Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Race and species in D&D

Hollywood

Educated
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
57
Location
The Britannia System
It's been on my mind recently, the concept of race and species when applied to RPGs. Thinking back to when I was younger, playing CRPGs like Neverwinter Nights and Morrowind, I ended up always playing as Human or Redguard respectively -- occasionally, I'd try Half-Orc or Khajiit, too.

The thing about these games, though, was that any other playable race (or probably more accurately, species) for the most part to me was a kind "speciality type", if that makes any kinda sense. Dwarves and Elves, Nords and Orcs, they would always have some kinda penalty to their attributes or they would have a restriction on which class they could pick. To me as a kid, I mostly just saw that as numbers that told me what their optimal character build would be but when I read the descriptions of the peoples such as Orcs and Redguards, it struck me as odd that a people who are apparently energetic, adaptive, hardy, versatile and obviously highly intelligent and have their own complex civilizations are given a heavy penalty to their Intelligence, Willpower/Wisdom, Charisma/Personality attributes. At the same time, Imperials, Nords and Elves have heavy penalties to their Strength, Dexterity/Agility, Constitution/Endurance atrributes, so why are they wearing heavy armour, using bows or swinging big-ass swords or even have civilizations which have many buildings, facilities and even ships that require a strong, resistant, agile people to have even built, maintain or use them when they obviously do not have the muscles, manual dexterity or stamina to have even gotten that far.

Where it gets real stupid is when you have the Tiefling/Aasamir or Half-Orc/Half-Elf paradigm. Tieflings are given bonuses to their Intelligence and Dexterity but are given heavy penalties to their Charisma as though as just inherently incapable of being likeable/not assholes. On the flipside, Aasamir get bonuses to Charisma as well as Intelligence and Wisdom and no penalities to anything even though they come across as arrogant and full of themselves much of time as they are described in the lore. When it comes Half-Orcs, they get the worst of the lot with penalities to everything except, say Strength or maybe Constitution, to which they get large bonuses to. On the flipside, Half-Elves get bonuses to almost everything but no real penalities (stuff like Strength and Constitution just stay the base rate).

None of these bonuses or penalties make sense in context of their respective lores or in a vaccum. Tieflings can be some of the most persuasive and seductive peoples around even with their demonic ancestry so why the penalty to Charisma? Half-Orcs are some of the biggest motherfuckers around with a natural mix of intelligence, ferocity and insight into the worlds and mindsets of both their Human and Orc ancestries which ultimately outmatches the brightest and strongest of their Human or Orc relatives so why would they have penalties at all. In fact, if we take these factors to their logical conclusion, it would be a penalty in and of itself to play as a monoracial Human or Elf or Orc or Dwarf just by their inherent capabilities being more limitied than their mixed-race and/or planetouched offspring.

The racism and ignorance is palpable, especially from older lore, descriptions and mechanics of these peoples and it ends up being self-defeating for both game designers and players because it rigidly defines what kind of characters can be created or scenarios/stories designed and, as a result, limits the inherent potential for fun and satisfying gameplay and roleplaying because for some reason a Half-Orc can't be a Wizard, a Dwarf can't be a Ranger, an Elf can't be a Paladin or whatever other combination of skillsets and/or natural abilties are restricted simply because one people is seen as being "savage" while another is "civilised" or that that they're just not intelligent to use [x] skill or have [y] ability because of their genetics.

And we all know thousands of RPG players (likely including half of the Codex) have cried out at one point or another over the decades, "WHY CAN'T MY ELF BE A PALADIN!", which is just a simple, basic example of why this way of looking at and designing RPGs has and will always harm and hinder the medium as a whole rather than benefit it or help it become stronger and possibly attract new players, GMs and designer from other walks of life and/or backgrounds. So why does it persist...
 

Syl

Cipher
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
745
I feel the same. Houseruling is the solution. Here is what I do: make the bonus mandatory, let the player choose where to put the malus.

Dwarves for example: +2 CON, -2 in any other stat (or even -1 in two other stats).

It works quite well. As a DM you may want to forbid some combinations.
 

Gozma

Arcane
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
2,951
The part of it that bugs me is that it's designed for competitive balance which is why they get slotted into gameplay stereotypes like "archer" or whatever. I'd like to play a nasty little Tolkien cockney orc that is straight fucking retarded and incredibly awful and 135cm tall, with no offsetting advantage whatsoever, not an Americanized crypto-negro analog orc from a proud warrior race and +4 to all mascu-stats
 

particle man

Novice
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
9
Location
CO, USA
Tieflings are given bonuses to their Intelligence and Dexterity but are given heavy penalties to their Charisma as though as just inherently incapable of being likeable/not assholes. .

