I usually dislike pointing out logical fallacies, but No True Scotsman is particularly obnoxious to me. I don't care about what "true D&D" is to you, but I'm certain a majority of players disagree with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Volo's is a retcon from previous editions. Gnolls were playable in 2nd and 3rd Editions and some people would appreciate having them back. Especially since the lore in Volo's regarding gnolls is often viewed as lackluster.
We are playing 5e, not 2e or 3e. Regardless of your views on the quality of the writing in Volo's it is canon in the 5e setting.
Not really a dog or hyena in this debate, but AFAIK Gnolls are the only race among classic and "former monster" races that consumes humanoid flesh in core product lore.
...
Y'know Lizardfolk do have their Hungry Jaws trait ... that may lead to something.
Third edition established that some (not most) Lizardfolk tribes eat slain enemies and prisoners, though their rumored craving for human flesh is not factual, and that ritualistic cannibalism is traditional among all tribes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Volo's is a retcon from previous editions. Gnolls were playable in 2nd and 3rd Editions and some people would appreciate having them back. Especially since the lore in Volo's regarding gnolls is often viewed as lackluster.
We are playing 5e, not 2e or 3e. Regardless of your views on the quality of the writing in Volo's it is canon in the 5e setting.
There is no single 5E setting. Drow culture differs significantly between the Realms, Eberron and Wildemount, for instance. Volo's is canon for the Forgotten Realms, but not for other settings. Homebrew settings may copy some or all of his monster lore or disregard it entirely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm persuaded. Read through the MM Gnoll as well as the Orc and see the "essential monstrousness" was there when 5e core books came out and see the de-monstering of them as a playable race or antagonist species was something after 5e could see some retooling with Gnolls.
As far as the Yeenoghu thing, some lore gives Baphomet a similar dominion over minotaurs, and minotaurs have also been revised as a fairly noble PC race in some official game worlds.
Out of curiosity, I culled the MM for humanoids of small to medium size to see what's left in the non-playable and perhaps irredeemable monster camp, this was an on the fly skim and only of the MM, but I got:
Left out Merfolk since the game has the Triton. Also kept out "were-" anything since that's a condition in my book not really a race, and if a player really wants to be a weresomething out the gate, I could entertain a Shifter.
I think all of these could be easily rehabilitated (or returned in the case of the Thri-kreen) as player races. I'm actually now wishing for an aquatic themed adventure hardback that would give racial stats for Kuo-too and Sahuagin; and Mord book that looks at the Underdark conflicts that brought Grimlocks and Quaggoth there (and the potential bad light one puts on the surface elves and the other on the Drow). And I think it would be cool to play a party consisting of Tortles, Lizardfolk, and Bullywug campaigning to identify and end a threat to their wetlands. Maybe they fail and have to entreat a Dragon Turtle for aid in the sequel.
Exploring Eberron book, which is unoficial but very well designed and most GMs let you use it since it's written by the Eberron's head designer, have rules for (ebrronian) Gnolls if you're interested in almost-official.
I don't think Tasha's Cauldron did anything to change the status of gnolls regarding whether or not they'll ever become playable.
On the contrary, Tasha's released custom lineage rules that make anything playable. The book charged with making them less likely to be playable literally made them playable with official rules.
I feel like it would do us some good to step back here and take a breath. People were outraged when goblins/orcs/drow were "humanized." People are outraged that gnolls weren't humanized.
Don't let outraged be your default state. It's not a good way to live. We have custom lineage. We have DM fiat. If you want to play a blind half-gnoll, half-illithid psion in a battle wheelchair you can totally do that. It only takes one conversation with the right DM. Why do we get so caught up in what we "can't" do in a game where you can literally do anything?
This is your pastime. No one is getting paid here. Don't waste your fun time being outraged. If you want to be a gnoll, go look up the 398 homebrew gnoll stats out there or make #399 yourself. D&D is a game where you can do that. That's awesome!
