I remember reading through some D&D in middle school and playing with some friends casually, but found myself doing a double-take when I picked up a copy of the D&D 5e Player's Handbook and watched a D&D game people were playing on YouTube, because the book features a photo of a Half-orc Paladin on p82 who appears likely to be good-aligned based on his appearance, and someone in the game I was watching was role-playing a seemingly good-aligned goblin character. A half-orc Paladin, really? What's next, goblin paladins? Lich Paladins? Maybe a necromancer who multiclasses into Paladin? How about a troll Paladin or an Ogre Paladin? Maybe a demon or half-demon who decides evil isn't the right way after all, and decides to become a Paladin? ... It's starting to seem ridiculous, and breaks my sense of immersion.
Sorry if that seems random or something, but I just want to throw that out there. Some fantasy creatures seem like they have traditionally (in most mainstream fantasy worlds, not just in D&D) had an inclination toward evil, and the idea of them converting their alignment to lawful good and away from chaotic evil (literally a polar opposite) and becoming Paladins starts to seem stupid at some point, and in denial of the nature of the creature in question. I mean changing from chaotic evil to chaotic neutral or something might seem more believable, but it's just hard for me to see an orc or one of these other things as a Paladin..
As a second point, even if such a thing was technically possible, it seems like it should not be used as a portrait of a prototypical Paladin on p.82... it should be viewed as a rare exception, not the rule or example for the class that gets presented to players.
My point of view on this is based more on my concept of what these fantasy creatures are or have tended to be (in other franchises like LOTR, not just in D&D) than on what some technicality in the rulebook describes them as.
My opinion, but one of the most beautiful thing of D&D is that culture and alignment that come with a race can be however you want to serve a good story.
I need also to mention that that half-orc paladin can be of any any alignment, Paladin in 5e have no restriction in alignment.
Finally, I must mention Drizzt Do'Urden, character that doesn't need explanation on this matter.
My opinion, but one of the most beautiful thing of D&D is that culture and alignment that come with a race can be however you want to serve a good story.
"Can be" =/= is typically the case. The Players Handbook presents a half-orc Paladin as an example for the class.
And part of a good story is its ability to make the reader/listener suspend their sense of disbelief and become immersed in the story. If you put ridiculous content in your story like Paladin liches or ogres or something like that, it has the potential to turn the game into a circus and ruin the sense of immersion of the players.
The inclusion of characters like that just feels unrealistic.
Read volo's guide right before the monstrous race section they have a table and a prompt for the player, about what kind of thing happened to make their character the way they are.
Are they a spy, have they been raised by a different race or culture etc. I think you're simply being a bit bullish on the idea.
I could easily see a goblin going all drizzt etc. Its just a matter of whether or not you're ready to run with it or not.
An HAlf Orc isn't a monster, its a player character, you decide what allignement you are.
and 5th Ed Paladin is a bit more flexible then previous editions, you have Evil/Neutral/Aggresive oriented Paladin Vows, Conquest/Revenge/Oathbreaker?...
Critical Role current campaign's one of their best character is a Goblin, Arcane Trickster.
Player Characters are not the 'likely' though. They are the 1%. In my campaign setting any sapient (mortal) race can be of any alignment. They are free to make their own choices. We can agree that humans are mostly good, so should we disallow them to play necromancers or evil warlocks? Of course not. The same is true with orcs and goblins playing traditionally good classes and roles.
Player Characters are not the 'likely' though. They are the 1%. In my campaign setting any sapient (mortal) race can be of any alignment. They are free to make their own choices. We can agree that humans are mostly good, so should we disallow them to play necromancers or evil warlocks? Of course not. The same is true with orcs and goblins playing traditionally good classes and roles.
Are you sure that humans are mostly good? A few years back, I was in a campaign that we were basically only fighting a cult of evil humans, that had like maybe a few demons but who cares lol
Player Characters are not the 'likely' though. They are the 1%.
Lets say you have a game world where 99% of orcs/goblins are of some evil alignment. Now lets say that 1% of them have what it takes to be some powerful adventurer. You're talking about 1% of 1% that have both a good alignment AND what it takes to be a powerful adventurer.
If that's the case, how much sense does it make for you to be running around in the game world and seeing 1/6 players playing some highly unusual (if even possible) character like an orcish Paladin or a golbin Paladin (assuming Paladins have the traditional lawful good alignment requirement)?