Fwiw, I figured the CHA penalty was due to them having horns or tails or whatever, and thus being seen as freakish.

I do see where the OP is coming from, on the other hand, without that kind of stuff, why have races/species at all? I like this:

Houseruling is the solution. Here is what I do: make the bonus mandatory, let the player choose where to put the malus.

Dwarves for example: +2 CON, -2 in any other stat (or even -1 in two other stats).

I did this with the game I used to run, worked for us too. I also got rid of class restrictions based on race.
 

darkling

Educated
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
74
As particle man stated, tieflings start at a place of disadvantage socially because of their physical similarities to devils/demons. Also, it's not a severe penalty. -2 doesn't preclude high Charisma in a Tiefling, it just makes it cost more to get there. I don't see the problem with this abstraction.

Also, class restrictions based on race haven't been a thing in D&D/d20 systems for a long, long time now. There is nothing stopping a half-orc from being a wizard, in fact, in Pathfinder, Half-Orc's don't have any penalties. Just a +2 to any one stat of the players choice. So, you can stick that in Int and be smart. The fact that full blooded Orc's get a -2 to Intelligence makes sense to me, as well, because a majority of D&D orcs don't live in societies that value learning. An orc that bucked that trend could easily dump a majority of their starting points (in a point buy system) or their highest roll (in a dice system) in Intelligence and counter that -2 pretty easily anyhow.
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
Actually, at least when it comes to TES and Morrowind, the descriptions and stats were generally consistent, if somewhat inclusive, with only stats with baseline at 40 or above getting special mentions.

You also don't need to be superhumanly strong to build large, complex structures, or even use heavy armour.

Still, I'd prefer to have different races with differently allocated talents in *all* parts of the spectrum, rather than having races specialize exclusively in different parts of it.

As for classes being off limit to certain races, yeah, it's pretty shit, especially when we consider what games like Wizardry 8 can do (in terms of pure mechanics) with opposite approach DESPITE having races strongly oriented towards particular professions.

As for the racism, it generally follows from need to make your races distinct mechanically, though having your fantasy races actually differ in terms of average values of relevant stats may make interesting study on (in)validity of racism in corner case circumstances, instead of trying to determine what our RL circumstances actually are - that's one of the things I always liked in TES from Daggerfall onwards.
 

Vaarna_Aarne

Notorious Internet Vandal
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
34,585
Location
Cell S-004
MCA Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2
Also, class restrictions based on race haven't been a thing in D&D/d20 systems for a long, long time now. There is nothing stopping a half-orc from being a wizard, in fact, in Pathfinder, Half-Orc's don't have any penalties. Just a +2 to any one stat of the players choice. So, you can stick that in Int and be smart. The fact that full blooded Orc's get a -2 to Intelligence makes sense to me, as well, because a majority of D&D orcs don't live in societies that value learning. An orc that bucked that trend could easily dump a majority of their starting points (in a point buy system) or their highest roll (in a dice system) in Intelligence and counter that -2 pretty easily anyhow.
Pathfinder in general fixes a lot of dumb shit, like the level adjustment Tieflings get (which is ultimately THE actual big penalty they get) and in general handles races a lot better (along with giving classes more options).

Fwiw, I figured the CHA penalty was due to them having horns or tails or whatever, and thus being seen as freakish.
Generally I'd say this ties into a very usual issue in RPG mechanics: Physical appearance and actual charisma are rolled into one overly generalized package. In reality, it doesn't really work that way. A good example of the major disconnect between appearance and raw charisma is Adolf Hitler. The man was without doubt below average, short, and scrawny; but at the same time one of the most persuasive talkers and captivating orators in history. Winston Churchill is another such case, being an old fat drunkard but capable of giving +2 to Morale and +10 Roll To Think Of England. By contrast, we've got plenty of people with looks but little charisma, like most models and the like for example.

Personally, I prefer making the Charisma stat present just that: Raw personal magnetism. In my opinion, appearance shouldn't even be statted, but left as a special trait available for characters to represent either exceptional good or hideous looks, where it provides modifiers to certain social activities.
 

particle man

Novice
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
9
Location
CO, USA
Also, class restrictions based on race haven't been a thing in D&D/d20 systems for a long, long time now.

Oh yeah, good point. :oops: My mind's still stuck in 2e I guess.