Personally, I don't think that WotC doesn't want people to play as Gnolls if they really want to. The game has always encouraged players and DMs to use the source books as a guide and customize their games to the tastes of their own tables. I just think that they also want to have a reliable "Jobber" race that they can depict as disposable enemies without raising a lot of questions. Gnolls are iconic to D&D... they're not really based on any existing folklore, so WotC is free to interpret them basically however they want. However, they're also still largely considered low-level threats, so they can be used to casually show a character being big and strong without being as overtly sympathetic as other creatures.
If you see an illustration of a barbarian drop-kicking a goblin off the side of a cliff, you might feel sorry for the little goblin. But if it's a gnoll instead? Well, you might still feel sorry for it... but they really, really don't want you to, so they do all they can to make sure that, at least within the lore, that there's no sympathetic aspect of the Gnoll. Give it a few more years, more threads like this will come up, WotC will cave and Gnolls will get expanded lore, get a playable race in like... Melf's Guide to Meanies, and then Bullywugs will be the disposable mook du jour until their increased awareness starts to garner sympathy and they have to move on to like... Troglodytes or something.
On a side note, I saw a thread on Twitter about Navajo words for various animals. Rather than taking loan words (e.g. obviously there is no historical word for hyena in Navajo), the Navajo language coins words using its own linguistics. The Navajo word for hyena throws some serious shade. From Wiktionary:
łééchąąʼí - From łį́į́ʼ (“pet”) + chąąʼ (“sh*t”) + -í (nominalizer); literally, "sh*t pet" (pet that eats excrement) (see Wiktionary for un-censored version, though I think you can guess what sh*t means...)
Not really a dog or hyena in this debate, but AFAIK Gnolls are the only race among classic and "former monster" races that consumes humanoid flesh in core product lore.
Thri-kreen were depicted as being particularly fond of Elf flesh back in 2e. (Dark Sun).
I don't think Tasha's Cauldron did anything to change the status of gnolls regarding whether or not they'll ever become playable.
On the contrary, Tasha's released custom lineage rules that make anything playable. The book charged with making them less likely to be playable literally made them playable.
Custom Lineage is a terrible mechanic. It's essentially a homebrew straightjacket. Just look at existing races and create something in line with those.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Not really a dog or hyena in this debate, but AFAIK Gnolls are the only race among classic and "former monster" races that consumes humanoid flesh in core product lore.
Thri-kreen were depicted as being particularly fond of Elf flesh back in 2e. (Dark Sun).
Orcs, goblinoids (particularly bugbears), lizardfolk, kobolds, yuan ti, and minotaurs have always been portrayed as being enthusiastic eaters of humanoid flesh.
I mean, Yuan Ti as a race are even more evil than gnolls and yet stats for them as playable characters were still provided.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I don't think Tasha's Cauldron did anything to change the status of gnolls regarding whether or not they'll ever become playable.
On the contrary, Tasha's released custom lineage rules that make anything playable. The book charged with making them less likely to be playable literally made them playable.
Custom Lineage is a terrible mechanic. It's essentially a homebrew straightjacket. Just look at existing races and create something in line with those.
It's also something that many GMs would be hesitant to allow because they prefer official stats over homebrew.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Not really a dog or hyena in this debate, but AFAIK Gnolls are the only race among classic and "former monster" races that consumes humanoid flesh in core product lore.
This actually came up last time the gnoll PC discussion was here. While gnolls are the only cannibal race in 5e, orcs and goblins both ate humans, elves and dwarven flesh in previous editions. Tis curious how they redeemed those, but not the gnolls.
Not really a dog or hyena in this debate, but AFAIK Gnolls are the only race among classic and "former monster" races that consumes humanoid flesh in core product lore.
Thri-kreen were depicted as being particularly fond of Elf flesh back in 2e. (Dark Sun).
Right, like the Halflings and maybe everyone else in Dark Sun for all I know. I don't really consider the Thri-Kreen a "classic race." but point taken. Honestly I never heard of Thri-Kreen until Dark Sun and when I did learn of them I thought they were concept races for another volume of Zebulon's Guide for Star Frontiers before that line got pulled, and a D&D designer found the file folder.