People have taken what should be an extremely rare exception and trivialized it by making it too common among adventuring parties.
And this lack of attachment to reality diminishes game immersion, which is important for both storytelling and roleplay..
And this lack of attachment to reality diminishes game immersion, which is important for both storytelling and roleplay..
...Attachement to reality?..., the reality its that it is a game of make belief where you throw dices and pretend to be a buff adventurer of Awesome, when you're not...
also when reading you its like EVERY darn Goblin in creation can be a good paladin...
If there is One guy playing one in a campaign, that it will be the ONLY guy in the whole Campaign's Universe to be like this, doesn't matter that you've seen 20 other poeple do it, since they're all in their own worlds and universes, they're by definition unique, and they're not something "trivial" or common.
Playing D&D and the Immersion or roleplay is all about making/playing an unusuall person, that goes through unusual situations.
I really don't see whats the deal to be honest, Some people like playing monster races, some don't.
If you don't like it,...don't do it, but also don't ruin it for those who enjoys it.
I for one, never plays Humans/elfs/dwarves or Gnomes/halflings, why?, because i dislike them, they're cliché as can be and so common and boring.
i like playing Tieflings, Half Orcs or other stuff, its way more interesting and challenging.
Heck i knew a guy that played a Neutral Minautor assassin, best game we ever had.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
And this lack of attachment to reality diminishes game immersion, which is important for both storytelling and roleplay..
...Attachement to reality?..., the reality its that it is a game of make belief where you throw dices and pretend to be a buff adventurer of Awesome, when you're not... [...]
I for one, never plays Humans/elfs/dwarves or Gnomes/halflings, why?, because i dislike them, they're cliché as can be and so common and boring.
Good role-players and story writers can make humans/elves/dwarves/etc into great characters that are enjoyable to read about and play with. Case in point: LOTR is a literary classic of the English language that features very stereotypical elves/dwarves/orcs/etc, whereas Drizzt books are mostly just page turners most people will have forgotten in another 30 years.
And the point of the attachment to reality you laugh at is to make the "make belief" you refer to easier to achieve and more enjoyable. Make belief is easier to achieve if people make a reasonable effort to make the game world more realistic/believable. That's what I've been referring to when I talk about immersion in this thread..
My point of view on this is based more on my concept of what these fantasy creatures are or have tended to be (in other franchises like LOTR, not just in D&D) than on what some technicality in the rulebook describes them as.
There is a quite famous franchise that has Goblins being smart, dangerous, and in charge of everybody's most valuable stuff.
It doesn't really matter if a Half-Orc Paladin breaks your immersion. If it does, then maybe you need to find a different table to play at. Demanding a player to follow your point of view is killing their fun which is not cool.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
You act as if one sixth of the party is something then one sixth of the world is too. It is still just one individual.
You also seem to be applying your conditions for immersion to everybody. My players have never had an issue with immersion and good orcs and goblins. In fact, I would wager a bet that they enjoy seeing them. One game they ran into a goblin peddler and spent the better part of an hour awestruck talking to him and getting to hear as to why he is in such a unique situation.
As for Drizzt being forgotten in 30 years, only time will tell, but it is 30 years old now and running strong.
Good role-players and story writers can make humans/elves/dwarves/etc into great characters that are enjoyable to read about and play with. .
The Same is true for any kind of race/character, even Goblin or other characters...
Listen, if the option to play one exists, its because it was taken into consideration by the devs and writters of the game, its not somekind of houseruled material that came from nowhere.
Is it unusual and weird?, yes, but thats the point.
Any kind of excuse or reason you can find for a Dwarf/Elf/Human to go on adventures, you can find the same for Goblins, Hobgoblins, Kobolds, Half Orcs, Dhampir etc...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
If I am being honest I have had issues with an entire party of monstrous creatures being the good guys, or even neutral. It has hurt my immersion when this band of folks walks into a backwater town on the Sword Coast. Goblins are generally seen as Evil, Orcs too, Minotaurs and Tieflings don't even get me started...the towns people should react to this. But that's up to the DM to interpret into their game world. I have played under DM's who hand wave it, assuming control of the setting and saying that events throughout the realms have made people begin to second think whether creatures are inherently evil; and then I have had some that play into it very highly, they have towns guards and merchants interact with the monstrous characters and the other player character who accompany them differently.
