As far as I can tell, no one asked for that! So no problem.
Then you ain't paying attention. If you give them human-like motivations, then it sure drek is a problem. This is ultimately the problem of wanting "nuanced" bad guys, as if that's somehow superior to simply having bad guys whose motivations are alien and/or just plain psychotic.
This is ultimately the problem of wanting "nuanced" bad guys, as if that's somehow superior to simply having bad guys whose motivations are alien and/or just plain psychotic.
It is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
As far as I can tell, no one asked for that! So no problem.
Then you ain't paying attention. If you give them human-like motivations, then it sure drek is a problem. This is ultimately the problem of wanting "nuanced" bad guys, as if that's somehow superior to simply having bad guys whose motivations are alien and/or just plain psychotic.
The funny thing is that 5e gnolls are nuanced, probably more so than your average Thayan wizard. It outright says that gnolls will accept anyone who joins them, even ghouls who are normally aligned with Orcus. The new arrivals are treated exactly like other gnolls. This is a near alien level of acceptance, and it comes from a group that previously saw their new allies as food. Gnolls and Yeenogu may primarily reflex negative aspects of humanity, but there are a few of our virtues in there as well.
I don’t see how they’re automatically less nuanced than a human even if said human has no redeeming factors, is what I’m saying.
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
We've seen a lot of effort over time to flesh out monstrous races and give them more depth and soul to them beyond just being generic bad guys and I think for the most part it's been better for the game as a whole since it allows DMs who lean on official lore to flesh out their stories more without really invalidating just having generic bad guys if that's what people prefer.
But for gnolls they went completely in the opposite direction, enthusiastically stripping away all of the nuance and development they've been given over the last couple decades in 3e and 4e (though even AD&D gnolls had more substance to them) to make them one of the most one-dimensional bad guy races dungeons and dragons have ever had. To the point that instead of embracing nuance and individuality we apparently have writers going out of their way to emphasize that it's basically impossible.
It seems like such a waste and so counter to the direction most other traditionally antagonistic races have been taken.
Not every bad guys needs complicated reasons for being bad. Sometimes, one is just bad. Their worship of a demon explains what they are bad.
I think it’s refreshing that in the age of “everything needs a reason” there is still some baddies who are just bad because they are bad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am an online author and sci-fi lover who plays table too roleplaying games in his free time. See all my character concepts at: Character Bios – Jays Blog (jaytelford.me)
It is absolutely fascinating how you reflexively equate "non-human" with "pure evil".
Its absolutely amazing that you seem to immediately jump to the conclusion that I said a damn thing about non-human being synonymous with "pure evil". Newsflash demihumans ain't human.
It is absolutely fascinating how you reflexively equate "non-human" with "pure evil".
Its absolutely amazing that you seem to immediately jump to the conclusion that I said a damn thing about non-human being synonymous with "pure evil". Newsflash demihumans ain't human.
But you did, though. I called it fascinating because I genuinely think you aren't aware you're doing it.
You described making gnolls anything more complex than "they're evil because they are" as anthropomorphizing them.
What, exactly, do you think that word means?
Why isn't it possible, in your mind, to make them "nuanced" without making them more human-like?
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
But you did, though. I called it fascinating because I genuinely think you aren't aware you're doing it.
You described making gnolls anything more complex than "they're evil because they are" as anthropomorphizing them.
What, exactly, do you think that word means?
Why isn't it possible, in your mind, to make them "nuanced" without making them more human-like?
When, pray tell, did you become a freaking mind reader cause you suck at it. I already explained my reasoning and I'm not going to sit here and explain them to you, which you'll apparently just dismiss.
Okay one and all, gonna need people to dial back the hostilities and personal attacks. If people can't conduct themselves civilly, they will receive infractions
If you really want to play a playable "gnoll" just use the more generic new race rule that gives +2 to a stat, a feat and i think darkvision or a skill. Then say you resemble a gnoll.
