Additional races?

[Azrai]

We had discussed it previously. Now it's time to vote for it.

Should there any of the new 3. Edition races be included?

Should the Gnome be included?

What about Half Dragon, Genasi, Half Celestial, Half Gennie, some new races of Savage species?


I don't think that the Birthright flair is changed if some of the new races are included, it gives the game some new possibilities and motivations. Each DM can restrict the number of new races.

[irdeggman]

I disagree with it being time to "vote" on this. IMO we should wait to see what ends up in the 3.5 version before going crazy with this. Also, it should be up to the DM to introduce any non-standard races. Leave it to Doom to call for the vote, he's the editor and it should be his decision as to when the "discussion" has reached an end.

[Azrai]

Originally posted by irdeggman
Leave it to Doom to call for the vote

http://smiliez.de/images/1856.gif

So why do we discuss anyway?

[Birthright-L]

From: "Azrai" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>

> We had discussed it previously. Now it`s time to vote for it.
>
> Should there any of the new 3. Edition races be included?
>
> Should the Gnome be included?
>
> What about Half Dragon, Genasi, Half Celestial, Half Gennie, some new
races of Savage species?
>

No to gnome, genasi and their ilk. And no to monks while at it.

Yes to goblin, greater goblin (aka hobgoblin), oruk, ogre and possibly
lizardfolk.

Yes to ECL.



__________________________________________________ ___
Gå före i kön och få din sajt värderad på nolltid med Yahoo! Express
Se mer på: http://se.docs.yahoo.com/info/express/help/index.html

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[irdeggman]

Azrai - I did not say "no" to a vote. You seem to imply that I'm against any type of polling system. All I said was that IMO it was not time for a vote and that the chapter editor (Doom in this case) should make the call when he/she feels the discussion has reached an end. Not everything will be called up for a vote individually, several things will probably be "decided" just based on the "tone" of the discussions. If we have polls on every thing popping up that is discussed then nothing will ever get accomplished.

The intent is to have some sort of final vote for the whole thing once most of the issues have been addressed. There will of course be revisions posted based on feedback for additional discussions prior to this "final" vote.

Note as per my other posts that I don't think enough people have given feedback to come to some kind of concensus on much of anything, 1000-2500 downloads and maybe 20 people commenting.

Whenever a poll is conducted there should be some "guidelines" established. Should it be a simple majority, twice as many for as against, etc. How do we handle thos on the mailing list who don't use the birtright.net posts and hence can't "place" a vote, how do we make sure for those who don't use the poll that they don't "stuff the ballots" because if they aren't using the polling system they can send in many e-mail votes.

Before going straight to a vote things need to be decided on how to proceed.

[geeman]

At 12:04 PM 2/26/2003 +0100, Azrai wrote:

>Should there any of the new 3. Edition races be included?
>
>Should the Gnome be included?
>
>What about Half Dragon, Genasi, Half Celestial, Half Gennie, some new
>races of Savage species?

I vote no for all of the above (in fact, if I can pull the lever more than
once for "no" on gnomes, please assume I stand there all day doing so to
make sure there are no hanging, pregnant or otherwise ambiguously punched
chads.) If someone really feels compelled to put in gnomes and other
non-standard BR races I personally would appreciate it being in an appendix
so I don`t have to bother ripping those pages out of the middle someplace,
destroying the continuity of the document.

I would include those entries in SS that already are noted in the original
materials, but not any new ones. I got a gander at this book last weekend
BTW and found it very interesting. Given the way it presented "monster
classes" it makes one wonder of what use the template system will be in the
future. Some variant of that system could be very useful for portraying
awn- and ersheghlien, not to mention the occasional blooded character of
monstrous proportions or decent.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Azrai]

Originally posted by irdeggman
The intent is to have some sort of final vote for the whole thing once most of the issues have been addressed. There will of course be revisions posted based on feedback for additional discussions prior to this "final" vote.


This was not meant as some "final" voting. Just to sum up the previous discussion and to give a first overview. I thought this could be helpful.

[DanMcSorley]

On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Azrai wrote:
> This was not meant as some "final" voting. Just to sum up the
> previous discussion and to give a first overview. I thought this could
> be helpful.

It won`t. The even dozen of us discussing the matter aren`t enough to
form any sort of quorum one way or the other. The default should be as
few changes from the source material as possible. Playable air elementals
et al from Savage Species is not something we should even be pondering.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Ariadne]

Yes to new races, even half-dragon or genasi. This will give Birthright a new color...

[ConjurerDragon]

Ariadne wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1386
>
> Ariadne wrote:
> Yes to new races, even half-dragon or genasi. This will give Birthright a new color...
>
Does it need new colour? ;-)
A half-dragon requires a dragon to breed with some non-dragon. With
barely a dozen dragons in the whole of Cerilia and as far as I know all
of them sleeping for decades at a time and when not being reclusive in
remote areas like the Five Peaks and Drachenward?

How should they create off-spring in sufficient numbers to justify the
addition of the "half-dragon" as a race in Birthright?

The one or two half-dragons that exist (Ohlaak in Rjurik could be one)
would be an odditiy, an abomination, but not a whole race.


I do not know what Genasi are, could someone enlighten me?


Gnomes are a delicate matter - some seem to feel an irrational hatred
towards these small fellows...
I know that in the old 2E Birthright material -somewhere, I don´t
remember now where- gnomes where mentioned.

However there is no gnomish realm, which leads me to the conclusion that
gnomes are even rarer than halflings.

Perhaps Gnomes should not be added as another race, but as a sub-race of
halflings or dwarves, just like goblinoids are a big family of
goblins/hobgoblins/bugbears?
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[irdeggman]

The "only" place gnomes were mentioned in the 2nd ed material was as an entry in the monster table in the rulebook. Gnomish languages weren't mentioned along with the other potential languages and there was no mention of them as player races. I have always chalked up the errant entry in the monster table as another one of the "many" editorial errors in the product. There were never any gnomes mentioned in any other Birthright product or adventure. If they exist in Cerilia (all of the products revolve only around Cerilia anyways) many "issues" develop. Where do they live? Are they subteranean or forest gnomes. If they are subteranean then how come they haven't allied with their dwarven cousins against the Orogs? If they are forest gnomes then the same could be said about the elves and humans.