...Personally, I prefer making the Charisma stat present just that: Raw personal magnetism. In my opinion, appearance shouldn't even be statted, but left as a special trait available for characters to represent either exceptional good or hideous looks, where it provides modifiers to certain social activities.

I always looked at it as just a way to represent all the superficial social stuff at once when you need to- as in, high CHA could be any combination of personality, looks, and all that which would make others react favorably. Not perfect, but in practice it generally ended up being a non-issue for me anyway. Things usually just worked themselves out- if the players didn't start a fight, and there was no reason for tension, I let it ride. If a little more intrigue was called for, it was usually more fun to roleplay it than let the dice make the call anyway.
 

Vaarna_Aarne

Notorious Internet Vandal
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
34,585
Location
Cell S-004
MCA Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2
...Personally, I prefer making the Charisma stat present just that: Raw personal magnetism. In my opinion, appearance shouldn't even be statted, but left as a special trait available for characters to represent either exceptional good or hideous looks, where it provides modifiers to certain social activities.

I always looked at it as just a way to represent all the superficial social stuff at once when you need to- as in, high CHA could be any combination of personality, looks, and all that which would make others react favorably. Not perfect, but in practice it generally ended up being a non-issue for me anyway. Things usually just worked themselves out- if the players didn't start a fight, and there was no reason for tension, I let it ride. If a little more intrigue was called for, it was usually more fun to roleplay it than let the dice make the call anyway.
There are certain flaws in this viewpoint though, since Drow have a bonus to Charisma and they've got a very, very bad reputation.

Personally I also find that the GM should, in case dice rolls for social situations are avoided (I agree with this approach), make damn sure that players don't use this as an excuse to be way better at persuasion or other forms of social prowess than they really are (I remember several examples of Charisma 10 characters with zero social skills acting like they were smooth motherfuckers and the GM not calling it out).
 

particle man

Novice
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
9
Location
CO, USA
There are certain flaws in this viewpoint though, since Drow have a bonus to Charisma and they've got a very, very bad reputation.

Never been a fan of Drow in the first place (they didn't exist in my campaign, and probably wouldn't in any future game I might run), but yeah, I see your point... just sayin', that's how I looked at it.

Personally I also find that the GM should, in case dice rolls for social situations are avoided (I agree with this approach), make damn sure that players don't use this as an excuse to be way better at persuasion or other forms of social prowess than they really are (I remember several examples of Charisma 10 characters with zero social skills acting like they were smooth motherfuckers and the GM not calling it out).

Yeah, I ran into that problem a here & there, but I'd call 'em out if needed. I also explained the concepts during character creation, so they had a warning before any such shenanigans came up. Perhaps I should also mention that I was lucky to usually be playing with people that were all pretty good friends to begin with, so people were pretty good sports about things in general.
 

Vaarna_Aarne

Notorious Internet Vandal
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
34,585
Location
Cell S-004
MCA Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2
Personally I also find that the GM should, in case dice rolls for social situations are avoided (I agree with this approach), make damn sure that players don't use this as an excuse to be way better at persuasion or other forms of social prowess than they really are (I remember several examples of Charisma 10 characters with zero social skills acting like they were smooth motherfuckers and the GM not calling it out).

Yeah, I ran into that problem a here & there, but I'd call 'em out if needed. I also explained the concepts during character creation, so they had a warning before any such shenanigans came up. Perhaps I should also mention that I was lucky to usually be playing with people that were all pretty good friends to begin with, so people were pretty good sports about things in general.
Personally I've come to the conclusion that I really don't want to try and play highly charismatic characters from now on. Due to how introverted and depressed I am myself, I cannot write such a character believably if I don't also write everyone else and thus control the entire social clockwork to eliminate any sort of uncertainty on my own behalf about reactions and motivations.
 

particle man

Novice
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
9
Location
CO, USA
Personally I've come to the conclusion that I really don't want to try and play highly charismatic characters from now on. Due to how introverted and depressed I am myself, I cannot write such a character believably if I don't also write everyone else and thus control the entire social clockwork to eliminate any sort of uncertainty on my own behalf about reactions and motivations.

The few times I got to be a PC rather than GM, I always took the easy way out and played the theif who's just along for the ride (and cash)- so I can't say much there. As GM I think it's a little easier to be faux-charasmatic, since you do get to write almost everyone else, and it's usually not hard to guess the PC's intentions, if they don't state them outright (kill or otherwise defeat the baddies, get the girl/treasure, conduct successful diplomatic relations, whatever).
 