I have a hard time seeing why this discussion is here or even got this heated considering we have the reasons for why gnolls are "too demonic", they are described in that way, it's no different than why beholders are described like they are and so on. The original post is about gnolls playability when thieflings are playable, and it's been pointed out that they are half-demons, which they are not. They just have some demon blood or genetics in them somehow, but either way, they are still half-human or similar as well and their description explains why they are like they are.
The point is, they are described this way and if you don't like it you can always house rule it. Remember when all Drow were evil? Remember Drizzt? I mean, I'm pretty sure they didn't demand rules to be rewritten to play drizzt, they adapted/houseruled it. Wanna play the one Gnoll that broke free? What's the problem?
Let monsters be monsters, if you wanna play a good monster, just do it (dm permission required, just like any race is anyways). The explanation to the original post is clear, so no need to get worked up about it.
And as someone mentioned, it's pretty good to have a few monsters who can't be simply tricked with words.
The problem lies in the hunger. If all a PC can actively think about is murdering and eating, it wouldn't be good for the story or role-play. They aren't humanized enough.
The problem lies in the hunger. If all a PC can actively think about is murdering and eating, it wouldn't be good for the story or role-play. They aren't humanized enough.
If you view what's written in Volo's as inviolate, sure.
A PC gnoll could feel the Hunger for different things though -- gold, knowledge, magic, music, whatever. They could still feel an "inhuman" drive to acquire that thing, but they might be smart enough to realize murder isn't always the optimal way to get it. That's why they're a PC and not an NPC.
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The problem lies in the hunger. If all a PC can actively think about is murdering and eating, it wouldn't be good for the story or role-play. They aren't humanized enough.
If you view what's written in Volo's as inviolate, sure.
A PC gnoll could feel the Hunger for different things though -- gold, knowledge, magic, music, whatever. They could still feel an "inhuman" drive to acquire that thing, but they might be smart enough to realize murder isn't always the optimal way to get it. That's why they're a PC and not an NPC.
I mean, sure? Gnolls specifically feel hunger for the flesh of humanoids (freshly killed humanoids at that). It isn't great when a DM needs to change game lore for a PC's existence. I know that Volo's lore doesn't need to be definite, but I like sticking by it. I honestly wish that Gnolls weren't so definite in their inhumaneness, but I guess that my alignment is lawful neutral. Everything is up to the DM. Maybe they just drew the balance card from the deck of many things and are now Lawful Good with the exact opposite personality.
It isn't great when a DM needs to change game lore for a PC's existence.
Lore is a storytelling tool like any other. It's not in charge of your game. If someone wants to embrace the RP possibilities of playing a gnoll -- i.e. tell a good story with that character, which for me is the entire point of D&D -- saying "no, the lore won't let you" seems incredibly self-defeating to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
In my head I'm now putting together a gnoll barbarian who Hungers for music, and rages in combat because it means the bard has to stop playing their lute to fight. A singing sword would be their absolute holy grail.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It isn't great when a DM needs to change game lore for a PC's existence.
Lore is a storytelling tool like any other. It's not in charge of your game. If someone wants to embrace the RP possibilities of playing a gnoll -- i.e. tell a good story with that character, which for me is the entire point of D&D -- saying "no, the lore won't let you" seems incredibly self-defeating to me.
There's also a big difference between saying "this is the lore of the race" and forcing a change for the whole race and option B: Come up with a cool reason why this particular gnoll isn't like the others.
In my opinion it's quite clear what the gnoll race is, they are not a playable race because of this. Changing the whole race into a playable race would mean changing it very much in ways I think are unecessary for many reasons, also... RAW is what it is.
I don't however see the problem. If one of my players said "I think gnolls should be a playable race so I can play them" I'd probably say no because they are flesh eating hungry scary monsters. Just like I'd say no to many other options as well. If on the other hand my player came and said "I think gnolls are a cool race and I have this idea of a Gnoll who pulled a balance card from the deck of many things..." or maybe "I have this cool idea of a gnoll who is an outcast because he was born different from the other gnolls, he still feels the hunger from time to time but feels really bad about it and wants to find a cure for him and his whole race" that's a whole other story. That's a cool concept, that's roleplay material.