The thing is, there is no right way. If you are a table, or an online forum, and there are some who enjoy playing the Minotaur Assassin, or the Tiefling Cleric of Pelor, either deal with it or move on. Life is too short to spend your time playing in a game that doesn't make you happy, or doing anything for that matter.
That being said, some of the greatest books/movies of all time (Remember the Titans anyone?) focus around people with set thoughts or opinions of others based on whats on the outside overcoming those preconceived notions. The question you should be asking is how does your human/elf/dwarf/gnome/halfling character interact with that Tiefling Cleric of Pelor? At first maybe cautiously, I mean they seem nice, but they are part demon right, no good can come of that. Then maybe you get into a fight and that Cleric saves your life...well they did one nice thing so maybe...no...they are still a demon, then it happens again, and again, and soon you sit next to them at the campfire and begin talking to them. You realize that they didn't choose to be who they were born, but they are choosing who they want to be, fate be damned. Suddenly a new respect, a bond is formed.
Even in the LOTR example that is brought up, Elves and Dwarves don't care for one another, yet a bond is born between Gimli and Legolas. Elves and Humans aren't supposed to mix yet Arwen and Aragorn are lovers.
Some part of this is also born from the fact that we can see so many other people's tables, and the world they are playing in, in the form of streams and blogs, and whatever else. If you only ever saw your own game table, and someone came up with the Goblin Paladin, and then came up with a good storyline and role played them well, maybe you would have issues with it, but you wouldn't think the whole world is making goblin paladins.
Anyways, there's no harshness meant here, just a friendly voice who can relate to what you are saying but that has also seen the light of change. Happy Gaming!
The only inherently good and evil creatures in the D&D multiverse are celestials and fiends. Everyone else either chooses to do good or evil or doesn't have enough awareness to make moral choices. When the Monster Manual slaps an alignment on a creature, that's just the norm - it's not speaking for every single individual.
There's always going to be people in the margins of society - even evil societies. Look at any culture in history and there's always been people that have been cast out, didn't fit in, or actively rejected their society's norms. So it goes with orcs and goblins too. Player characters in D&D are exceptional, unusual people by definition anyways.
The designers of the Player's Handbook made it a point to portray a wide variety of heroes and in some cases deliberately buck conventions. The decision to show a half-orc Paladin was most likely intentional.
When I used to play D&D on NWN PW worlds, many of the PW Story or PW roleplay servers would require characters to eat food and such in the game (which I'll admit seems a bit extreme), or would demand they stay in-character with their roleplay, rather than talking out of character in the game (which I find reasonable). I suppose this stems from the desire of players to create a more immersive world by making it feel more real -- aka realistic. That seems like a reasonable goal to me. If you have people randomly talking out of character in the game, that disrupts the immersion for everyone else in the game.
Why then do people scoff at my suggestions that we should strive for greater realism/immersion in this game on these forums? You can't really have it both ways: if realism/immersion matters when it comes to staying in character while playing the game, you can't say it doesn't matter at all and laugh at the idea when it comes to other aspects of the game that I have been bringing up in this thread. To do so is not logical.
I don't believe anyone is scoffing at your ideas, they're just presenting an alternative opinion.
One of the things that has made 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons so popular is the flexibility of the game - both system and setting.
We very much embrace that and the mantra that, if you're having fun and not harming anyone, then there's no wrong way to play D&D.
If people wish to have worlds populated primarily by goodly goblins, then they may do so and we celebrate the creativeness of doing things differently, taking an alternative spin on things.
One of my favourite campaigns I ever ran, all of my players were playing orcs or goblins and they were trying to deal with a situation where the lords of nearby cities were combining arms to wipe out all of the orcs, goblins and similar creatures. Those characters weren't evil, because it made the setting more interesting. The orc tribes were more like neutral nomadic plains folk, some of whom had taken to raiding to support themselves and now they were all paying the price for that ill-advised action.
The game is what you make of it and if goodly goblins or half-orcs being paladins isn't something that you want in your game, then that's cool - you can totally do that and it's ok and nobody should tell you different.
In the same way that I like vanilla milkshakes and my wife prefers chocolate - neither of us is wrong, we just have a different preference.
