When I am making a character, and I look to the details page for the race of the character to help me out. Is the information in that page the way they are no matter what, or is the info meant to be more like guide lines? Keeping this quote in mind, and I quote "Lizardfolk experience a more limited emotional life than other humanoids. Like most reptiles, their feelings largely revolve around fear, aggression, and pleasure." Now, for example, when I make a Lizardfolk character, could I decide that that bit of info is untrue of my character?
In theory, you can make the character as emotional as you want, but you should talk to your DM first. If they have a ridged set of rules and expectations for certain races, then you have to follow their rules.
In theory, you can make the character as emotional as you want, but you should talk to your DM first. If they have a ridged set of rules and expectations for certain races, then you have to follow their rules.
I understand talking with the DM, and that stuff. I am not sure about how much of the details in each races details page, are the way they are or else kind of thing.
It's how they are...in canon. The thing is, canon doesn't mean much in D&D. We're actively encouraged to leave canon. The details given by WotC are a framework to work with, not law. The only law is what the DM says. If the DM says so, you can have Lizardfolk with Dragonbreath attack. We're not being jerks that want to be of no help when we say speak to the DM - yes, what WotC says is canon, but that has about as much weight as a feather on a diet. If your DM says that Lizardfolk are emotional, then what WotC says isn't worth the paper it's printed on in your campaign, because it's your DM's world, not WotC.
Now, personally, I have a shall-allow policy for cosmetic stuff, and may-allow for mechanical stuff when it comes to player requests. Which is to say, if youvcome with something that is surface level, doesn't affect how things work, then I'll say ye, unless I comenacross a reason why it would screw my world over. If you want to change something mechanical, then unless I'm confident that it's not going to screw with balance, then I'm going to be a lot more reluctant.
Ultimately, my opinion is worth exactly the same as WotC's in regards to what youcwant to do. Ehich is tonsay, it may (or may not) make sense, but only has the weight that your DM gives it. So, you need to speak to the DM.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's how they are...in canon. The thing is, canon doesn't mean much in D&D. We're actively encouraged to leave canon. The details given by WotC are a framework to work with, not law. The only law is what the DM says. If the DM says so, you can have Lizardfolk with Dragonbreath attack. We're not being jerks that want to be of no help when we say speak to the DM - yes, what WotC says is canon, but that has about as much weight as a feather on a diet. If your DM says that Lizardfolk are emotional, then what WotC says isn't worth the paper it's printed on in your campaign, because it's your DM's world, not WotC.
Now, personally, I have a shall-allow policy for cosmetic stuff, and may-allow for mechanical stuff when it comes to player requests. Which is to say, if youvcome with something that is surface level, doesn't affect how things work, then I'll say ye, unless I comenacross a reason why it would screw my world over. If you want to change something mechanical, then unless I'm confident that it's not going to screw with balance, then I'm going to be a lot more reluctant.
Ultimately, my opinion is worth exactly the same as WotC's in regards to what youcwant to do. Ehich is tonsay, it may (or may not) make sense, but only has the weight that your DM gives it. So, you need to speak to the DM.
Don't worry, I don't think anybody is a jerk for saying, speak to the DM for the ruling. I am still new to D&D, and I am asking questions, to try and figure out all the information that is here, as I am discovering it. Thank you for the explanation, and help.
I think of the descriptive text more like inspiration. I like a lot of them. I usually just ignore the ones that don't spark my imagination. But changing them is also an option. I would bet money that your DM hasn't worked hard enough on integrating lizardfolk into their setting, that they'd have a problem with changing their lore. Myself, I never gave lizardfolk much thought until a player wanted to play one, and even then, they're basically foreigners to the Sword Coast, so nothing you do to them really echoes very far if you're playing in that area. I could've decided they all drive cars in their homeland and believe in Jesus Christ, and it wouldn't have changed anything.
Even within the unaltered lore, it's not uncommon to see individuals who don't match up with their race's standards. Lizardfolk have historically been unimportant bad guys, though, so there's not really any material addressing them in much depth as characters. But other races have examples. Namely the drow, but there's chromatic dragons, beholders, and even illithids that have been portrayed as being fairly nice. I'm sure there's a lot more than that.
The way I always view it is, a PC is by definition an exceptional member of their race/species/lineage. Even if your DM is a stickler for how lizardfolk act in general in their world, there will be exceptions... which is where your character might come in
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
For a while, the baseline was that certain races had widespread characteristics that more-or-less determined the general "culture" of the race...orcs tended toward a war-like, tribal mentality...drow were a sinister, cruel race that dwelled in the Underdark...kenku were unable to speak for themselves, and yearned to fly...halflings were good-natured, community-driven folks...etc.