Remember when all drow were evil? Remember Drizz't? The most famous drow and one of the most famous characters. When he came around, drow weren't playable.
In the end, it's really all about how weird I find the discussions on here sometimes, people house rule EVERYTHING, even playing all the "playable races" isn't allowed at all tables so making gnolls playable wouldn't mean you could automatically play it anyways. Instead of whining about how they could be playable because most of the people who want to play a gnoll honestly just wants to play a werewolf type monster that chews on enemies and pretend they are the good guys, those who REALLY want the roleplaying challenge should be able to come up with a reason why THEY should be allowed to play this monster race in a normal campaign, despite all their flaws. WHY are they, this particullar gnoll, a playable character when the rest of the race isn't? If you can't answer that, you probably shouldn't play it because you just want to eat a farmer because "that's what my character would do". ;)
I personally like gnolls a lot, and would love to see them get a playable race. 5e really did make them very black and white, but MToF does flesh out a part of them decently. Another good example of how gnolls can be playable is that gnolls actually have personalities and such beyond hunger. In the OotA campaign, there are two main NPC gnolls. The defining trait of both of them is that they can actually be befriended by the party. Yes, all gnolls have that all consuming hunger and violence, but you don't have to change the entire gnoll lore just to make a playable character. In fact, it makes a good premise if your character is different than other gnolls, and sets up a good backstory that leaves a lot of room for creativity and such.
Gnolls canonically are very family oriented, and it states in MToF that gnolls occasionally adopt outsiders as a part of their 'pack'. The main issue I have with 5e gnolls is that they don't follow typical hyena behavior (Matriarchal, strict hierarchy, etc). In conclusion, I give a big yes please for a gnoll playable race.
— δ cyησ • τηε crσc mαsτεr • hε/hιm δ — “sᴏᴍᴇᴏɴᴇ, ɪ ᴛᴇʟʟ ʏᴏᴜ, ɪɴ ᴀɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀ ᴛɪᴍᴇ ᴡɪʟʟ ʀᴇᴍᴇᴍʙᴇʀ ᴜs.” ——————| EXTENDED SIG |—————— Φ • happily married to • ☁️ℝ𝔼𝔻ℙ𝔼𝕃𝕋☁️ • As vast as the sun, stars, and the sky itself, so is my promise to you • Φ
Gnolls canonically are very family oriented, and it states in MToF that gnolls occasionally adopt outsiders as a part of their 'pack'. The main issue I have with 5e gnolls is that they don't follow typical hyena behavior (Matriarchal, strict hierarchy, etc). In conclusion, I give a big yes please for a gnoll playable race.
I think "folklore hyena" colors the behavior of Gnolls than IRL pack dynamics ... also let's keep in mind Gnolls aren't simply anthro-hyena people. Hyena become gnolls through the trespass scavenging (again, folklore hyena nature) the toxic demonic residue left behind in the wake of Yeenoghu's incursions into a prime material world ... or a transformation facilitated by a Fang granted that ability by Yeenoghu. They're birthing is rapid mutagenic and parasitic ... a sort of combination of teenage mutant ninja turtles toxic exposure and the "burster" phenomena seen in Alien. As Gnolls don't go "in the family way" reproductively (one may wonder if the Gnoll that bursts forth from its hyena origins even has sex characteristics given the 5e lore logic)I don't see the family orientation, and the openness to outsiders is more like eagerness to expand the demonically tinged infestation (following canonical writings as to how demons festers, Gnolls are more a variant strain) than growing a community. This is all as written in MToF, of course. I don't remember them being so "consummately evil" so much as anti-social/barbaric/marauders in prior editions, maybe with actual family dynamics and a biology conducive to it.
