rokugan pretty reasonable, while medieval theologians would find it abominable in its brutality, for example. Or replace the Christians with Buddhists for something more culturally similar.

The game is pretty clear about being a game about stylized, not historical, samurai.

That said, it does have all sorts of nifty little sidebars and subsections describing variants for increasing or decreasing the realism. But those are options for the folks who want that sort of thing. The game isn't setting out to recreate the Sengoku Jidai. So who cares if it's historically accurate or not? It's not trying to be. It's just trying to create an interesting setting for players and GMs to tell interesting stories in. And it certainly does that!

You were the one to bring up history, not me. I was just pointing out that the setting isn't based on anything remotely medieval like you claimed. Because it really isn't. It's predominantly based on American readings of early 20th century propaganda, whether Japanese or American.

For that matter, I believe I never said it was a bad setting because Rokugan was amoral. That was other people projecting on me. I have problems with the setting, but the lack of morality isn't one of them. They relate more to how mind breaking the medieval stasis is and how much some writers like to reinforce the most racist aspects of the setting.

EDIT: And you guys do know that in all the history of Rokugan there were only three major foreign invasions and two of them are late in the official timeline, long after the attitude was added to the setting.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Generally, the fact that humans will be the clearly dominant race, despite having no obvious advantages that would make them so.

...Have you SEEN the 3.5 humans? Combine that with the fact they can breed pretty fast... if there's a near-wipeout of the human race, and only a couple hundred survived, in a mere forty years the number of adults could be hugely increased!

Yes I do, but 99.99% of humans are still commoners. The tiny fraction that become super-powerful adventurers is hardly going to justify 3/4 of the worlds population and kingdoms being human.

Where are you getting those numbers? I seem to recall one in every hundred people in a settlement is a Warrior, not one in every thousand.

Besides, humans, with their bonus feat and skill points, are the easiest race to optimize with at low-levels, meaning a well-prepared village of a couple hundred people with only a couple Warriors could easily take down orc raiders by using crossbows, javelins, and incarnum. Sure, Mr. Level 1 Orc Warrior can have Power Attack and a greataxe, but can he take half a dozen light crossbow bolts and javelins at +0 or +1 attack bonus every round? Hell, even the most unoptimized, dirt-poor commoner can pick up a club and throw it twenty feet at a -2 attack bonus.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Not so much a stereotype as just something that bugs me: The party must always win every fight.

No. At least one Pc must survive every fight to avoid ending the campaign prematurely, and it doesn't even need to be the same one each time. Victory and survival are not the same thing. (usually)

[Lord_Gareth]

Not so much a stereotype as just something that bugs me: The party must always win every fight.

No. At least one Pc must survive every fight to avoid ending the campaign prematurely, and it doesn't even need to be the same one each time. Victory and survival are not the same thing. (usually)

Nah. If everyone dies, make a new party sent in to discover what the hell happened to the old.

Then make the answer, "The villain found the bodies and turned them all into undead slaves."

[Craft (Cheese)]

The answer is obviously "The old party is still alive, and they're the new villains of the campaign. Also, they've gained all sorts of cool superpowers I wouldn't let you have while YOU were in control of them."

[Kelb_Panthera]

Nah. If everyone dies, make a new party sent in to discover what the hell happened to the old.

Then make the answer, "The villain found the bodies and turned them all into undead slaves."

That can work with a campaign of suitable scope, but in a more mercenary, murder-hobo type campaign that doesn't really work, though it is notably less problematic. Unless of course, I'm in the middle of the process of increasing the campaign's scope from, "We're wandering grave robbers," to, "We've got to stop the villain's nefarious scheme."

[Morithias]

Yes I do, but 99.99% of humans are still commoners. The tiny fraction that become super-powerful adventurers is hardly going to justify 3/4 of the worlds population and kingdoms being human.

One can make the same argument for all the other races though.

[Rake21]

Anyone who drags the story in the direction of their dark, troubled past and won't let it go on, constantly being broody and jerk-ish.

My God, even Batman cracks a joke once and a while, and let's the Justice League do it's own thing (i.e. punching Darkseid into the Sun). He doesn't force them to chase down Joe Chill every week.

[toapat]

He doesn't force them to chase down Joe Chill every week.

thats because Batman knows where Joe Chill is at all times, so that batman may swoop in for his weekly mugging.

but thats batman

[Arbane]

Annoying stereotype: It doesn't matter how many medieval trappings you throw on your setting, your players will still expect that modern, "enlightened" values will be, well, valued!

It probably helps that magic power isn't gender-specific. It's a lot harder to make someone stay in the kitchen when they can burn you alive with a few words.

As for racism, in the words of Terry Pratchett: "Black and White lived in harmony and ganged up on Green."

It dates at least as far back as Charlemagne, and arguably to the Roman Empire or even Alexander the Great.

And before that, the Persians, and before that, the Babylonians, and before THAT, the Assyrians.... pining for the Good Old Days seems to be a universal human trait.

New one: People who live underground tend to be 'evil' versions of their surface equivalents.

[AgentofHellfire]

Anyone who drags the story in the direction of their dark, troubled past and won't let it go on, constantly being broody and jerk-ish.

My God, even Batman cracks a joke once and a while, and let's the Justice League do it's own thing (i.e. punching Darkseid into the Sun). He doesn't force them to chase down Joe Chill every week.

In (some of their) defenses, there are some games in which it's ridiculously hard to get a single word of character development in, so they just try to sandwich all of the buildup to darkness into the moments where CD exists.

[Ranting Fool]

New one: People who live underground tend to be 'evil' versions of their surface equivalents.

lol yes. So very true

Every Innkeeper/passing traveler has some minor task for you to do for a few gold.

"I would cross the room to pick up my book of X" says the aged wizard "but I'd rather just pay you 2gp and give you a bit of XP for doing it for me"

[toapat]

Every Innkeeper/passing traveler has some minor task for you to do for a few gold.

and to extend that:

Innkeeper means Retired Adventurer

[Medic!]

Low charisma automatically means you are ugly and smelly, while a high charisma automatically means (and this goes triple for bards) that you are the gods' gift to women.


This DID lead to a hillarious and awkward situation for a bard at my table once who rolled just a hair too high on his diplomacy check vs. an awakened (female, hahaha knowledge nature fumble) ape with a grapple score that was preposterously higher than his. For the record the only DM Fiat involved was the genderization of said ape

[Fiery Diamond]

I'm not "COMPLETELY" wrong because you pretty much agreed with everything I said.

As to "god," I meant it not as a literal, but as in the sense of "path of worship". or "Path of belief". Religion may have been a better word.

Er... what? *Looks back at various posts.* I had a long thing typed out before I looked back and realized that you weren't the originator of the whole discussion about Paladins. When I replied to you with my post, I hadn't paid any attention and had simply assumed you were the same person. My bad.

However: Then using god was an extremely poor word choice. Furthermore, religion is still too specific. There is no requirement in D&D for Paladins to be religious, ascetic, or anything else associated with gods or religion. A guy who follows a certain code of ethics that matches up with the ill-defined Paladin Code who is virtuous, altruistic, and chivalrous (and "Lawful Good," assuming one doesn't count that as being self-evident if the person adheres to the code and is virtuous and altruistic) can be a Paladin. The code of ethics and the general goodness are all that's required RP-wise, and mechanics-wise all that's needed is the Lawful Good alignment.

To quote the PHB on Paladins and religion: "A paladin need not devote herself to a single deity -- devotion to righteousness is enough." Worship not needed, just devotion to righteousness. Which is an objective thing; a multifaceted thing which different Paladins may focus on different facets of, to be sure, but in a world where Good and Evil are objective, so is righteousness.

In other words, I still didn't completely agree with you: the particulars of what one Paladin considers to be appropriate justice may differ from another, but it isn't derived from some god or religion (necessarily, at any rate). And I also made the mistake of thinking you were the same guy who opened up the conversation that I'm quoting below, hence my word choice in my response. Again, my apologies.




The whole thing:

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

You know, that's kinda the point of paladins.

Yes, but its kind of stupid considering that Paladins should have different morals compared to other paladins and nobles. They're kind of like Vigilantes that mess with law and order of a city, just because it doesn't fit their world view.

I had a couple Paladins killing off the clergy of other churches in order to gain more favor with their God. Makes sense.

Uh, you do still remember that your character is supposed to be champion of god and fighter for justice? It's right here, in the class description.

At least by 3.5 D&D (And a few earlier versions) That's because that is in the rules. A Paladin who ever willingly commits any evil act loses all their powers by the D&D 3.5 rules.

Justice is defined by whatever god you follow. Killing the clergy of another religion could be justice. They worship the [terrible evil] other god.

1) Paladins do not need to worship a god. I even believe this was ranted about earlier in the thread.

2) In D&D, Good and Evil are objective, not subjective. Justice refers to wrongdoing receiving legitimate and appropriate punishment. From there, it's simply a matter of variation in the extremes a particular Paladin sees as "appropriate" for whatever crimes.

Which does mean you could potentially have Paladins end up fighting each other because one is heavy on the "mercy" part of Good while the other is heavy on the "laying the lethal smackdown on the evil dudes" part of justice, and they can't (for whatever reason) convince the other nonviolently to step down and back off with regard to how a certain person/group should be dealt with. So you're not COMPLETELY wrong.

I was taking issue with what I thought you meant based on what you said, and assuming your point was intended to be support for all of the other things that DontEatRawHaggis said, which were being called all wrong by me by implication.

[JetThomasBoat]

That can work with a campaign of suitable scope, but in a more mercenary, murder-hobo type campaign that doesn't really work, though it is notably less problematic. Unless of course, I'm in the middle of the process of increasing the campaign's scope from, "We're wandering grave robbers," to, "We've got to stop the villain's nefarious scheme."

I kind of just want to thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for using the term "murder-hobo". I don't remember the last time I laughed that hard.

But I have one:

Elves being both all in tune with nature and good with bows AND super kick-ass spellcasters I suppose one of the VERY few things I like about 4E is that it splits them in two, but still, this always bothered me.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Another, though this one doesn't bother me much at all:

The typical adventuring party is made up of about 4 homeless, grave-robbing, murder-it-if-it-moves, lunatic, orphans; with about as much personality as the paper their stats are printed on.

I can work with it for a while, but I get a bit irate if things don't progress beyond that point, unless it just a one-off.

EDIT: I forgot kleptomaniac. Though that particular trait does get old a bit quicker than the others. Do you know how long it takes to loot a dungeon when the party thinks that everything not nailed down or on fire is loot. Especially if they're prone to carrying pry-bars and fire-extinguishers.

[JetThomasBoat]

EDIT: I forgot kleptomaniac. Though that particular trait does get old a bit quicker than the others. Do you know how long it takes to loot a dungeon when the party thinks that everything not nailed down or on fire is loot. Especially if they're prone to carrying pry-bars and fire-extinguishers.

To be fair, I usually carry a pry bar because I'm afraid that...

Being a rogue/chaotic neutral means it's totally not a **** move to just not tell other party members important information about enemies or traps or loot.

Having my own pry bar makes it so occasionally I can open something without the ******* rogue's help.

[toapat]

Especially if they're prone to carrying pry-bars and fire-extinguishers.

well, what about the walls, and mountain the dungeon is built in? Stone has value too. do they bring oxcarts and bison herds?

[Kelb_Panthera]

well, what about the walls, and mountain the dungeon is built in? Stone has value too. do they bring oxcarts and bison herds?

Not if they want me to keep DM'ing. I don't mind looting. It's when it gets out of hand and the 3rd+ level party is still asking about tin cups to swipe out of the commisary cupboard of the death-cult temple they just raided, or taking the time to remove any well-made steel doors they come across because, "we can sell it for its raw material." At 1st level, maybe even 2nd level, that's to be expected; but they know I'm not stingy with the loot dammit.

If we've reached the point where if I were to tell them their mundane clothing suddenly dissapeared while they were in the middle of the street and the crowd can't see anything interesting because of all their magic items, it's time to stick to high-value, low-mass items.

[The Random NPC]

Another, though this one doesn't bother me much at all:

The typical adventuring party is made up of about 4 homeless, grave-robbing, murder-it-if-it-moves, lunatic, orphans; with about as much personality as the paper their stats are printed on.

I can work with it for a while, but I get a bit irate if things don't progress beyond that point, unless it just a one-off.

EDIT: I forgot kleptomaniac. Though that particular trait does get old a bit quicker than the others. Do you know how long it takes to loot a dungeon when the party thinks that everything not nailed down or on fire is loot. Especially if they're prone to carrying pry-bars and fire-extinguishers.

I'm currently playing in a group like this. The biggest offender to me is the paladin player, so being that I'm Lawful evil, I'll be trying to corrupt him. I don't think it'll work though, he didn't even blink when I pointed out that the band of goblins surrounding the dead woman might have been trying to aid her (at the very least it didn't justify murdering them without assessing the situation.)

[Pyromancer999]

Humans mating with everything. That one bothers me too. We should see more hybrids that don't include human or dragon, if it's really that easy.

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.

[Kelb_Panthera]

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.

Shapechanging magic. The dragon wasn't necessarily a dragon when that half-dragon (whatever) was conceived.

Attraction is as much in the brain as it is in the mind, and when magic starts tinkering with your biological wiring all sorts of odd and unexpected feelings are liable to crop-up. Though I should think that there would be a much higher proliferation of half-dragons of animal intelligence coming out of the unions of mettalic dragons than chromatic.

[GenericGuy]

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.

My dragons take on a much more demonic role as immortal beings with an alien morality and prefer working behind the scenes in subtle ways. There are only about a dozen of them, so they aren’t really a race or species in the traditional sense, they all hate each other, and any full blooded offspring would just be rival for food and territory. They sire half-dragons to work as agents in the humanoid lands, advancing the dragon's agenda (whatever it might be) by infiltrating the local populace. Some dragons just father or mother an entire nation, who then worship the dragon as a god.