Where were the gnome deities during Deismaar? How about before? Even the Orog and Goblin deities were mentioned in the rulebook.

There are just too many issues revolving around this for inclusion in any "core" material. Especially using the one entry source.

[Raedwald]

I would just assume that any nonstandard race comes from Aduria or the lands beyond the Dragon sea. Allow the character, but they would be a lone oddity.

[Yair]

For the record, I voted "no" to new races, but that is mainly an objection to "non-Cerilian" races like the Gensai or Gnomes. I am in favor of races that already have a place in the setting (Orogs, Goblins, Gnolls, etc.) getting PHB-like entries. I probably won't use them, but it's good to give options.

[Fizz]

Hey all...

When we talk about gnomes, are we conidering 2nd Ed gnomes, converted to 3e? Or are we talking about the gnomes as presented in the 3e PHB? They're quite different. I could see 2nd Ed gnomes as an offshoot of dwarves, but the 3e PHB gnomes don't seem to have the right flavor for Birthright, imo.

-Fizz

[irdeggman]

It really shouldn't matter what version of gnomes that is being talked about. 3rd ed elves are much different than 2nd ed as are the other demi-human races.

In 2nd ed there were gnomes in the PHB as a player race, they weren't recognized as such in the 2nd ed BRRB. Again, the "only" mention of gnomes in 2nd ed Birthright was the single entry on the monster table in the rulebook, no mention of them under the language section (which included several monster languages) nor an appearance in any "official" Birthright product.

[Fizz]

> 3rd ed elves are much different than 2nd ed as are the other demi-human races.

I agree. And IF gnomes are allowed as a PC race, they can tweaked accordingly. I'm just saying they should be more like 2nd Ed gnomes (cousins of dwarves), and not like the gnomes in the 3E PHB.

-Fizz

[Mark_Aurel]

Ok, let's go back to the source.

In the process of gathering source material for the BRCS, I found and read every post I could be Rich Baker on the mailing list - most of these are several years old, predating even my knowledge of what a mailing list was. In any case, Rich stated that he'd intended to write a unique and different niche for gnomes in BR - as a sort of "nature spirit" thing - with forest gnomes, mountain gnomes, meadow gnomes - whatever. I.e. a more "feyish" type of gnome. As I recall, in the same post, he also stated that this never made it to the final version, for various reasons, so gnomes should generally be considered extremely rare or non-existent. They did show up on the list of permissible monsters, but the important thing was that they were not among the playable PC races.

Gnomes -> out.

All outsider type characters -> WAY out.

Half-dragons -> out.

The possible candidates for additional playable PC races would be goblins, orogs, and gnolls - probably in that order. Playing these races changes the flavor of the setting a fair bit, though - or has the potential to do so. I think part of the flavor of BR is the "tolkienisticness" of the races - making it an "equal opportunities" campaign for all the humanoid races would seem to be more of a kick-down on the race flavor, than anything - it would essentially reduce the races to humans with rubber masks and some different abilities, instead of having the races be and feel _truly different._ Making everything equally viable as a PC distorts the essential flavor of BR a bit, I think.

Of course, I can easily see some of the humanoids incorporated as playable races - if there is a wide enough consensus for it, and if it is possible to come up with cool mechanical benefits for the races, so they don't look like this: "+2 dex, -2 str, darkvision - gl and hf."

[Count Demeter]

Originally posted by Mark_Aurel



Half-dragons -> out.

."

I agree with you Mark_Aurel, but in a way half-dragon can exists on Cerillia but not as a playable race. The GM can, however, use them in some sort of plot device as I've done in recent years. For example, the Eyeless One, in my game, had formed a special relationship with an evil dragon named Fwyllnnwr (FEY-lan-ou-IR) as it was his creation wheent the dragon took human form centuries ago and slept with a noble lady from Boeruine... As an Half-Dragon, the Eyeless One produced himself four other of his kind and made them his bodyguards. So, only five of them exist as NPCs and nothing more.

My advice is: DO NOT kill the feel of BR and if you want to add something that is not cannon, use it as a plot device not as a recurrent and common occurence.

Count Demeter

[Mark_Aurel]

I might allow half-dragons as PC on a unique basis. Generally, I think Cerilian dragons are different enough from other dragons that they don't go around kidnapping virgins or shapeshifting and knocking girls up a whole lot - or do anything else that would produce the classic half-dragons. I could see one being created as a unique creature, but I would never ever make it an official standard option for PCs. If DMs want to allow it to players, fine. I do feel obligated to maintain the status quo and flavor of BR enough that things like this does not make it into the official rules set, though. It just doesn't fit as a standard option - standard options should be selectable right from the book, with DMs not having to adjust _too_ much to make it work. Even regular elves and dwarves can be a bit of a hassle in BR, depending on how it is handled - and half-dragons are way out compared to that.

[Fizz]

> In any case, Rich stated that he'd intended to write a unique and different niche for gnomes in BR - as a sort of "nature spirit" thing - with forest gnomes, mountain gnomes, meadow gnomes - whatever. I.e. a more "feyish" type of gnome.

That's really interesting. Maybe Rick would like them `restored'? :)

I think goblins would be a perfectly acceptable addition as a PC race. They're sufficiently common across the entire continent, and can be just as civil or hostile as neighboring humans. I don't think they'd have extensive special abilities, but that's ok.

I don't think orogs and gnolls work as PC races. Maybe in a few cases, but not as a general rule.

I agree that half-dragons and half-celestials are right out. Sure, in an individual circumstance someone might play one. But if exceptions are made for that, then exceptions should be made for every conceivable one-time race. The official document should only include those races that are readily and always available as a PC race.