So, you could ease up on the harshness of Gnolls. I mean minotaurs are often associated with Baphomet too, but also not, and in some game worlds are actually one of the more enlightened humanoid species. So if you want less gorey and more friendly furred gnolls, I don't see it as that huge a deal. If you wanted to do a sort of Gnoll Drizzt thing, I'd encourage folks to look at an old campy sci-fi show called Andromeda (this was before Kevin Sorbo became a polarizing figure in the world, it was his followup to Hercules). There was a species, The Magog, who's whole purpose was the ransack civilization in service of something actually called The Abyss. However, on the crew of the Andromeda there was Rev Bem who was a Magog who had a sort of spiritual transformation and took up a literal faith in humanity for a peaceful and prosperous galaxy. The way the Magog are categorized is very prescient of 5e Gnolls, and Rev Bem I think would be good D&D character basis as how one could actually be a morally awakened Gnoll taking a stand against the assumed Gnoll "nature." I write this as a DM who rips of Andromeda all the time, particularly the Trance Gemini arc and some of the solar spiritualism (suns and astronomical bodies are sorta sentient, not in away humans and similarly sentient beings can fully fathom, but some are at least sympathetic with the plight of sentient "life" in a largely cold and uncaring universe. They see a value in "good". I also rip off the sort of limbo planet spiritualism prison in the last season, but don't tell my current group that.
This is all as written in MToF, of course. I don't remember them being so "consummately evil" so much as anti-social/barbaric/marauders in prior editions, maybe with actual family dynamics and a biology conducive to it.
This is probably my biggest problem with it. They actually did some pretty extensive writeups in earlier editions (including a really nice article in 4e) that heavily expanded upon their ecology and social dynamics. Then in 5e they just threw it all in the trash in favor of "okay but they're the most evilest evil ever!!!"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Then you ain't paying attention. If you give them human-like motivations, then it sure drek is a problem. This is ultimately the problem of wanting "nuanced" bad guys, as if that's somehow superior to simply having bad guys whose motivations are alien and/or just plain psychotic.
It is.
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
No, its not since its merely Anthropomorphizing them. There is literally no reason to think they have human-like brains or share human qualities.
The funny thing is that 5e gnolls are nuanced, probably more so than your average Thayan wizard. It outright says that gnolls will accept anyone who joins them, even ghouls who are normally aligned with Orcus. The new arrivals are treated exactly like other gnolls. This is a near alien level of acceptance, and it comes from a group that previously saw their new allies as food. Gnolls and Yeenogu may primarily reflex negative aspects of humanity, but there are a few of our virtues in there as well.
I don’t see how they’re automatically less nuanced than a human even if said human has no redeeming factors, is what I’m saying.
It is absolutely fascinating how you reflexively equate "non-human" with "pure evil".
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Not every bad guys needs complicated reasons for being bad. Sometimes, one is just bad. Their worship of a demon explains what they are bad.
I think it’s refreshing that in the age of “everything needs a reason” there is still some baddies who are just bad because they are bad.
I am an online author and sci-fi lover who plays table too roleplaying games in his free time. See all my character concepts at: Character Bios – Jays Blog (jaytelford.me)
Its absolutely amazing that you seem to immediately jump to the conclusion that I said a damn thing about non-human being synonymous with "pure evil". Newsflash demihumans ain't human.
But you did, though. I called it fascinating because I genuinely think you aren't aware you're doing it.
You described making gnolls anything more complex than "they're evil because they are" as anthropomorphizing them.
What, exactly, do you think that word means?
Why isn't it possible, in your mind, to make them "nuanced" without making them more human-like?
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
When, pray tell, did you become a freaking mind reader cause you suck at it. I already explained my reasoning and I'm not going to sit here and explain them to you, which you'll apparently just dismiss.
Okay one and all, gonna need people to dial back the hostilities and personal attacks. If people can't conduct themselves civilly, they will receive infractions
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
If you really want to play a playable "gnoll" just use the more generic new race rule that gives +2 to a stat, a feat and i think darkvision or a skill. Then say you resemble a gnoll.
I have a hard time seeing why this discussion is here or even got this heated considering we have the reasons for why gnolls are "too demonic", they are described in that way, it's no different than why beholders are described like they are and so on. The original post is about gnolls playability when thieflings are playable, and it's been pointed out that they are half-demons, which they are not. They just have some demon blood or genetics in them somehow, but either way, they are still half-human or similar as well and their description explains why they are like they are.