I don't think Tasha's Cauldron did anything to change the status of gnolls regarding whether or not they'll ever become playable.
On the contrary, Tasha's released custom lineage rules that make anything playable. The book charged with making them less likely to be playable literally made them playable.
Custom Lineage is a terrible mechanic. It's essentially a homebrew straightjacket. Just look at existing races and create something in line with those.
This. Custom Lineage can not recreate any of the existing player races without home brewing superfeats, that should tell you it's a handicapped system for players who want the option to play entirely _outside_ the race framework. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a terrible mechanic. But in an effort to accommodate players who for whatever reason want to play outside the bounds of (the already freed up through Tasha's race customization) race parameters, it offers a diluted (arguably on account of game balance concerns) compared to published race options unless you homebrew superfeats. And if you're doing the latter you ought to just homebrew and playtest a race anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I usually dislike pointing out logical fallacies, but No True Scotsman is particularly obnoxious to me. I don't care about what "true D&D" is to you, but I'm certain a majority of players disagree with it.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
We are playing 5e, not 2e or 3e. Regardless of your views on the quality of the writing in Volo's it is canon in the 5e setting.
Third edition established that some (not most) Lizardfolk tribes eat slain enemies and prisoners, though their rumored craving for human flesh is not factual, and that ritualistic cannibalism is traditional among all tribes.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There is no single 5E setting. Drow culture differs significantly between the Realms, Eberron and Wildemount, for instance. Volo's is canon for the Forgotten Realms, but not for other settings. Homebrew settings may copy some or all of his monster lore or disregard it entirely.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
They are running out of options for 'bad guys'. Don't want to be judgey.
Campaign books are chock full of "bad guys" of all varieties, including most of the core races.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm persuaded. Read through the MM Gnoll as well as the Orc and see the "essential monstrousness" was there when 5e core books came out and see the de-monstering of them as a playable race or antagonist species was something after 5e could see some retooling with Gnolls.
As far as the Yeenoghu thing, some lore gives Baphomet a similar dominion over minotaurs, and minotaurs have also been revised as a fairly noble PC race in some official game worlds.
Out of curiosity, I culled the MM for humanoids of small to medium size to see what's left in the non-playable and perhaps irredeemable monster camp, this was an on the fly skim and only of the MM, but I got:
Bullywug
Grimlock
Kuo-toa
Quaggoth
Sahuagin
Thri-kreen
Troglodyte
Left out Merfolk since the game has the Triton. Also kept out "were-" anything since that's a condition in my book not really a race, and if a player really wants to be a weresomething out the gate, I could entertain a Shifter.
I think all of these could be easily rehabilitated (or returned in the case of the Thri-kreen) as player races. I'm actually now wishing for an aquatic themed adventure hardback that would give racial stats for Kuo-too and Sahuagin; and Mord book that looks at the Underdark conflicts that brought Grimlocks and Quaggoth there (and the potential bad light one puts on the surface elves and the other on the Drow). And I think it would be cool to play a party consisting of Tortles, Lizardfolk, and Bullywug campaigning to identify and end a threat to their wetlands. Maybe they fail and have to entreat a Dragon Turtle for aid in the sequel.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Exploring Eberron book, which is unoficial but very well designed and most GMs let you use it since it's written by the Eberron's head designer, have rules for (ebrronian) Gnolls if you're interested in almost-official.
On the contrary, Tasha's released custom lineage rules that make anything playable. The book charged with making them less likely to be playable literally made them playable with official rules.
I feel like it would do us some good to step back here and take a breath. People were outraged when goblins/orcs/drow were "humanized." People are outraged that gnolls weren't humanized.
Don't let outraged be your default state. It's not a good way to live. We have custom lineage. We have DM fiat. If you want to play a blind half-gnoll, half-illithid psion in a battle wheelchair you can totally do that. It only takes one conversation with the right DM. Why do we get so caught up in what we "can't" do in a game where you can literally do anything?