-Fizz

[geeman]

One thing I would like to see amongst a set of additional races would be
some sort of template to exemplify the "degenerate" races of creatures that
are the offspring of certain awnsheghlien such as the Sphynx or the Hydra.

Other races could probably be included if for no other reason than because
they are represented by certain populations. Sahuagin, for example,
inhabit the Krakennauricht according to HotGB--though they may no longer
depending on how one interprets their description in the entry for the
Kraken in the Blood Enemies text.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Raesene Andu]

The easiest way to add new races to Birthright is to write up the information and post it here so we can all use it. As for adding new core PC races to the birthright rulebook, well I'm not certain that would be a good idea

[Shade]

At 07:31 PM 2/26/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1386
>
> Ariadne wrote:
> Yes to new races, even half-dragon or genasi. This will give Birthright a
new color...

Which is exactly what I think BR DOESN`T need. So I vote no to all.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Shade]

At 11:06 PM 2/26/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1386
>
> Yair wrote:
> For the record, I voted "no" to new races, but that is mainly an
objection to "non-Cerilian" races like the Gensai or Gnomes. I am in
favor of races that already have a place in the setting (Orogs, Goblins,
Gnolls, etc.) getting PHB-like entries. I probably won`t use them, but
it`s good to give options.

I agree. I`d like to have official rules to play Gnoll or Orog PCs, even if
they have ECL.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Shade]

>The possible candidates for additional playable PC races would be goblins,
orogs, and gnolls - probably in that order. Playing these races changes the
flavor of the setting a fair bit, though - or has the potential to do so. I
think part of the flavor of BR is the "tolkienisticness" of the races -
making it an "equal opportunities" campaign for all the humanoid races
would seem to be more of a kick-down on the race flavor, than anything - it
would essentially reduce the races to humans with rubber masks and some
different abilities, instead of having the races be and feel _truly
different._ Making everything equally viable as a PC distorts the essential
flavor of BR a bit, I think.

Hmm, I forgot about this. Tolkienness is one of the things I really like
about BR - even elves and dwarves are very unique and exotic. The goblins
are for the most part evil, and aren`t heroes.

> gl and hf."

lol, a Warcrafter?

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Shade]

At 01:18 AM 2/28/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1386
>
> Mark_Aurel wrote:
> I might allow half-dragons as PC on a unique basis. Generally, I think
Cerilian dragons are different enough from other dragons that they don`t
go around kidnapping virgins or shapeshifting and knocking girls up a whole
lot - or do anything else that would produce the classic half-dragons. I
could see one being created as a unique creature, but I would never ever
make it an official standard option for PCs. If DMs want to allow it to
players, fine. I do feel obligated to maintain the status quo and flavor of
BR enough that things like this does not make it into the official rules
set, though. It just doesn`t fit as a standard option - standard options
should be selectable right from the book, with DMs not having to adjust
_too_ much to make it work. Even regular elves and dwarves can be a bit of
a hassle in BR, depending on how it is handled - and half-dragons are way
out compared to that.

Another thing - if a player REALLY wants to play a bizarre race like
half-dragon or genasi, bloodform and bloodtrait could be used to account
for the physical changes. The genasi logically correspond to the four
elemental bloodlines - Anduiras, Reynir, Masela and Basaia. A weak
bloodtrait power in one of those lines could effectively make you a genasi.
Bloodform could easily turn someone into a draconic creature.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Shade]

>Other races could probably be included if for no other reason than because
>they are represented by certain populations. Sahuagin, for example,
>inhabit the Krakennauricht according to HotGB--though they may no longer
>depending on how one interprets their description in the entry for the
>Kraken in the Blood Enemies text.

Agreed. I think the Sahuagin do need to be represented with ECL rules, but
not as a PC race. IMO Havens is pretty clear that sahuagin do exist, and
are just waiting to raid Muden (if the DM wants of course). In that event
gaming groups will need stats to make four-armed sahuagin fighter/trident
weapon masters and sahuagin priestesses.

Likewise, we`ll need templates for the awnshegh-spawned monsters (those
that are not unique, of course).

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Lord Shade wrote:

>At 01:18 AM 2/28/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>
>>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
>>You can view the entire thread at:
>>
>http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1386
>
>...
>Another thing - if a player REALLY wants to play a bizarre race like
>half-dragon or genasi, bloodform and bloodtrait could be used to account
>for the physical changes. The genasi logically correspond to the four
>elemental bloodlines - Anduiras, Reynir, Masela and Basaia. A weak
>bloodtrait power in one of those lines could effectively make you a genasi.
>Bloodform could easily turn someone into a draconic creature.
>
Or the "Dragon Disciple" prestige class in Tome&Blood (p. 54/55).
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 10:57 PM 2/27/2003 -0600, Lord Shade wrote:

>I think the Sahuagin do need to be represented with ECL rules, but not as
>a PC race.

What`s the difference between a PC and a NPC race? Is there any aside from
the designation?

>IMO Havens is pretty clear that sahuagin do exist, and are just waiting to
>raid Muden (if the DM wants of course). In that event gaming groups will
>need stats to make four-armed sahuagin fighter/trident
>weapon masters and sahuagin priestesses.

I agree. Savage Species is probably the best resource for this kind of thing.

>Likewise, we`ll need templates for the awnshegh-spawned monsters (those
>that are not unique, of course).

I would like to see something like that, but I acknowledge that it might be
a bit of a hairball. We have precious little information on some of these
creatures and there appears to be more than one type.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Mark_Aurel]

> gl and hf."

lol, a Warcrafter?


No, I'm afraid my computer is a tad old for WC3 - the micro required combined with some CPU lag makes it basically impossible to play online at a competitive level. I do play Age of Mythology on a regular basis, though, but that is quite a bit of a smaller game in terms of number of online players. I did manage to get into the top 10 of AoM with a 100% win record, though, but it's been a while since that.