This is certainly not a bad way to start, because you can jump right into this established lore, and build your character in any direction, using the race as a mere backdrop.
The nice thing is that you are not restricted with "your" character the same way the lore of a given race is.
An example would be...a yuan ti pureblood typically is an emotionless manipulator who views other races as lesser, or simply a resource...but within that own races characteristics, they might develop a "flaw" that they have begun to develop their own emotions, which separates them from their own kind in a substantial way.
I find this to be a good example of playing a race that usurps the description / expectation of the racial description...you could play a yuan ti who secretly cares about the people they form connections with.
The contrary nature of the character is also, conveniently, a fun thing to roleplay.
The only thing you might run into, as others have said, is that your DM might make a particular culture the antagonist or opposing force of the campaign's plot...which means that NPC's in the game might react to a certain race with suspicion or fear.
I mean...up until VERY recently, the drow were the primary villains of many D&D stories; which is why the story of Drizzt is such a compelling one: we was quite literally the symbol of goodness for that entire culture; and a sign of shifting values.
But any other drow encountered by other characters was usually met with fear or hostility (because generally, their presence usually resulted in widespread murder).
Every race has exceptions to the "rules" that a player can...and probably should...mess around with.
So if you want to create a Lizardfolk who has learned to be more like the people he travels with...it actually makes sense; and gives a pretty good reason why they are travelling with other adventurers.
I’d think more of those descriptions as suggestions. They are a set of traits a campaign can default to, but they are not necessarily true in every campaign. This goes double for PCs. Even if the world you play in uses the racial descriptions, any given individual might break the mold. And since PCs are exceptional, it’s quite reasonable for them not to have the traits typical of their race, good or bad.
I’d think more of those descriptions as suggestions. They are a set of traits a campaign can default to, but they are not necessarily true in every campaign. This goes double for PCs. Even if the world you play in uses the racial descriptions, any given individual might break the mold. And since PCs are exceptional, it’s quite reasonable for them not to have the traits typical of their race, good or bad.
That makes sense, I was thinking that was the case. Compared to some people I am not that creative. But, even still, it is fun to try and make a character.
I have played with both types of GM's the by the book GM and the other extreme races are cartoon's. So the best answer is to talk to your GM about what you want to do and see what they say and if it fits within their campaign.
When I am making a character, and I look to the details page for the race of the character to help me out. Is the information in that page the way they are no matter what, or is the info meant to be more like guide lines? Keeping this quote in mind, and I quote "Lizardfolk experience a more limited emotional life than other humanoids. Like most reptiles, their feelings largely revolve around fear, aggression, and pleasure." Now, for example, when I make a Lizardfolk character, could I decide that that bit of info is untrue of my character?
Of course. Your character, your decision.
Naturally, you'll want to come up with a good in-story reason for why you're different, if for no other reason than to give your DM a way to contextualize it within his own setting (if need be).
As an example, your character could be considered insane by his tribe and cast out for that very reason. When you get out into the wider world, though, you could realize that you fit in VERY well with the rest of society. Maybe your character thought of himself as damaged, only to realize that he or she is more highly evolved than their tribesmen back home.
All sorts of fun things you can do with it, depending on the tone of your campaign, what your DM allows, and all the ideas you bring to the table with it.
I have played with both types of GM's the by the book GM and the other extreme races are cartoon's. So the best answer is to talk to your GM about what you want to do and see what they say and if it fits within their campaign.
I agree, talking with the DM about it, is the best idea. I have this strange(?) idea that, my Lizardfolk character sees Kobolds as a food source, because the Kobolds that live near his tribe when he was a child, are a nuisance, and not very bright most of the time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When I am making a character, and I look to the details page for the race of the character to help me out. Is the information in that page the way they are no matter what, or is the info meant to be more like guide lines? Keeping this quote in mind, and I quote "Lizardfolk experience a more limited emotional life than other humanoids. Like most reptiles, their feelings largely revolve around fear, aggression, and pleasure." Now, for example, when I make a Lizardfolk character, could I decide that that bit of info is untrue of my character?
In theory, you can make the character as emotional as you want, but you should talk to your DM first. If they have a ridged set of rules and expectations for certain races, then you have to follow their rules.
I understand talking with the DM, and that stuff. I am not sure about how much of the details in each races details page, are the way they are or else kind of thing.
It's how they are...in canon. The thing is, canon doesn't mean much in D&D. We're actively encouraged to leave canon. The details given by WotC are a framework to work with, not law. The only law is what the DM says. If the DM says so, you can have Lizardfolk with Dragonbreath attack. We're not being jerks that want to be of no help when we say speak to the DM - yes, what WotC says is canon, but that has about as much weight as a feather on a diet. If your DM says that Lizardfolk are emotional, then what WotC says isn't worth the paper it's printed on in your campaign, because it's your DM's world, not WotC.