The point is, they are described this way and if you don't like it you can always house rule it. Remember when all Drow were evil? Remember Drizzt? I mean, I'm pretty sure they didn't demand rules to be rewritten to play drizzt, they adapted/houseruled it. Wanna play the one Gnoll that broke free? What's the problem?
Let monsters be monsters, if you wanna play a good monster, just do it (dm permission required, just like any race is anyways). The explanation to the original post is clear, so no need to get worked up about it.
And as someone mentioned, it's pretty good to have a few monsters who can't be simply tricked with words.
The problem lies in the hunger. If all a PC can actively think about is murdering and eating, it wouldn't be good for the story or role-play. They aren't humanized enough.
My only good homebrews: Races, Subclasses.
An aspiring DM and Homebrewer. Ask me if you need anything.
If you view what's written in Volo's as inviolate, sure.
A PC gnoll could feel the Hunger for different things though -- gold, knowledge, magic, music, whatever. They could still feel an "inhuman" drive to acquire that thing, but they might be smart enough to realize murder isn't always the optimal way to get it. That's why they're a PC and not an NPC.
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I mean, sure? Gnolls specifically feel hunger for the flesh of humanoids (freshly killed humanoids at that). It isn't great when a DM needs to change game lore for a PC's existence. I know that Volo's lore doesn't need to be definite, but I like sticking by it. I honestly wish that Gnolls weren't so definite in their inhumaneness, but I guess that my alignment is lawful neutral. Everything is up to the DM. Maybe they just drew the balance card from the deck of many things and are now Lawful Good with the exact opposite personality.
My only good homebrews: Races, Subclasses.
An aspiring DM and Homebrewer. Ask me if you need anything.
Lore is a storytelling tool like any other. It's not in charge of your game. If someone wants to embrace the RP possibilities of playing a gnoll -- i.e. tell a good story with that character, which for me is the entire point of D&D -- saying "no, the lore won't let you" seems incredibly self-defeating to me.
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
In my head I'm now putting together a gnoll barbarian who Hungers for music, and rages in combat because it means the bard has to stop playing their lute to fight. A singing sword would be their absolute holy grail.
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There's also a big difference between saying "this is the lore of the race" and forcing a change for the whole race and option B: Come up with a cool reason why this particular gnoll isn't like the others.
In my opinion it's quite clear what the gnoll race is, they are not a playable race because of this. Changing the whole race into a playable race would mean changing it very much in ways I think are unecessary for many reasons, also... RAW is what it is.
I don't however see the problem. If one of my players said "I think gnolls should be a playable race so I can play them" I'd probably say no because they are flesh eating hungry scary monsters. Just like I'd say no to many other options as well. If on the other hand my player came and said "I think gnolls are a cool race and I have this idea of a Gnoll who pulled a balance card from the deck of many things..." or maybe "I have this cool idea of a gnoll who is an outcast because he was born different from the other gnolls, he still feels the hunger from time to time but feels really bad about it and wants to find a cure for him and his whole race" that's a whole other story. That's a cool concept, that's roleplay material.
Remember when all drow were evil? Remember Drizz't? The most famous drow and one of the most famous characters. When he came around, drow weren't playable.
In the end, it's really all about how weird I find the discussions on here sometimes, people house rule EVERYTHING, even playing all the "playable races" isn't allowed at all tables so making gnolls playable wouldn't mean you could automatically play it anyways. Instead of whining about how they could be playable because most of the people who want to play a gnoll honestly just wants to play a werewolf type monster that chews on enemies and pretend they are the good guys, those who REALLY want the roleplaying challenge should be able to come up with a reason why THEY should be allowed to play this monster race in a normal campaign, despite all their flaws. WHY are they, this particullar gnoll, a playable character when the rest of the race isn't? If you can't answer that, you probably shouldn't play it because you just want to eat a farmer because "that's what my character would do". ;)
I personally like gnolls a lot, and would love to see them get a playable race. 5e really did make them very black and white, but MToF does flesh out a part of them decently. Another good example of how gnolls can be playable is that gnolls actually have personalities and such beyond hunger. In the OotA campaign, there are two main NPC gnolls. The defining trait of both of them is that they can actually be befriended by the party. Yes, all gnolls have that all consuming hunger and violence, but you don't have to change the entire gnoll lore just to make a playable character. In fact, it makes a good premise if your character is different than other gnolls, and sets up a good backstory that leaves a lot of room for creativity and such.