I remember reading through some D&D in middle school and playing with some friends casually, but found myself doing a double-take when I picked up a copy of the D&D 5e Player's Handbook and watched a D&D game people were playing on YouTube, because the book features a photo of a Half-orc Paladin on p82 who appears likely to be good-aligned based on his appearance, and someone in the game I was watching was role-playing a seemingly good-aligned goblin character. A half-orc Paladin, really? What's next, goblin paladins? Lich Paladins? Maybe a necromancer who multiclasses into Paladin? How about a troll Paladin or an Ogre Paladin? Maybe a demon or half-demon who decides evil isn't the right way after all, and decides to become a Paladin? ... It's starting to seem ridiculous, and breaks my sense of immersion.
Sorry if that seems random or something, but I just want to throw that out there. Some fantasy creatures seem like they have traditionally (in most mainstream fantasy worlds, not just in D&D) had an inclination toward evil, and the idea of them converting their alignment to lawful good and away from chaotic evil (literally a polar opposite) and becoming Paladins starts to seem stupid at some point, and in denial of the nature of the creature in question. I mean changing from chaotic evil to chaotic neutral or something might seem more believable, but it's just hard for me to see an orc or one of these other things as a Paladin..
As a second point, even if such a thing was technically possible, it seems like it should not be used as a portrait of a prototypical Paladin on p.82... it should be viewed as a rare exception, not the rule or example for the class that gets presented to players.
My point of view on this is based more on my concept of what these fantasy creatures are or have tended to be (in other franchises like LOTR, not just in D&D) than on what some technicality in the rulebook describes them as.
My opinion, but one of the most beautiful thing of D&D is that culture and alignment that come with a race can be however you want to serve a good story.
I need also to mention that that half-orc paladin can be of any any alignment, Paladin in 5e have no restriction in alignment.
Finally, I must mention Drizzt Do'Urden, character that doesn't need explanation on this matter.
"Can be" =/= is typically the case. The Players Handbook presents a half-orc Paladin as an example for the class.
And part of a good story is its ability to make the reader/listener suspend their sense of disbelief and become immersed in the story. If you put ridiculous content in your story like Paladin liches or ogres or something like that, it has the potential to turn the game into a circus and ruin the sense of immersion of the players.
The inclusion of characters like that just feels unrealistic.
It is your opinion, your view of the game. It is fine, but it can't be the staple for everyone.
Again, Paladin are not inheretlyi Lawful Good as much as half-orcs aren't inherently evil.
D&D lore is full of examples of characters or monsters breaking the traditional alignment (yes, there are cases of good-aligned liches).
Read volo's guide right before the monstrous race section they have a table and a prompt for the player, about what kind of thing happened to make their character the way they are.
Are they a spy, have they been raised by a different race or culture etc. I think you're simply being a bit bullish on the idea.
I could easily see a goblin going all drizzt etc. Its just a matter of whether or not you're ready to run with it or not.
An HAlf Orc isn't a monster, its a player character, you decide what allignement you are.
and 5th Ed Paladin is a bit more flexible then previous editions, you have Evil/Neutral/Aggresive oriented Paladin Vows, Conquest/Revenge/Oathbreaker?...
Critical Role current campaign's one of their best character is a Goblin, Arcane Trickster.
An Hexblade/Vengeance(or Oathbreaker) Paladin Multiclass makes for a wonderfull Anti Hero type Dark Knight, not good alligned, but at least Neutral.
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
Kain de Frostberg- Dark Knight - (Vengeance Pal3/ Hexblade 9), Port Mourn
Kain de Draakberg-Dark Knight lvl8-Avergreen(DitA)
Maybe possible, but is it likely?
Player Characters are not the 'likely' though. They are the 1%. In my campaign setting any sapient (mortal) race can be of any alignment. They are free to make their own choices. We can agree that humans are mostly good, so should we disallow them to play necromancers or evil warlocks? Of course not. The same is true with orcs and goblins playing traditionally good classes and roles.
Are you sure that humans are mostly good? A few years back, I was in a campaign that we were basically only fighting a cult of evil humans, that had like maybe a few demons but who cares lol
I stole my pfp from this person: https://mobile.twitter.com/xelart1/status/1177312449575432193
I would say they are mostly good. But just like anything, it could vary from campaign to campaign.
Depending on population density, everyone you face could be of one race but not even take up a single percent of their total population.