Another thing - if a player REALLY wants to play a bizarre race like
half-dragon or genasi, bloodform and bloodtrait could be used to account
for the physical changes. The genasi logically correspond to the four
elemental bloodlines - Anduiras, Reynir, Masela and Basaia. A weak
bloodtrait power in one of those lines could effectively make you a genasi.
Bloodform could easily turn someone into a draconic creature.


Likewise, we`ll need templates for the awnshegh-spawned monsters (those
that are not unique, of course).

Hmmm. The caracdír are basically a race that came off the hydra - apart from the Hydra, are there any awnsheghlien that are known for having spawned races of their own? The description of the sphinx hints at what basically sounds like wemics, but that's all I can remember. Generally, I'd apply the awnsheghlien rules to awnsheghlien offspring as well - give them bloodlines and bloodtraits of their own, but possibly allow them to start out as monsters - or just treat them as similar to some regular forms of monsters - the 2e rulebook originally seemed to hint at this.

I can see what you're after, but I'm not altogether convinced it can't be achieved with the existing rules - I'd like some more examples of what exactly the design goal should be. (Note that I'm fond of the idea of lil' hydras, but not necessarily lil' Gorgons - IMO most types of awnshegh offspring should be individual creatures; a few more examples of awnsheghlien that have spawned enough to warrant standardized templates would be good - otherwise, I think such a template would be too overarching, and I'm not going to make the half-awnshegh template. ;))

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lord Shade" <lordshade@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 10:54 PM


> Another thing - if a player REALLY wants to play a bizarre race like
> half-dragon or genasi, bloodform and bloodtrait could be used to account
> for the physical changes. The genasi logically correspond to the four
> elemental bloodlines - Anduiras, Reynir, Masela and Basaia. A weak
> bloodtrait power in one of those lines could effectively make you a
genasi.
> Bloodform could easily turn someone into a draconic creature.

That`s a nice Cerillian way to explain a character concept that gives the
player what they wanted, with a saving of BR appearances. Nice.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 12:44 AM


> >I think the Sahuagin do need to be represented with ECL rules, but not as
> >a PC race.
>
> What`s the difference between a PC and a NPC race? Is there any aside
from
> the designation?

I think in this case, and those like it, we should not expect to see mixed
human - sahuagin parties. Many DM`s already state that they don`t run sidhe
with humans. I have no objection to playing the Sahuagin campaign in
Cerilia, but BR does seem to favor campaigns centered on humans with
occasional dwarf or half-elf, centered on dwarves with occasional humans, or
elves with ocassional half-elves. The any race goes approach of some other
settings seems to be too low a bar for BR. Any combination of characters
could exist, but the requirements for an explanation that is satisfactory is
greater in Cerilia than it may be in other campaigns.

The party with an elf cleric, sahuagin rogue, human monk, and lizardman
sorcerer seems to strain credibility for BR. Not so in other settings.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

I`m cutting a pasting a bit here to make sense of the order of ideas in my
response.

At 09:11 AM 2/28/2003 +0100, Mark Aurel wrote:

>Generally, I`d apply the awnsheghlien rules to awnsheghlien offspring as
>well - give them bloodlines and bloodtraits of their own, but possibly
>allow them to start out as monsters - or just treat them as similar to
>some regular forms of monsters - the 2e rulebook originally seemed to hint
>at this.

In certain cases I think that`d work. Several of the monster templates
could be used with very little modification. For those cases when the
offspring are rare or unique that`s probably the easiest solution. In
certain other cases, however, an appropriate monster may not exist, or
would need some alteration to fit into the particulars of the situation.

One should first outline the need and purpose of using templates in these
situations. The awnsheghlien whose bloodtraits embody some sort of monster
or animal form are similar in most respects to polymorphed creatures of the
kind that 3e uses as the explanation for half-dragons, half-celestials,
etc. Not all offspring of such awnsheghlien will have that template. The
criteria for whether or not an awnsheghlien offspring should get a template
is whether or not the parental combination would constitute a new "race" in
D&D terms. That is, if the parents are of the same race then their
offspring should be handled as simple scions of Azrai with the potential
for bloodtraits like any other blooded characters. In the same way that we
have the elf + human = half elf template, in cases where one parent is a
human scion who mates with a creature whose resembles his/er blood traits
(like the Sphinx`s many apparent by-blows, and the mixing of human
characteristics and reptilian ones that occur in the Hydra`s offspring)
then a template is the standard and easiest way of describing that
amalgamation.

I don`t think the "Big G" Gorgon could mate with a "little g" gorgon given
that his degeneration into The Gorgon represents a shift into a creature
that is really quite a bit different from the metallic, fantasy
ungulate.... A stone golem or galeb dur might make a more likely mate for
him. But if he could then a template would be appropriate to describe the
half-human"Gorgon"/half-gorgon offspring. His offspring with human mates,
however, would be best described as scions of Azrai.

Technically what I`m getting at here is that the awnsheghlien status of one
of the parents is incidental to the racial template issue of his/er
offspring with creatures of another race. (Or species, for that
matter....) It allows for cross breeding races (species) that are not
normally possible, but a template should not include "awnsheghlien"
characteristics. Such creatures will ALSO have a bloodline, but the
template used to express their racial characteristics shouldn`t have
anything in particular to do with that. Imagine if you will the bloodline
of such creatures being eventually reduced to nothing after several
generations, or such a character raised from the dead after having been
killed in an act of bloodtheft. (In the 2e BR text a raised or resurrected
character lost his bloodline--is that addressed in the Playtest
version?) Such a character would still be half-this/half-that, so would
need a template.