Gnolls canonically are very family oriented, and it states in MToF that gnolls occasionally adopt outsiders as a part of their 'pack'. The main issue I have with 5e gnolls is that they don't follow typical hyena behavior (Matriarchal, strict hierarchy, etc). In conclusion, I give a big yes please for a gnoll playable race.
— δ cyησ • τηε crσc mαsτεr • hε/hιm δ —
“sᴏᴍᴇᴏɴᴇ, ɪ ᴛᴇʟʟ ʏᴏᴜ, ɪɴ ᴀɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀ ᴛɪᴍᴇ ᴡɪʟʟ ʀᴇᴍᴇᴍʙᴇʀ ᴜs.”
——————| EXTENDED SIG |——————
Φ • happily married to • ☁️ℝ𝔼𝔻ℙ𝔼𝕃𝕋☁️ • As vast as the sun, stars, and the sky itself, so is my promise to you • Φ
I think "folklore hyena" colors the behavior of Gnolls than IRL pack dynamics ... also let's keep in mind Gnolls aren't simply anthro-hyena people. Hyena become gnolls through the trespass scavenging (again, folklore hyena nature) the toxic demonic residue left behind in the wake of Yeenoghu's incursions into a prime material world ... or a transformation facilitated by a Fang granted that ability by Yeenoghu. They're birthing is rapid mutagenic and parasitic ... a sort of combination of teenage mutant ninja turtles toxic exposure and the "burster" phenomena seen in Alien. As Gnolls don't go "in the family way" reproductively (one may wonder if the Gnoll that bursts forth from its hyena origins even has sex characteristics given the 5e lore logic)I don't see the family orientation, and the openness to outsiders is more like eagerness to expand the demonically tinged infestation (following canonical writings as to how demons festers, Gnolls are more a variant strain) than growing a community. This is all as written in MToF, of course. I don't remember them being so "consummately evil" so much as anti-social/barbaric/marauders in prior editions, maybe with actual family dynamics and a biology conducive to it.
So, you could ease up on the harshness of Gnolls. I mean minotaurs are often associated with Baphomet too, but also not, and in some game worlds are actually one of the more enlightened humanoid species. So if you want less gorey and more friendly furred gnolls, I don't see it as that huge a deal. If you wanted to do a sort of Gnoll Drizzt thing, I'd encourage folks to look at an old campy sci-fi show called Andromeda (this was before Kevin Sorbo became a polarizing figure in the world, it was his followup to Hercules). There was a species, The Magog, who's whole purpose was the ransack civilization in service of something actually called The Abyss. However, on the crew of the Andromeda there was Rev Bem who was a Magog who had a sort of spiritual transformation and took up a literal faith in humanity for a peaceful and prosperous galaxy. The way the Magog are categorized is very prescient of 5e Gnolls, and Rev Bem I think would be good D&D character basis as how one could actually be a morally awakened Gnoll taking a stand against the assumed Gnoll "nature." I write this as a DM who rips of Andromeda all the time, particularly the Trance Gemini arc and some of the solar spiritualism (suns and astronomical bodies are sorta sentient, not in away humans and similarly sentient beings can fully fathom, but some are at least sympathetic with the plight of sentient "life" in a largely cold and uncaring universe. They see a value in "good". I also rip off the sort of limbo planet spiritualism prison in the last season, but don't tell my current group that.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
This is probably my biggest problem with it. They actually did some pretty extensive writeups in earlier editions (including a really nice article in 4e) that heavily expanded upon their ecology and social dynamics. Then in 5e they just threw it all in the trash in favor of "okay but they're the most evilest evil ever!!!"