This is your pastime. No one is getting paid here. Don't waste your fun time being outraged. If you want to be a gnoll, go look up the 398 homebrew gnoll stats out there or make #399 yourself. D&D is a game where you can do that. That's awesome!
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Personally, I don't think that WotC doesn't want people to play as Gnolls if they really want to. The game has always encouraged players and DMs to use the source books as a guide and customize their games to the tastes of their own tables. I just think that they also want to have a reliable "Jobber" race that they can depict as disposable enemies without raising a lot of questions. Gnolls are iconic to D&D... they're not really based on any existing folklore, so WotC is free to interpret them basically however they want. However, they're also still largely considered low-level threats, so they can be used to casually show a character being big and strong without being as overtly sympathetic as other creatures.
If you see an illustration of a barbarian drop-kicking a goblin off the side of a cliff, you might feel sorry for the little goblin. But if it's a gnoll instead? Well, you might still feel sorry for it... but they really, really don't want you to, so they do all they can to make sure that, at least within the lore, that there's no sympathetic aspect of the Gnoll. Give it a few more years, more threads like this will come up, WotC will cave and Gnolls will get expanded lore, get a playable race in like... Melf's Guide to Meanies, and then Bullywugs will be the disposable mook du jour until their increased awareness starts to garner sympathy and they have to move on to like... Troglodytes or something.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Look, if WotC wanted a bad guy race that no one would feel bad about yeeting off a cliff, then they should've just gone with Kender.
On a side note, I saw a thread on Twitter about Navajo words for various animals. Rather than taking loan words (e.g. obviously there is no historical word for hyena in Navajo), the Navajo language coins words using its own linguistics. The Navajo word for hyena throws some serious shade. From Wiktionary:
łééchąąʼí - From łį́į́ʼ (“pet”) + chąąʼ (“sh*t”) + -í (nominalizer); literally, "sh*t pet" (pet that eats excrement) (see Wiktionary for un-censored version, though I think you can guess what sh*t means...)
Thri-kreen were depicted as being particularly fond of Elf flesh back in 2e. (Dark Sun).
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Stop gatekeeping, Vince. We get it, you are wholeheartedly L/e or L/n to the core.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I think they are supposed to be the “good guy” race we don’t feel bad about yeeting off a cliff.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Custom Lineage is a terrible mechanic. It's essentially a homebrew straightjacket. Just look at existing races and create something in line with those.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Orcs, goblinoids (particularly bugbears), lizardfolk, kobolds, yuan ti, and minotaurs have always been portrayed as being enthusiastic eaters of humanoid flesh.
I mean, Yuan Ti as a race are even more evil than gnolls and yet stats for them as playable characters were still provided.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
It's also something that many GMs would be hesitant to allow because they prefer official stats over homebrew.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
This actually came up last time the gnoll PC discussion was here. While gnolls are the only cannibal race in 5e, orcs and goblins both ate humans, elves and dwarven flesh in previous editions. Tis curious how they redeemed those, but not the gnolls.
Ah, well, whatever.
Right, like the Halflings and maybe everyone else in Dark Sun for all I know. I don't really consider the Thri-Kreen a "classic race." but point taken. Honestly I never heard of Thri-Kreen until Dark Sun and when I did learn of them I thought they were concept races for another volume of Zebulon's Guide for Star Frontiers before that line got pulled, and a D&D designer found the file folder.
This. Custom Lineage can not recreate any of the existing player races without home brewing superfeats, that should tell you it's a handicapped system for players who want the option to play entirely _outside_ the race framework. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a terrible mechanic. But in an effort to accommodate players who for whatever reason want to play outside the bounds of (the already freed up through Tasha's race customization) race parameters, it offers a diluted (arguably on account of game balance concerns) compared to published race options unless you homebrew superfeats. And if you're doing the latter you ought to just homebrew and playtest a race anyway.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.