Lets say you have a game world where 99% of orcs/goblins are of some evil alignment. Now lets say that 1% of them have what it takes to be some powerful adventurer. You're talking about 1% of 1% that have both a good alignment AND what it takes to be a powerful adventurer.
If that's the case, how much sense does it make for you to be running around in the game world and seeing 1/6 players playing some highly unusual (if even possible) character like an orcish Paladin or a golbin Paladin (assuming Paladins have the traditional lawful good alignment requirement)?
People have taken what should be an extremely rare exception and trivialized it by making it too common among adventuring parties.
And this lack of attachment to reality diminishes game immersion, which is important for both storytelling and roleplay..
...Attachement to reality?..., the reality its that it is a game of make belief where you throw dices and pretend to be a buff adventurer of Awesome, when you're not...
also when reading you its like EVERY darn Goblin in creation can be a good paladin...
If there is One guy playing one in a campaign, that it will be the ONLY guy in the whole Campaign's Universe to be like this, doesn't matter that you've seen 20 other poeple do it, since they're all in their own worlds and universes, they're by definition unique, and they're not something "trivial" or common.
Playing D&D and the Immersion or roleplay is all about making/playing an unusuall person, that goes through unusual situations.
I really don't see whats the deal to be honest, Some people like playing monster races, some don't.
If you don't like it,...don't do it, but also don't ruin it for those who enjoys it.
I for one, never plays Humans/elfs/dwarves or Gnomes/halflings, why?, because i dislike them, they're cliché as can be and so common and boring.
i like playing Tieflings, Half Orcs or other stuff, its way more interesting and challenging.
Heck i knew a guy that played a Neutral Minautor assassin, best game we ever had.
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
Kain de Frostberg- Dark Knight - (Vengeance Pal3/ Hexblade 9), Port Mourn
Kain de Draakberg-Dark Knight lvl8-Avergreen(DitA)
Good role-players and story writers can make humans/elves/dwarves/etc into great characters that are enjoyable to read about and play with. Case in point: LOTR is a literary classic of the English language that features very stereotypical elves/dwarves/orcs/etc, whereas Drizzt books are mostly just page turners most people will have forgotten in another 30 years.
And the point of the attachment to reality you laugh at is to make the "make belief" you refer to easier to achieve and more enjoyable. Make belief is easier to achieve if people make a reasonable effort to make the game world more realistic/believable. That's what I've been referring to when I talk about immersion in this thread..
There is a quite famous franchise that has Goblins being smart, dangerous, and in charge of everybody's most valuable stuff.
It doesn't really matter if a Half-Orc Paladin breaks your immersion. If it does, then maybe you need to find a different table to play at. Demanding a player to follow your point of view is killing their fun which is not cool.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
You act as if one sixth of the party is something then one sixth of the world is too. It is still just one individual.
You also seem to be applying your conditions for immersion to everybody. My players have never had an issue with immersion and good orcs and goblins. In fact, I would wager a bet that they enjoy seeing them. One game they ran into a goblin peddler and spent the better part of an hour awestruck talking to him and getting to hear as to why he is in such a unique situation.
As for Drizzt being forgotten in 30 years, only time will tell, but it is 30 years old now and running strong.
The Same is true for any kind of race/character, even Goblin or other characters...
Listen, if the option to play one exists, its because it was taken into consideration by the devs and writters of the game, its not somekind of houseruled material that came from nowhere.
Is it unusual and weird?, yes, but thats the point.
Any kind of excuse or reason you can find for a Dwarf/Elf/Human to go on adventures, you can find the same for Goblins, Hobgoblins, Kobolds, Half Orcs, Dhampir etc...
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
Kain de Frostberg- Dark Knight - (Vengeance Pal3/ Hexblade 9), Port Mourn
Kain de Draakberg-Dark Knight lvl8-Avergreen(DitA)
If I am being honest I have had issues with an entire party of monstrous creatures being the good guys, or even neutral. It has hurt my immersion when this band of folks walks into a backwater town on the Sword Coast. Goblins are generally seen as Evil, Orcs too, Minotaurs and Tieflings don't even get me started...the towns people should react to this. But that's up to the DM to interpret into their game world. I have played under DM's who hand wave it, assuming control of the setting and saying that events throughout the realms have made people begin to second think whether creatures are inherently evil; and then I have had some that play into it very highly, they have towns guards and merchants interact with the monstrous characters and the other player character who accompany them differently.