>I can see what you`re after, but I`m not altogether convinced it can`t
>be achieved with the existing rules - I`d like some more examples of what
>exactly the design goal should be. (Note that I`m fond of the idea of
>lil` hydras, but not necessarily lil` Gorgons - IMO most types of
>awnshegh offspring should be individual creatures; a few more examples of
>awnsheghlien that have spawned enough to warrant standardized templates
>would be good - otherwise, I think such a template would be too
>overarching, and I`m not going to make the half-awnshegh template. ;))

When it comes to the numbers of awnsheghlien progeny, I should note that
gender is a factor. The more lascivious male awnsheghlien have a better
opportunity to sow their seed, as it were, not having to spend time
gestating. It is important to note the relative birth rates amongst such
populations, though. The Harpy may not have spent a lot of time laying
eggs herself, but a few productive offspring could populate her island with
a murder of crow-like humanoids, or flocks of half-human Jonathan
Livingston Seagull-like creatures--except, of course, without the
nicey-nice attitude.

Unless there is a significant number of offspring possible (that is, more
than a handful) I don`t think anyone should bother with a template. The
Manticore, for instance, could possibly have spawned offspring with actual
manticores (are there female manticores?) but given his inclinations and
the number of dating possibilities in the manticore singles scene, it`s not
something I would really be concerned about for the purpose of a "core"
campaign setting text. Such individuals could be handled, as you`ve
suggested, on a case by case basis, or as part of an adventure meant
specifically to expand upon a particular situation.

>The caracdír are basically a race that came off the hydra - apart from the
>Hydra, are there any awnsheghlien that are known for having spawned races
>of their own? The description of the sphinx hints at what basically sounds
>like wemics, but that`s all I can remember.

The Hydra and the Sphinx certainly are the two most likely given their
descriptions in Blood Enemies. Of those, only the Hydra`s offspring are
described for certain as having a population in the hundreds, though there
could be that many offspring of the Sphinx too. The art of BR is often
used as inspiration more than in other campaign settings, so if one were to
continue that tradition then the art of a cat-like humanoid and a
human-faced cheetah would seem like the kinds of things that could be used
as the basis of a template. In both cases there appears to have been a
generation or two of offspring from those awnsheghlien. In the Sphinx`s
case, there would appear to be what in 3e would be represented by
"awakened" animals and actual half-human, half-felines.

Several other awnsheghlien could have enough offspring to warrant a
template, the Harpy being IMO the next most likely candidate, but one could
make an argument for is the Spider--an idea I kind of like since it would
make his small realm much more scary. Many years ago I wrote up an
adventure featuring a "were-spider" who was a creation of the Spider`s mad
experiments with his own blood upon hapless human captives. Such a thing
is now a template in 3e. Though the Were-spider was a unique creature in
that adventure, there could be more. The Spider could also have offspring
amongst his arachnid "followers" with a wide range of powers and abilities.

Another awnshegh who is likely to (or soon may) have offspring of the type
that a template would be apt to describe is the Wolf. His telepathic,
caninophiliac human girlfriend could have achieved her four-legged
fantasies and become the alpha female of that awnshegh`s pack by now and
had a litter or two.

There are also the "underwater" awnsheghlien; the Seadrake, the Leviathan,
the Kraken. Who knows what watery activities they`ve been engaged in? In
the case of the Seadrake a race like mermen or tritons seems apt. Other
fish-like humanoids, however, could be possible from the other two. The
"sahuagin" who worship the Kraken could actually be his spawn, or there
could be a whole different population of amphibious creatures similar to
other underwater races (like kuo-toa or locathah) based on the Leviathan or
some other, unknown awnsheghlien`s activities.

Amongst the lesser awnsheghlien there are a couple of
possibilities. Minotaur-like spawn of Ruavar the Red Bull could have been
bread in captivity by the Magian. There are one or two others.

It`s important to keep in mind, however, that bloodlines are 1,500 years
old. At some point in the past most any animal form could have been taken
on by an awn- or ersheghlien, so there is an endless range of
possibilities, especially given that many of these populations could exist
in isolated areas in a similar manner to the Hydra`s offspring even after
their patriarch/matriarch has long since died.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 06:57 AM 2/28/2003 -0600, you wrote:

> > What`s the difference between a PC and a NPC race? Is there any aside from
> > the designation?
>
>The party with an elf cleric, sahuagin rogue, human monk, and lizardman
>sorcerer seems to strain credibility for BR. Not so in other settings.

That`s true. I`ve always felt it strained credibility in other settings
too....

Given that this kind of thing is the case even amongst PC races, though, I
think the question still stands. I do appreciate the description of
certain templates being _meant_ for NPCs, and I understand the purpose of
such a designation is there because of issues involving balanced adventures
and resources, etc. It just occurs to me than in BR one of the more oft
ignored aspects of the published materials is that certain domains are
designated "NPC" while others are described as "PC realms." For the most
part this would appear to be based on the size of the domain, and in some
cases the level, alignment or bloodline derivation of the regent in charge
of it, but since most people ignore that kind of thing at their leisure in
BR should anyone even bother with the term? It doesn`t even have any game
mechanical issues such as the designation "NPC class" does.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Gary wrote:

> At 06:57 AM 2/28/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>
> ...
> Given that this kind of thing is the case even amongst PC races,
> though, I
> think the question still stands. I do appreciate the description of
> certain templates being _meant_ for NPCs, and I understand the purpose of
> such a designation is there because of issues involving balanced
> adventures
> and resources, etc. It just occurs to me than in BR one of the more oft
> ignored aspects of the published materials is that certain domains are
> designated "NPC" while others are described as "PC realms." For the most
> part this would appear to be based on the size of the domain, and in some
> cases the level, alignment or bloodline derivation of the regent in
> charge
> of it, but since most people ignore that kind of thing at their
> leisure in
> BR should anyone even bother with the term? It doesn`t even have any
> game
> mechanical issues such as the designation "NPC class" does.
> Gary

That it is ignored in some games means more work for the DM.
The playable realms are described in the Computergame as those realms
balanced to be ruled by human players. Taking over Boeruine or Avanil or
Ghoere and allowing the player the same freedom of action as the other
minor nations played by humans, is calling for an unbalanced game in
which this player will dominate the others - if the DM does not
intervene, what makes his workload larger. Not many players would
restrict themselfs in their actions as things Prince Avan or Aeric
Boeruine would not do, and it has already been said that roleplaying
restrictions can´t replace rules.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 8:58 AM


> It just occurs to me than in BR one of the more oft
> ignored aspects of the published materials is that certain
> domains are designated "NPC" while others are described
> as "PC realms."