Commissar Draco

Codexia Comrade Colonel Commissar
Patron
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
20,856
Location
Привислинский край
Insert Title Here Strap Yourselves In Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Divinity: Original Sin 2
Arcanum has separate stats for physical beauty which influenced reaction for first contact with such :obviously: nice addition as smocking and silk dress making your PC more liked and charisma being the spiritual magnetism giving you larger numbers of followers, but it was possible even for Half Orc to be great orator... Just like in RL this kind of :hmmm: ''underprivileged person'' had to work harder. (not to mention the exceptions of the rule like Gor the smartest Orc or Donn Throgg)
 

darkling

Educated
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
74
I remember Unearthed Arcana for 1e AD&D added the Comeliness stat for the exact same use. I always thought it was kinda hilarious and I remember playing in a group where the DM had us roll it (in 2e! he just houseruled it in) and yet we never used it for anything. It ended up being a dump stat so we'd have 7 scores to shuffle about rather than 6. 2e had a similar "Appearance" stat in that Skills & Powers cheesefest, but I can't imagine anyone ever actually using that system.

I always thought physical appearance was an awkward thing to codify into a hard statistic in a P&P game. It does make some sense, in a modelling of behavior kinda way, but I feel it adds a bit too much gaminess to something that could be resolved in RP interaction rather than in game mechanics. Of course, CRPG's have to be a numbers game through and through, so that's different.
 

JrK

Prophet
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
1,764
Location
Speaking to the Sea
First thing I did in my houserules regarding races is to remove the attribute score enhancements associated with races. Nothing of value is lost, character options are increased as -2 Int means you cannot build a good wizard when others get +2 Int. Races have certain synergies perhaps due to their other abilities, but nothing crippling.

I also found this houserule, which has some good ideas.
 

particle man

Novice
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
9
Location
CO, USA
Yeah, I like the idea behind it, though I might tweak some details. Overall though, I think it is a good alternative.
 

Damned Registrations

Furry Weeaboo Nazi Nihilist
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
15,091
The charisma thing never really bothered me that much. Aside from physical appearance, there are other factors as well, such as voice or confidence, and they could easily be affected by one's race or culture. And just because high charisma demons do exist, they aren't all (and many of the ones with above average charsima still have it among their lowest stats, and it's only that high because they're effectively level 20+) like that and even if they are, the traits that make them charismatic won't necessarily make their offspring charismatic. Male descendents of a succubus might be frail and weak looking, rather than lithe and sexy.


 

Norfleet

Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
12,250
This explanation basically covers why ugly people exist: Because combinations that work on some people just don't work on others.
 

Monocause

Arcane
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
3,656
D&D explains the Tiefling CHA penalty in pretty simple terms - it's not necessarily because of how they look like or how do they behave, but due to the fact that their demonic heritage gives them an "aura of wrongness" and makes people feel naturally uneasy around them.
 
Self-Ejected

Ulminati

Kamelåså!
Patron
Joined
Jun 18, 2010
Messages
20,317
Location
DiNMRK
4e/pathfinder did away with attribute penalties. Most races get +2 to two attributes. Humans get +2 to an attribute of their choice on top of the bonus feat and skill point they've been getting since 3.0. Interestingly enough, this has made humans the "optimal" choice for nearly every build on character optimization boards.

Shadowrun made non-humans stronger by default, but also made non-human races cost build points. So humans would have lower attribute maximums, but usually started with more money/contacts/gear/skills/spells/cyberware. SR actually managed to make every race "work" for every archetype. Although some of them (troll mage for instance) were so resource intensive they became nearly unplayable unless the campaign started with veteran runners.
 

darkling

Educated
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
74
PF does have slightly less attribute penalties, at least. And Tieflings get Fiendish Sorcery which let's them counter their Charisma penalty! That's another reason tieflings sucked in 3E, their lore makes sorcerer seem like a perfect class option but then they're penalized.
 
Self-Ejected

Ulminati

Kamelåså!
Patron
Joined
Jun 18, 2010
Messages
20,317
Location
DiNMRK
PF does have slightly less attribute penalties, at least. And Tieflings get Fiendish Sorcery which let's them counter their Charisma penalty! That's another reason tieflings sucked in 3E, their lore makes sorcerer seem like a perfect class option but then they're penalized.

Then they take the fiendish heritage feat to become rakshasa-spawn or div-spawn and end up with a cha BOOST on top of fiendish sorcery.

And they're still completely outshined by human sorcers who use the alternate sorcerer favoured class bonus from APG. (One additonal spell known every level)
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom