Volo's Guide: How should NPCs treat monster races?

[Regitnui]

Even between the human races (using the term in the real world meaning) there is considerable stereotypes and prejudice. A Cali****e in the far north (Illuskan or Damaran areas) is likely to face at least minor discrimination and stick out. A Uthgardt (technically a sub-culture of Illuskan race) Barbarian or Nar demon-worshipping Warlock or Bedine desert warrior is likely to face outright hostility for multiple reasons.

And in Eberron, which is almost completely civilised, Thranes are all oppressive xenophobic lunatics while Aundairans are all godless arcane heathens. The two countries share a border, religion, races and trade. Stereotypes and discrimination exist by default in D&D, and using real-world racism as a model can make the world more immersive and involving.

Take the rivalry between the "snobbish straitlaced tea-drinking" Britons and the "cheese-eating, sex bimbo, cowardly" French as an example. You can easly recast similar stereotypes into the different kingdoms of D&D. Humans can't get along at all in reality, so why should humanoids in fiction? The reason you need adventurers to take on the demon that just burst out of the ground? Aundair hopes it'll move in Thrane's direction and won't send an army, and Thrane have faith that their faith will send the demon running in Aundair's direction and won't deploy either. Hence, PCs who just want to put the thing back into wherever it came from for loot and XP.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm not saying its a problem, I'm saying the issue isn't exclusive to Volo's Monster races. The PHB even says to check with your dungeon master to see if you can play a Drow character because their reputation is expected. So if a Drow PC can openly walk into town without serious hassle a Bugbear shouldn't have a problem unless there's a specific reason for the community to view a bugbear as a greater danger then a Drow.

That does not necessarily follow, but I catch your point in that one can expand the number of monstrous sorts who fit into the setting ...

• There is a huge problem with assuming that you know the motive behind other's actions.
• If you try to see racism in everything, you will succeed. That doesn't mean it exists; it just means that confirmation bias exists.
• If someone doesn't mean to be offensive, and knowing that, you still choose to take offense to something they said - then you're the a-hole, not them. This is why people accuse you of being overly sensitive.

Hmm, I wonder how this line of argument fits into the game. I realize that this is part of a derail of the thread, but there may be a way to weave a few of these themes constructively into how PCs and NPCs interact. Maybe not.

Oh, sure, but let's be honest, alignments were a mess in previous editions

I will disagree on one point, since my intro to alignments in OD&D law/neutral/chaos was soft enough around the edges to be a very workable tool. Unfortunately, it wasn't left well enough alone. I am glad at what 5e is trying to do with alignment ... baby steps, I guess.

Alignments are now descriptive of actions instead of prescribing actions.

Yeah. It's an improvement.

I generally assume that ALL adventurers are generally viewed as dangerous mercenaries. Especially in the Realms, where officially licensed and unofficially organized Adventurer's Guilds and other similar organizations are a thing.

Not to mention the factions, who come off to me as differently motivated versions of either organized crime gangs or Illuminati Light.

... don't mess with them, treat them warily, stay out of their way, take their money as quickly as possibly and then get them out of your shop/farm/town. And if you're truly desperate, hire them to deal with a problem.

Yeah, that's not a bad way to have a party treated until the party shows themselves to be "the good guys" by their actions and how they treat people. One of the neat things I got to role play with my kids in their D&D with dad games was superstition. During one adventure
they were on a sailing ship heading for the Islands to do a quest. My daughter's character frequently got the "women are bad luck on a ship" response from crew members besides the owner who had hired the party and was on the boat. This harkens back to a very old Real Life sailor superstition about women being aboard ship being bad luck. After about the third of fourth time this came up, my daughter gave me a funny look and asked me why the sailors kept doing that. We took a break from the game to discuss superstitions and taboos, how they are a thing, and how people in close knit groups sometimes develop a very jaundiced view of outsiders to their group. (I spent a career in the Navy and had seen what cliques can do, in terms of damage to morale and mission). I then asked both her and my son about superstitions they'd heard about, and if they noticed cliques in their schools who spread rumors or said rude/false things about other people. They had both seen, heard, and experienced it.
When we got back to the game, the random dice never got an encounter at sea, so they debarked for their quest and they didn't have to deal with those superstitious sailors any more. The people in the town reacted to them as foreigners, and that was a different role play fun thing, but they didn't have that particular taboo or superstition.

For example, the Red Wizards of Thay and Zhents had at least as bad a rep as monstrous humanoids in many places for a long time. If not worse. (The Zhents have bust out the PR department in recent times. Can't recall of the top of my head if that applies to Thay as well.)

My lore on Thay is sorta old, and I find their presence as a unified guild of magicians to run into the realm sized plot hole of "why have they not taken over the world yet?"

[Tanarii]

Okay, going to respectfully link the forum rules announcement in this thread. It should be possible for this thread to continue on topic without being locked, and personally I like the topic because it's important to me as a DM. But if folks keep violating the forum rules it'll get locked or removed.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1

Not to mention the factions, who come off to me as differently motivated versions of either organized crime gangs or Illuminati Light.

Harpers and Zhents especially. The Lords Alliance less so, although I'm sure the FR conspiracy theorists would think otherwise.

My lore on Thay is sorta old, and I find their presence as a unified guild of magicians to run into the realm sized plot hole of "why have they not taken over the world yet?"

There are many groups that prompt this question in FR. Which is also the answer.

[Unoriginal]

My lore on Thay is sorta old, and I find their presence as a unified guild of magicians to run into the realm sized plot hole of "why have they not taken over the world yet?"

They're trying pretty hard, but whenever they come anywhere close, a bunch of people of various origins meet in a tavern or in a jail and it somehow snowballs into stopping the Red Wizards' scheme.

[KorvinStarmast]

They're trying pretty hard, but whenever they come anywhere close, a bunch of people of various origins meet in a tavern or in a jail and it somehow snowballs into stopping the Red Wizards' scheme.

Yeah, I've red some of the novels, and I guess nothing has changed so far.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, I've red some of the novels, and I guess nothing has changed so far.

Sounded like he was describing different parties of PCs to me.

[Unoriginal]

Yeah, I've red some of the novels, and I guess nothing has changed so far.

Joke aside, I'm not up-to-date on the Thay lore either, but I think it's said the Red Wizards are tolerated because they're one of the few groups who can somewhat reliably trade magic items.

On the subject of even regular adventurers being viewed with fear, well, they tend to be pretty powerful people who make a living killing dangerous things and surviving crazy things, and getting a lot of money out of it.

Maybe they won't be treated with outright fear, but most people would be pretty cautious about them. The same way that a small shop owner would be cautious if a guy in an expensive suit with three bodyguards suddenly showed in their shop.

It doesn't mean that all adventurers are going to seem impressive, though.

Sounded like he was describing different parties of PCs to me.

Indeed I were.

[Tanarii]

Maybe they won't be treated with outright fear, but most people would be pretty cautious about them. The same way that a small shop owner would be cautious if a guy in an expensive suit with three bodyguards suddenly showed in their shop.

That doesn't sound like any PC I've ever known.

That's why I said nerds mercs*. So more like a hugely muscled unshaven soldier of fortune wearing a muscle shirt that hasn't been washed in a week, with an assault rifle slung over their shoulder, suddenly showing up in their shop.

*gotta love autocorrect. Not sure what kinda nerds my iPad has been playing with recently

[Maxilian]

That doesn't sound like any PC I've ever known.

That's why I said nerds mercs*. So more like a hugely muscled unshaven soldier of fortune wearing a muscle shirt that hasn't been washed in a week, with an assault rifle slung over their shoulder, suddenly showing up in their shop.

*gotta love autocorrect. Not sure what kinda nerds my iPad has been playing with recently

Well but they normally have a bag full of coin, and you know what, some towns rarely see gold coins, so they may treat them badly until the first gold piece come out of their pocket, after that, all its "Sir or Madam "

[M Placeholder]

My lore on Thay is sorta old, and I find their presence as a unified guild of magicians to run into the realm sized plot hole of "why have they not taken over the world yet?"

The Red Wizards aren't unified at all, which is one of the reasons why the Thayans haven't conquered a large part of The Realms (well, Thay is a pretty large nation, but still).

First are their neighbours. To the North is Rashemen, whose people have sent every invasion of The Red Wizards packing thanks to their Berserkers (folks such as Minsc), the Witches that rule the country, and the spirits that protect the land. To the east are the Sunrise mountains and the endless wastes, to the South is the Empire of Mulhorand and to the west is Aglarond, which is protected by the Dragonjaw Mountains and a deep forest that is scryproof. The Thayans haven't been able to conquer Aglarond, which is key to further expansion.

Second is the infighting between the Red Wizards. The 8 Zulkirs (representing each one of the schools of magic) are headed by Szass Tam, and the other 7 Zulkirs plot against each other as much as they do to take over The Realms. A Red Wizard has to guard from plots below and above. In this way, Szass Tam ensures that none of the other 7 Zulkirs can plot to overthrow him, because they are too busy fending off plots real or imagined.

There have also been instances in which one Zulkir has been encouraged to mount an invasion of a neighbouring nation, only to be left high and dry when a fellow Zulkir or a subordinate has withdrawn aid and left the Zulkir to carry the can for a failed invasion.

There is also a faction in Thay that has come to the conclusion that because the nations that surround them are unconquerable, they should instead make money by the sale of magical items, and to this end, they establish Thayan enclaves in other nations and major cities. Usually these enclaves are self contained and the Thayans usually keep to themselves, with most of the interaction coming from selling magic items.

[Regitnui]

So the Thayans have an entire faction of Lex Luthors cashing checks?

[Tanarii]

Well but they normally have a bag full of coin, and you know what, some towns rarely see gold coins, so they may treat them badly until the first gold piece come out of their pocket, after that, all its "Sir or Madam "

Oops yeah totally left out that important part.

A smelly unshaven soldier of fortune ... with a fat wad.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

I'm not sure pitchforks and torches would really make sense as a reaction to most monster PCs even if the NPCs were more or less outright hostile, at least not until someone blames it for something and gets people riled up.

A bugbear, lizardfolk or orc is going to scare most normal human peasants out of their minds unless they have good reason to think it's harmless enough that it's safe to mistreat it. They'd be bowing and scraping to the thing for fear of being eaten, hiding their children and trying to find excuses to avoid it without offending it. If it hung around too long without alleviating this the people would eventually try to get rid of it because it's basically oppressing them by accident.

A goblin or kobold on the other hand wouldn't elicit pitchforks and torches because it's not scary, unless it got blamed for something important. It'd get bullied, spat on, underpaid, refused service and generally treated as the town whipping boy more or less until it proves itself dangerous enough that they stop abusing and mocking it to it's face. It'd risk getting thrown out of town every time someone's chickens go missing because a fox got into the henhouse, or get lynched because someone lost their silverware.

There is nothing in 5E lore that would cause lizardfolk to be treated any differently than a dwarf or elf.

Golbins do have these things, and are scary. Kobolds are terrifying.

I dunno, a 7 foot monster strong enough to casually snap a man's neck barehanded seems like the sort of thing that will make it take time to convince a mob to get together, especially if it's an adventurer with heavy armour and weapons. More people will be afraid of the dying, or of their family dying, than they would be be of a monster that hasn't actually caused any harm yet. The thought of very real harm for angering it is going to be more troubling than the thought of potential harm from letting it hang around and get drunk, buy food and leave.

If it stuck around for a few days and let resentment towards it build rather than defusing it then I could see a mob forming to drive it off or kill it, but on the same day it arrives? Not so much. Maybe if some of the locals drink a lot and drunkenly decide to brawl with a monster and someone gets hurt a mob would form in response quite easily.

Kind of like how the norse were treated in Europe for a while, dangerous foreigners who raid your lands, but worth trading with and good mercenaries when you need them and who wound up being generally tolerated more or less everywhere they went.

This. An armed society is a polite society.

[M Placeholder]

So the Thayans have an entire faction of Lex Luthors cashing checks?

Pretty much. Apart from Halruaa (which wants to hold onto their secrets in terms of magic and doesn't have much interaction with the rest of Toril), nobody can match the Thayans in terms of Magic Items.

[Tanarii]

There is nothing in 5E lore that would cause lizardfolk to be treated any differently than a dwarf or elf.

You mean apart from hunting and eating people, and a small segment of them allying with Black Dragons, thereby tanishing the name for them all?

[Morty]

This is the kind of discussion that happens when a game first defines a number of species as wicked monsters that can and should be attacked on sight, then gives players the means to play them.

[Regitnui]

This is the kind of discussion that happens when a game first defines a number of species as wicked monsters that can and should be attacked on sight, then gives players the means to play them.

It's the kind of discussion that results when people start looking beyond "attack on sight" and trying to understand the psychology of said monsters.

[Unoriginal]

This is the kind of discussion that happens when a game first defines a number of species as wicked monsters that can and should be attacked on sight, then gives players the means to play them.

They shouldn't be attacked on sight because we're monsters, it just happens that they're mostly known for attacking other people on sight to kill and steal.

Goblins can trade with humans, and they do, but most of the time a group of goblins on the road will act like bandits and raiders.

[Chugger]

I've been yelled at previously for making this point, so obviously I wasn't communicating well enough in the past - let me try again.

A lot of us are conflating or mistaking two separate things as one. Let me start with the undead. The undead are "evil" and inherently programmed to attack the living - at least for the most part. It's ethically okay to hate or feel some extreme emotion against the undead because of this. It helps that they have no redeeming qualities and truly are "monsters" - "bad" - "evil".

In fantasy stories some races of living beings are created as being "so evil" or so "broken" or something akin to this that it's reasonable to mistrust, outlaw, avoid, or maybe even KoS them - by definition. We're not talking about reality.

In reality, which I'll only barely touch on here, different groups of humans have been greatly harmed when other groups falsely label them bad things, which is used to justify all sorts of horrible (and unjustified) behavior against them. This too can be a feature of a DnD world. For example, in AL there is a city that outlaws all non-humans - and that's an example of this.

If orcs are like Tolkien orcs they are inherently "evil" because their basic creator, a Morgoth like being, made them that way - similar to undead - and largely or wholly irredeemable. If you use that model for orcs, it isn't "wrong" to treat orcs in a heavy-handed way. But if your pattern for orcs is something else and if "but they're evil" is really more the creation of human-centric propaganda and not fact - if orcs have choice over committing good or evil, for example - then we need to treat them differently, at least from an ethical standpoint.

Once you grasp this simple premise, 99% of the previous argument fades away. Think about it. I wish you peace.

[Chugger]

They shouldn't be attacked on sight because we're monsters, it just happens that they're mostly known for attacking other people on sight to kill and steal.

Goblins can trade with humans, and they do, but most of the time a group of goblins on the road will act like bandits and raiders.

Sorry, but wrong. You can't say "they shouldn't" (edit, in every case). You can't assume "it just happens." (edit in every case) This is why we're fighting on this thread, because some of us are not respecting how the various worlds we play in are wired or created.

If you're right that "it just happens" in the world you're in, then for that world yes, you're right - "they shouldn't."

But if you're in another world and they actually are monsters - you're wrong - because they can't choose between good and evil - they always choose either evil or calculate a "good" choice to fool someone so they can perform a greater evil down the road. You can't go on denying that in a fantasy setting this parameter or foundation element can exist. That you and some others seem to be denying the possibility of evil in various fantasy worlds <-- this is why we're arguing, and it's getting silly.

Please let's distinguish the two and argue from that premise. It's absurd to do otherwise. Can't you see it?

[Easy_Lee]

My argument is from the perspective that this is a game. If your whole party is monstrous races, or drow, then go ahead and make a theme of it.

But if you're trying to make a racial point and only one of your players actually plays a lizardman, that's not good. You'll penalize that player, or give him more or less attention than the others, or force him to change his play style, or similar. And all of that will be due to his race choice. That is not good for the game.

So like I've said, if you want to talk about racism, it needs to be a central theme. If it isn't, then including it to any meaningful degree isn't going to do you any favors.

[Chugger]

My argument is from the perspective that this is a game. If your whole party is monstrous races, or drow, then go ahead and make a theme of it.

But if you're trying to make a racial point and only one of your players actually plays a lizardman, that's not good. You'll penalize that player, or give him more or less attention than the others, or force him to change his play style, or similar. And all of that will be due to his race choice. That is not good for the game.

So like I've said, if you want to talk about racism, it needs to be a central theme. If it isn't, then including it to any meaningful degree isn't going to do you any favors.

We're largely talking past each other. Have you ever stopped to ask yourself that the player who chose lizardfolk might actually want to be picked on? Might want the challenge? "Not good for the game" sure if at that table such behavior or attitude is wrong - but at other tables with other people, who knows? Why are you imposing your will onto all people? Why are you not allowing for variance? That's what I don't understand. I'm saying do what's right for the table - for the people at that table - for the world they've accepted at that table. You seem to be saying that you have a DnD-wide rule that has to be imposed at every DnD table regardless of the desires of the people sitting there. Now do you see?

[Easy_Lee]

We're largely talking past each other. Have you ever stopped to ask yourself that the player who chose lizardfolk might actually want to be picked on? Might want the challenge? "Not good for the game" sure if at that table such behavior or attitude is wrong - but at other tables with other people, who knows? Why are you imposing your will onto all people? Why are you not allowing for variance? That's what I don't understand. I'm saying do what's right for the table - for the people at that table - for the world they've accepted at that table. You seem to be saying that you have a DnD-wide rule that has to be imposed at every DnD table regardless of the desires of the people sitting there. Now do you see?

I'm stating what I think the general policy ought to be, nothing more. I don't think DMs ought to assume that players want to experience racism. Given rule zero, DMs are free to do, and should do, what they feel is right at their table. I thought that went without saying.

[Regitnui]

So like I've said, if you want to talk about racism, it needs to be a central theme. If it isn't, then including it to any meaningful degree isn't going to do you any favors.

Eberron as default is coming out of a major war in which many nations fought. One of these nations used goblinoid mercenaries who took a substantial swathe of land from that country and declared it their own state. When the nation was destroyed, the goblin-held portion remained unaffected. What would the default reaction of a refugee from this country be when they meet a goblin, even one that was never involved in the annexing? They'd make judgements solely based on the goblin's race and treat them poorly, even if racism isn't a theme of the campaign.

Discrimination isn't all or nothing. You can have discriminatory behaviour towards a certain group without ruining the campaign. As Chugger says, the player may even enjoy the campaign more for those little moments of acknowledgement. If it makes you uncomfortable including that sort of thing at your table, that's entirely your prerogative, but you can't tell others that its wrong to discuss or enjoy such issues at their own table. Personally, I enjoy having the players meet and examine different cultures, whether human or nonhuman.

It's why I like Eberron so much. There are no outright monsters. Even the gnolls, cast by VGtM as basically hyena-shaped locusts, are complex and sympathetic in Eberron. Only the true exemplars of that alignment; celestials, fey, fiends, slaadi and modrons, are locked into their alignment. And even then, there are fallen angels and sympathetic fiends. Even the incomprehensible aberrations from the plane of madness can be worked with, even if their motivations are strange.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I'm stating what I think the general policy ought to be, nothing more. I don't think DMs ought to assume that players want to experience racism. Given rule zero, DMs are free to do, and should do, what they feel is right at their table. I thought that went without saying.

Volo's Guide assumes Monstrous Characters might experience racism.
"Don't be afraid to push things to an extreme. An orc character might have to venture into town in disguise
or remain in the wilderness, for fear of imprisonment or mob violence. "

The section asks the question are they regarded as no stranger then elves or dwarves or are they met with suspicion. It says what role the race plays in the setting should determine the kinds of reactions people get. That should be the general policy.
Thus in the FR and most other established settings, Goblins, Orcs, Kobolds etc characters should have a harder time.

The default assumption for monstrous races is that THEY are treated differently. If a player doesn't want to experience that they're free to pick a standard race. Its why their considered optional with DM permission.

[EvilAnagram]

This. An armed society is a polite society.

Historically, this is not remotely true. Heavily-armed societies tended to erupt into violence fairly easily, and insults would frequently lead to blood feuds.

Surely the possibility of violence would stay the barbs of our ancestors, you say.

But no. No, they just stabbed each other a lot.

In fact, as societies become more armed, they tend to become less polite. This is because people who keep a weapon on their hip tend to let their surrogate phallus make them overconfident, which leads to rudeness. Just as people who carry guns in their vehicles are statistically more likely to flip off other vehicles, our ancestors who wore messers were more likely to mouth off. In a society in which most men have a messer, a higher-than-normal percentage of those men will be likely to mouth off at someone, and that someone will be statistically likely to react violently.

Compound that with the fact that untrained amateurs tend to be more confident in their abilities than experts, and you have a tendency for societies with heavily-armed populations to have very rude populations prone to violence.

However, societies with enormous disparities between who can and cannot carry a weapon tend to be more polite because the terrified citizenry don't want to die on the arbitrary whims of nobles (eg: Tokugawa Japan).

Tl;Dr: spreading access to means of committing violence does not make people any nicer.

[Easy_Lee]

Historically, this is not remotely true. Heavily-armed societies tended to erupt into violence fairly easily, and insults would frequently lead to blood feuds.

Surely the possibility of violence would stay the barbs of our ancestors, you say.

But no. No, they just stabbed each other a lot.

In fact, as societies become more armed, they tend to become less polite. This is because people who keep a weapon on their hip tend to let their surrogate phallus make them overconfident, which leads to rudeness. Just as people who carry guns in their vehicles are statistically more likely to flip off other vehicles, our ancestors who wore messers were more likely to mouth off. In a society in which most men have a messer, a higher-than-normal percentage of those men will be likely to mouth off at someone, and that someone will be statistically likely to react violently.

Compound that with the fact that untrained amateurs tend to be more confident in their abilities than experts, and you have a tendency for societies with heavily-armed populations to have very rude populations prone to violence.

However, societies with enormous disparities between who can and cannot carry a weapon tend to be more polite because the terrified citizenry don't want to die on the arbitrary whims of nobles (eg: Tokugawa Japan).

Tl;Dr: spreading access to means of committing violence does not make people any nicer.

Gonna need a citation for all of that - - or at least, that's what I would say, if this wasn't a D&D forum. Let's try to talk D&D.

[Unoriginal]

Historically, this is not remotely true. Heavily-armed societies tended to erupt into violence fairly easily, and insults would frequently lead to blood feuds.

Surely the possibility of violence would stay the barbs of our ancestors, you say.

But no. No, they just stabbed each other a lot.

In fact, as societies become more armed, they tend to become less polite. This is because people who keep a weapon on their hip tend to let their surrogate phallus make them overconfident, which leads to rudeness. Just as people who carry guns in their vehicles are statistically more likely to flip off other vehicles, our ancestors who wore messers were more likely to mouth off. In a society in which most men have a messer, a higher-than-normal percentage of those men will be likely to mouth off at someone, and that someone will be statistically likely to react violently.

Compound that with the fact that untrained amateurs tend to be more confident in their abilities than experts, and you have a tendency for societies with heavily-armed populations to have very rude populations prone to violence.

However, societies with enormous disparities between who can and cannot carry a weapon tend to be more polite because the terrified citizenry don't want to die on the arbitrary whims of nobles (eg: Tokugawa Japan).

Tl;Dr: spreading access to means of committing violence does not make people any nicer.

There is a reason why the Norse had the concept of weregild (ie paying the family to compensate killing someone). They didn't want family-wide feuds to destroy the community whenever some guy got killed by their neighbors.

[EvilAnagram]

Gonna need a citation for all of that - - or at least, that's what I would say, if this wasn't a D&D forum. Let's try to talk D&D.

That's kind of disingenuous. I mean, you cast aspersions on my post, then immediately pretend that you're not participating in the conversation. At least stand by your statements. And I don't see how the historical murder rates of medieval societies isn't relevant to a typically pseudo-medieval fantasy game.

Anyways, it's not hard to find citations for any of that.

Medieval murder rates

Vehicular rudeness and firearms

Tokugawa society

I know I just linked to a wikipedia page on Edo society, but it's a bit complex for a single article. Read the page, then find a couple books on the subject.

My knowledge of the development of manners in the West basically comes from The Civilizing Process by Norbert Elias, so read that if you want to, I guess. Basically, he argues that manners developed because warlords who carved kingdoms in the low Middle Ages didn't want to constantly fight for power and see their kingdoms crumble after they died, so behavior at court became more regimented (it's why we call it courtesy), and as those manners developed the lower classes slowly soaked them up. They were positively adaptive because manners made you less likely to try to kill people, and people who were less likely to try to kill people were less likely to be killed.

I'm extrapolating from the prevalence of murder in the Middle Ages, the decline in the availability of common sidearms, and the way manners developed to arrive at the conclusion that the development of manners, the reduction in the prevalence of weapons, and the decline in the death rate are related.

You see a spike in murder rates in early frontier America, too, which is a time and place where manners declined and gun ownership was common.

Basically, weapons don't make people more polite, but they do make already-rude people more brazen (because insecure people tend to look outside themselves to find confidence). It's not appropriate to suggest polite people don't carry weapons (nobles always carried weapons until the modern era), but weapons never enforced manners, except amongst the unarmed.

There is a reason why the Norse had the concept of weregild (ie paying the family to compensate killing someone). They didn't want family-wide feuds to destroy the community whenever some guy got killed by their neighbors.

Yup.

[Shadow_in_the_Mist]

This whole thread makes me so glad that WoTC put out this information as part of their "Children of Darkness" article in Dragon #367. Whilst this is focused specifically on the drow, its basic point remains: a monster adventurer does not HAVE to be met with torches and pitchforks just to make the player remember that they need to keep their head down in human society.

Although drow villains and heroes appear throughout the fiction, adventures, and game products, it’s important to note their place in the Dungeons & Dragons game, at least in regard to their numbers. Doing so reveals a great deal about the position the drow occupy in the minds of the common folk in the world. The Monster Manual presents drow adversaries from levels 11 to level 15, placing them squarely in the lower half of the paragon tier. As such, they represent threats and foes that transcend the common person’s experiences, and they exist far beyond the typical threats an ordinary member of a race might face. In fact, the Arcana DC of 20 to identify even a basic salient feature about this race indicates that few commoners know anything about them at all. Certainly, sages, leaders, and figures of note with a bit more worldly experience likely know more of these insidious villains, but for the typical person in the world, the drow are more myth than reality. Even those folks who know of the drow (say one in twenty), the extent of their knowledge is largely limited to an understanding that they are a subterranean people who emerge to raid the surface for slaves, and they have little knowledge of Lolth’s influence over them.

Obviously, there are exceptions. It’s safe to say elves and eladrin know a bit more about the drow, given their historical connections. Also, drow prey on elves and eladrin more than they do other surface races, making drow a looming threat to these people. Still, among the smaller and more remote communities, one could suppose that an individual elf, eladrin, or half-elf has probably never seen a drow, wouldn’t know what to do if they encountered one, and certainly would have little idea about their culture and way of life. Again, the wiser and more powerful members of these populations would know more, but generally speaking, drow are an elusive, rarely seen, and widely misunderstood people that exist as a distant and shadowy threat.

From this, a drow player character is likely to move easier through the world than many DMs might otherwise allow. When dealing with common folk, shopkeepers, bartenders, artisans, the average individual might think the character’s appearance strange, maybe even unsettling, but treat that character the same way they would any individual possessed of an unusual appearance. Does this mean drow characters are free of prejudice and persecution? Not at all: The danger is more severe, for the people who know best about the drow are the ones best suited to cause these characters grief. Rival adventuring parties, powerful individuals knowledgeable in the nature of dark elves, and other people with a longstanding grudge against the drow can all harass a drow adventurer. So even though a drow character might move among the ignorant with ease, she must be ever vigilant about not attracting undue attention lest someone of consequence come to purge of the community of a real or perceived threat.