Players and DM`s are both drawn to playing an alternative, at least once in
a while. And that`s great. I`d love to hear about a couple of sessions
gaming out a sahuagin raid of Muden. But some setting information somewhere
needs to specify that they won`t fit into an otherwise normal party, at
least not without some special explanation. PC realms have certain
qualities, one of which is that while they have clearly defined enemies,
most realms don`t regard everyone as an enemy. The rules don`t work very
well for the embattled realms (as we`ve discussed before, such as the
Spiderfell). Its hard to role play if you can`t leave your home realm,
except under risk of being accused of being a spy performing an espionage
action. I don`t think the "NPC Realm" designation means players can`t play
it, I think it means it will require extra work, and serious limits on what
players can do. Playing elves introduces some of the problems, but also
provides some of the backround work and explanation to allows their limited
opportunity make some sense.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Shade]

At 10:44 PM 2/27/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>At 10:57 PM 2/27/2003 -0600, Lord Shade wrote:
>
>>I think the Sahuagin do need to be represented with ECL rules, but not as
>>a PC race.
>
>What`s the difference between a PC and a NPC race? Is there any aside from
>the designation?

AFAIK, just semantics. One is "meant" to be played, the other is not,
either because it would be over or underpowered in a level 1-20 game or
because it is evil/villainous, or because it doesn`t interact with the
other races. A PC sahuagin would be ...unlikely... at best. It is a gray
are where you just

>>IMO Havens is pretty clear that sahuagin do exist, and are just waiting to
>>raid Muden (if the DM wants of course). In that event gaming groups will
>>need stats to make four-armed sahuagin fighter/trident
>>weapon masters and sahuagin priestesses.
>
>I agree. Savage Species is probably the best resource for this kind of
thing.

Yep. I imagine we`ll cover this in the d20 Atlas.

>>Likewise, we`ll need templates for the awnshegh-spawned monsters (those
>>that are not unique, of course).
>
>I would like to see something like that, but I acknowledge that it might be
>a bit of a hairball. We have precious little information on some of these
>creatures and there appears to be more than one type.
>
>Gary
>
>************************************************** **************************
>The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
>Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
>To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
>with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
>

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[anacreon]

I think that, using the 'Savage Races' book, I would allow the introduction of most of the monster races appearing in the end of the 'Rulebook' of the Birthright Campaign Setting boxed set. However I will not allow regency to those races except in very unusual circumstances.

[Azrai]

Originally posted by kgauck
The party with an elf cleric, sahuagin rogue, human monk, and lizardman
sorcerer seems to strain credibility for BR. Not so in other settings.


That is a very conservative view of the game. I should be clear that all these races exist in Cerilia (Orog, Sahuagin etc.). So I see absolutely not reason why not to allow to play them. A good DM should be able to point out that these races are not common and can have some problems in civilized areas.

On of the greatest moments in roleplaying is the creation of a character. New races would make it even more interesting.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by anacreon


I think that, using the 'Savage Races' book, I would allow the introduction of most of the monster races appearing in the end of the 'Rulebook' of the Birthright Campaign Setting boxed set. However I will not allow regency to those races except in very unusual circumstances.

I would think that at least goblins and orogs would have some sort of regency. Both have domains, and at least as far as the core rules (i.e., 2nd ed) several goblin domains were detailed. Not much has ever been written to detail how the orog domains would be comprised though. That would be a very good subject for the atlas group. And I agree that the savage species (and upcoming 3.5 PHB) should contain enough details to be able to handle monster races. Although Cerilian goblins are very different than the standard MM goblins (common - goblins, elite - hobgoblins and huge - bugbears) and they also tend to be lawful which is another difference.:)

[geeman]

At 07:39 PM 3/2/2003 +0100, irdeggman wrote:

>I would think that at least goblins and orogs would have some sort of regency.

Are there any other races (or species of intelligent creatures) that might
have been at Deismaar? We know about a dragon or two, but what other
monsters might have been present? There could have been a few giants, for
example, present at the battle as might ogres, treants, centaurs, ettins,
lycanthropes and trolls.

Though there are blooded creatures of animal intelligence, having gained a
bloodline at Deismaar would seem to be limited to intelligent creatures for
the most part. IIRC, at least one person has premised bloodlines existing
in a "race" of horses present at Deismaar amongst the cavalry, but if that
were anything other than an exception there would be hundreds of such
animals, in addition to probably thousands of the crows and ravens who
flock to a battlefield for the tasty . The list of AD&D Monsters in
Cerilia on p89 of the RB lists several types of monsters that could take
place in war handled in a similar manner.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Azrai" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 11:17 AM


>
Originally posted by kgauck
> The party with an elf cleric, sahuagin rogue, human monk, and lizardman
> sorcerer seems to strain credibility for BR. Not so in other settings.
>
>
> That is a very conservative view of the game. I should be clear that all
> these races exist in Cerilia (Orog, Sahuagin etc.). So I see absolutely
> not reason why not to allow to play them. A good DM should be able
> to point out that these races are not common and can have some
> problems in civilized areas.