The thing is, there is no right way. If you are a table, or an online forum, and there are some who enjoy playing the Minotaur Assassin, or the Tiefling Cleric of Pelor, either deal with it or move on. Life is too short to spend your time playing in a game that doesn't make you happy, or doing anything for that matter.
That being said, some of the greatest books/movies of all time (Remember the Titans anyone?) focus around people with set thoughts or opinions of others based on whats on the outside overcoming those preconceived notions. The question you should be asking is how does your human/elf/dwarf/gnome/halfling character interact with that Tiefling Cleric of Pelor? At first maybe cautiously, I mean they seem nice, but they are part demon right, no good can come of that. Then maybe you get into a fight and that Cleric saves your life...well they did one nice thing so maybe...no...they are still a demon, then it happens again, and again, and soon you sit next to them at the campfire and begin talking to them. You realize that they didn't choose to be who they were born, but they are choosing who they want to be, fate be damned. Suddenly a new respect, a bond is formed.
Even in the LOTR example that is brought up, Elves and Dwarves don't care for one another, yet a bond is born between Gimli and Legolas. Elves and Humans aren't supposed to mix yet Arwen and Aragorn are lovers.
Some part of this is also born from the fact that we can see so many other people's tables, and the world they are playing in, in the form of streams and blogs, and whatever else. If you only ever saw your own game table, and someone came up with the Goblin Paladin, and then came up with a good storyline and role played them well, maybe you would have issues with it, but you wouldn't think the whole world is making goblin paladins.
Anyways, there's no harshness meant here, just a friendly voice who can relate to what you are saying but that has also seen the light of change. Happy Gaming!
The only inherently good and evil creatures in the D&D multiverse are celestials and fiends. Everyone else either chooses to do good or evil or doesn't have enough awareness to make moral choices. When the Monster Manual slaps an alignment on a creature, that's just the norm - it's not speaking for every single individual.
There's always going to be people in the margins of society - even evil societies. Look at any culture in history and there's always been people that have been cast out, didn't fit in, or actively rejected their society's norms. So it goes with orcs and goblins too. Player characters in D&D are exceptional, unusual people by definition anyways.
The designers of the Player's Handbook made it a point to portray a wide variety of heroes and in some cases deliberately buck conventions. The decision to show a half-orc Paladin was most likely intentional.
When I used to play D&D on NWN PW worlds, many of the PW Story or PW roleplay servers would require characters to eat food and such in the game (which I'll admit seems a bit extreme), or would demand they stay in-character with their roleplay, rather than talking out of character in the game (which I find reasonable). I suppose this stems from the desire of players to create a more immersive world by making it feel more real -- aka realistic. That seems like a reasonable goal to me. If you have people randomly talking out of character in the game, that disrupts the immersion for everyone else in the game.
Why then do people scoff at my suggestions that we should strive for greater realism/immersion in this game on these forums? You can't really have it both ways: if realism/immersion matters when it comes to staying in character while playing the game, you can't say it doesn't matter at all and laugh at the idea when it comes to other aspects of the game that I have been bringing up in this thread. To do so is not logical.
I don't believe anyone is scoffing at your ideas, they're just presenting an alternative opinion.
One of the things that has made 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons so popular is the flexibility of the game - both system and setting.
We very much embrace that and the mantra that, if you're having fun and not harming anyone, then there's no wrong way to play D&D.
If people wish to have worlds populated primarily by goodly goblins, then they may do so and we celebrate the creativeness of doing things differently, taking an alternative spin on things.
One of my favourite campaigns I ever ran, all of my players were playing orcs or goblins and they were trying to deal with a situation where the lords of nearby cities were combining arms to wipe out all of the orcs, goblins and similar creatures. Those characters weren't evil, because it made the setting more interesting. The orc tribes were more like neutral nomadic plains folk, some of whom had taken to raiding to support themselves and now they were all paying the price for that ill-advised action.
The game is what you make of it and if goodly goblins or half-orcs being paladins isn't something that you want in your game, then that's cool - you can totally do that and it's ok and nobody should tell you different.
In the same way that I like vanilla milkshakes and my wife prefers chocolate - neither of us is wrong, we just have a different preference.
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