Now, personally, I have a shall-allow policy for cosmetic stuff, and may-allow for mechanical stuff when it comes to player requests. Which is to say, if youvcome with something that is surface level, doesn't affect how things work, then I'll say ye, unless I comenacross a reason why it would screw my world over. If you want to change something mechanical, then unless I'm confident that it's not going to screw with balance, then I'm going to be a lot more reluctant.
Ultimately, my opinion is worth exactly the same as WotC's in regards to what youcwant to do. Ehich is tonsay, it may (or may not) make sense, but only has the weight that your DM gives it. So, you need to speak to the DM.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Don't worry, I don't think anybody is a jerk for saying, speak to the DM for the ruling. I am still new to D&D, and I am asking questions, to try and figure out all the information that is here, as I am discovering it. Thank you for the explanation, and help.
I think of the descriptive text more like inspiration. I like a lot of them. I usually just ignore the ones that don't spark my imagination. But changing them is also an option. I would bet money that your DM hasn't worked hard enough on integrating lizardfolk into their setting, that they'd have a problem with changing their lore. Myself, I never gave lizardfolk much thought until a player wanted to play one, and even then, they're basically foreigners to the Sword Coast, so nothing you do to them really echoes very far if you're playing in that area. I could've decided they all drive cars in their homeland and believe in Jesus Christ, and it wouldn't have changed anything.
Even within the unaltered lore, it's not uncommon to see individuals who don't match up with their race's standards. Lizardfolk have historically been unimportant bad guys, though, so there's not really any material addressing them in much depth as characters. But other races have examples. Namely the drow, but there's chromatic dragons, beholders, and even illithids that have been portrayed as being fairly nice. I'm sure there's a lot more than that.
The way I always view it is, a PC is by definition an exceptional member of their race/species/lineage. Even if your DM is a stickler for how lizardfolk act in general in their world, there will be exceptions... which is where your character might come in
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I always find this sort of thing fascinating...
For a while, the baseline was that certain races had widespread characteristics that more-or-less determined the general "culture" of the race...orcs tended toward a war-like, tribal mentality...drow were a sinister, cruel race that dwelled in the Underdark...kenku were unable to speak for themselves, and yearned to fly...halflings were good-natured, community-driven folks...etc.
This is certainly not a bad way to start, because you can jump right into this established lore, and build your character in any direction, using the race as a mere backdrop.
The nice thing is that you are not restricted with "your" character the same way the lore of a given race is.
An example would be...a yuan ti pureblood typically is an emotionless manipulator who views other races as lesser, or simply a resource...but within that own races characteristics, they might develop a "flaw" that they have begun to develop their own emotions, which separates them from their own kind in a substantial way.
I find this to be a good example of playing a race that usurps the description / expectation of the racial description...you could play a yuan ti who secretly cares about the people they form connections with.
The contrary nature of the character is also, conveniently, a fun thing to roleplay.
The only thing you might run into, as others have said, is that your DM might make a particular culture the antagonist or opposing force of the campaign's plot...which means that NPC's in the game might react to a certain race with suspicion or fear.
I mean...up until VERY recently, the drow were the primary villains of many D&D stories; which is why the story of Drizzt is such a compelling one: we was quite literally the symbol of goodness for that entire culture; and a sign of shifting values.
But any other drow encountered by other characters was usually met with fear or hostility (because generally, their presence usually resulted in widespread murder).
Every race has exceptions to the "rules" that a player can...and probably should...mess around with.
So if you want to create a Lizardfolk who has learned to be more like the people he travels with...it actually makes sense; and gives a pretty good reason why they are travelling with other adventurers.
I’d think more of those descriptions as suggestions. They are a set of traits a campaign can default to, but they are not necessarily true in every campaign.
This goes double for PCs. Even if the world you play in uses the racial descriptions, any given individual might break the mold. And since PCs are exceptional, it’s quite reasonable for them not to have the traits typical of their race, good or bad.
That makes sense, I was thinking that was the case. Compared to some people I am not that creative. But, even still, it is fun to try and make a character.
I have played with both types of GM's the by the book GM and the other extreme races are cartoon's. So the best answer is to talk to your GM about what you want to do and see what they say and if it fits within their campaign.
I agree, talking with the DM about it, is the best idea. I have this strange(?) idea that, my Lizardfolk character sees Kobolds as a food source, because the Kobolds that live near his tribe when he was a child, are a nuisance, and not very bright most of the time.