They should also be having problems with each other. I can see a one-time
congregation for a specific purpose (the heroes of the Great Bay join forces
to combat something that threatens all), but holding a party together over
many adventures requires that the party not be the only members of their
species who don`t have cultural and religious reasons for prefering the
members of the party humbled. Any one of these characters could exist (even
the elf cleric), but by themselves is an extreamly exceptional charcater.
Combining character concepts that turn the setting on its head, and jumbling
them together, the keeping them together for a campaign thumbs its nose at
the rivalries and assumptions the setting creates. With some changes that
will preserve the essentials of character concepts, a much happy
combinations of characters can be assembled.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by Shade

Another thing - if a player REALLY wants to play a bizarre race like half-dragon or genasi, bloodform and bloodtrait could be used to account for the physical changes. The genasi logically correspond to the four elemental bloodlines - Anduiras, Reynir, Masela and Basaia. A weak bloodtrait power in one of those lines could effectively make you a genasi. Bloodform could easily turn someone into a draconic creature.
Nice BR version of roleplaying, but why so complicated? If someone REALLY wants to play an exotic race then simply let him...

[kgauck]

Shade wrote:
> If a player REALLY wants to play a bizarre race [...] bloodform and
> bloodtrait could be used to account for the physical changes.

Ariadne wrote:
> Why? If someone REALLY wants to play an exotic race then let him...

Because the setting limits what is possible. At some point, you either have
to make so many comprimises that you feel you`ve sold out your vision of
Cerilia or you have to say no. I haven`t spent years (very literally)
building this world to throw all that away because someone wants to play a
multi-planar, psionic drow cleric of Lolth. Sometimes its better to decide
that BR is not the best world for every player. BR is a distinctive setting
because some things are possible and other things are not. If every setting
allows everything, then all settings are the same, only the names have been
changed to confuse the innocent.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

From: "Kenneth Gauck" <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>

> Because the setting limits what is possible. At some point, you either
have
> to make so many comprimises that you feel you`ve sold out your vision of
> Cerilia or you have to say no.
>

I very much agree. Additionally, a conversion manual should focus on what is
unique for this setting. There are rules for Half-Dragons in other settings,
so there is no need to detail them here. There are currently no half-dragons
in Cerilia, so there is no need to explain how they fit into society. A DM
who wants half-dragons in his game is of course free to introduce them, but
why should they be in the conversion? What would be so unique about Carilian
half-dragons (if they existed) that it needs to be mentioned?

I think the problem with the current document is that it is too large and
complex rather than that it is too small. Including things "because they
could exist" isn`t a good enough reason.

This said, I can certainly see how a bloodform character could start to
mutate into a reptilian, dragon-like creature. That would be a unique
creature, at least until he started to spawn. Perhaps he will become known
as The Kobold? ; )

/Carl


__________________________________________________ ___
Gå före i kön och få din sajt värderad på nolltid med Yahoo! Express
Se mer på: http://se.docs.yahoo.com/info/express/help/index.html

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by Birthright-L (Carl Kramer)

There are rules for Half-Dragons in other settings, so there is no need to detail them here. There are currently no half-dragons in Cerilia, so there is no need to explain how they fit into society.
Just a question. How do you want to define an ECL in BR, if using Bloodform or Bloodtrait?

[geeman]

At 03:04 PM 3/3/2003 +0100, Ariadne wrote:

>How do you want to define an ECL in BR, if using Bloodform or Bloodtrait?

I wrote up an Awnsheghlien/Ersheghlien prestige class a while back. There
are several benefits for interpreting bloodform and bloodtrait into that
mechanic, not the least of which is that it figures right into the ECL system.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[A_dark]

No need races should be included in the Book. If you want Genasi character feel free to have them in your campaign, but don't make them canon material. I personally feel that there is no need to add any other race. Not even the gnomes. I agree with whomever said that the mentioning of the gnome in the monster list is a TSR mistake.

I could understand a gnoll or goblin or orog race listing, but those races are not meant for the PCs as a canon. In my campaign I would allow all of my PCs to be gnolls (but I would not combine gnolls with humans as I don't combine even elves with humans) but even if I allowed for this, I would not request it to be part of a book with the rules.

If new races such as Genasi or Half dragons are added, then the Birthright feel is SEVERELY compromised..... we would get a Forgotten Realms setting with different maps....

As a final note, I do not feel that the absence of the Half-Ogre is bad either. I would understand it being there, but I don't care if it is not either.

I think I pretty much agree with mark Aurel.... I usually agree with him :P

[CMonkey]

I'm very new, 3rd edition new, to Birthright and I'm here because it different enough - I quite like monks (ooo - off topic!) and dont mind gnomes, but I've voted no.

Firmly in the "not canon" camp I'm afraid.

CM.

[edit]

Actually, I think d20 BR it doesn't go far enough with the "core stripping". For example, I'd like to see the Paladin made into a prestige class , but, like someone else said, thats for the authors, not us, to decide one way or the other.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by A_dark

In my campaign I would allow all of my PCs to be gnolls (but I would not combine gnolls with humans as I don't combine even elves with humans) but even if I allowed for this, I would not request it to be part of a book with the rules.
May I say, that half-elves were always part of the BR setting and this is (thanks goodness) not changed. You may cancel any race in your campain, but this needn't to be overall...


I think I pretty much agree with mark Aurel.... I usually agree with him :P
And you usually disagree with me :P

[Azrai]

Originally posted by kgauck
Because the setting limits what is possible


Take a look at the "Kingdoms of Kalamar" Setting. It should be comparable to the Birthright setting, because it's also a "realistic" and low-magic setting.

They included the Hobgoblins, Half-hobgoblins and Goblins as standard character classes. They fit pretty nice to the setting and the flair.

I still see no reasonable argument why not to include e.g. these races. What about the gamers who like to play a Orog or Goblin campaign? Why should one differ between NPC's and PC classes?

You talk everytime of things like "Birthright flair" could be changed, but why do you think this is the case? These races exist on Cerilia, why not allow players to take them as PC's?

I even heard people here in this forum who dislike elves or halfelves as PC's. Maybe they should play Harnmaster.

I agree that Birthright does not need something like the FR "drow hype", but (I can only repeat myself) new races add new imaginative gaming possiblities to a campaign.

[Mark_Aurel]

Take a look at the "Kingdoms of Kalamar" Setting. It should be comparable to the Birthright setting, because it's also a "realistic" and low-magic setting.

They included the Hobgoblins, Half-hobgoblins and Goblins as standard character classes. They fit pretty nice to the setting and the flair.


I'm sure they fit well in Kalamar. However, one of the essential components to BR (at least for me) is the "Tolkienisticness" of the races. Orogs are EVIL. They aren't humans with rubber masks who just happened to get the wrong end of the shaft in a scuffle. Gnolls are SAVAGE. Not just "crazy dude that doesn't shave and lives in a bush" savage, but bone-munching, man-crunching, feral savage. The goblins is the only race that seems remotely playable in a regular BR campaign - however, they have their own collection of vices, ranging from cowardice to greed to laziness.

Alternative races are fine in a lot of settings. I'm a big fan of Planescape, and I enjoy making really weird characters. For BR, however, I'd like my fantasy flavor to be pretty pure - having a group of characters that essentially resembles the Star Trek approach to mixing races (they're all humans with rubber masks) doesn't work that well with BR.

BR is different in so many ways than other settings. It's not politically correct. For one, it's a world in which people have the RIGHT to be dictators - sure, they wash it out a bit with "the Land's Choice" and all that, but essentially, people rule by divine right - and the divine right is REAL. I don't think there's any affirmative action among hero-kings to hire more orogs either.


You talk everytime of things like "Birthright flair" could be changed, but why do you think this is the case? These races exist on Cerilia, why not allow players to take them as PC's?


That's up to the DM. Just because monkeys exist somewhere on Aebrynis does not mean they should be included as a viable, official option for a PC race. I'd probably rather make an entry for Cerilian gnomes than half-genasi or tieflings or bariaurs or whatever. Those are kewl races, but they do NOT generally belong in a "mainstream" Birthright campaign. Just because dragons exist in Cerilia does not really make them a playable race either - including something as a playable, OFFICIAL race just because "it exists" does not work - there has to be a flavor reason for it. The burden of proof here is essentially on the shoulders of those that wants to put something in that wasn't there before. If you want goblins or orogs or gnolls or gnomes or otyughs or vampire spawn or planetouched to be playable, official races in BR, supply a reason for it, other than their existence. Adding new races at a whim like that would probably kill a lot of role-playing and flavor and diminish the impact of the setting background, more than it would improve anything.

Playing reverse dungeon is pretty fun, but it doesn't work well in Birthright either.

Like I've stated earlier, what I allow in my own campaign might be very different - personally, I enjoy trying new stuff and allowing all kinds of craziness, if handled well - steamboat gnomes are still definitely offline for BR, though. The difference here is that what we're debating is what is supposed to be an "official" product and not - and steamboat gnomes or rubber mask orogs are definitely not BR canon. It's the same thing with the D&D rules - even if someone thinks that paladins should be a prestige class or that the ranger needs a change, or the bard a power-up, that doesn't mean we change it around for BR purposes just to suit our own tastes - unless it fits BR exceptionally well, such as excluding the monk class.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Azrai" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 6:13 AM


> Take a look at the "Kingdoms of Kalamar" Setting. It should be
> comparable to the Birthright setting, because it`s also a "realistic"
> and low-magic setting.
>
> They included the Hobgoblins, Half-hobgoblins and Goblins as
> standard character classes. They fit pretty nice to the setting and the
flair.
>
> I still see no reasonable argument why not to include e.g. these races.
> What about the gamers who like to play a Orog or Goblin campaign?
> Why should one differ between NPC`s and PC classes?

Go back and re-read my post, I favor DM`s being able to play any race
normally found in Cerilia, and I favore DM`s customizing their own game.
IMO, Goblins should be a standard race (filling the half-orc slot from the
PHB). But, as you seem to suggest, these would be played primarily in a
Goblin campaign. My objection relates to the goblin PC in a human centerned
campaign with no explanation for why he is there (as opposed to among other
goblins) who suffers no rejection in human society (those adventurers are an
odd and varied lot) and whose party includes a member of the Gheallie Sidhe,
a human ruler, and a Sahuagin. All of whome hang out in the human court
without much comment. That is contrary to the setting material. The bounds
of BR will stretch, ut at some point you`re playing a different game.
Alternate points of view are one things (yes to a sahuagin, goblin, or orog
campaign), but random combinations of PC`s just because somewhere on Cerilia
(or even not) they might exist are another.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Ariadne wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1386
>
> Ariadne wrote:
>
Originally posted by A_dark
>
>In my campaign I would allow all of my PCs to be gnolls (but I would not combine gnolls with humans as I don`t combine even elves with humans) but even if I allowed for this, I would not request it to be part of a book with the rules.
>May I say, that half-elves were always part of the BR setting and this is (thanks goodness) not changed. You may cancel any race in your campain, but this needn`t to be overall...
>
>
I think I pretty much agree with mark Aurel.... I usually agree with him :P
>
>And you usually disagree with me :P
>
I disagree only with those who do not share my opinion ;-)

The Birthright "standard" party would be largely one or two races.

A non-standard party as an example would be already what Richard Endier
led to conquer the western part of the Spiderfell from the Spider: Many
Humans from Anuire, some from Rjurik including a druid, some Vos, a
single halfling and even a single half-orog ("mother") as was described
in "The Spider´s Test".

More, as the mentioned Lizardmen-Human-Half-Elf, Gnoll Party is such an
unlikely occurance that it does not need to be even mentioned in a book
but only in the weird, seldom, very rare situations in which a DM
decides to have such a group - all racial generationlong racial hatred
and warfare and prejudices aside.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Azrai]

Originally posted by Mark_Aurel

Orogs are EVIL. They aren't humans with rubber masks who just happened to get the wrong end of the shaft in a scuffle. Gnolls are SAVAGE
Thats not the point. Are "Evil" and "savage" non-playable attributes? Why not give the possibility to play an evil campaign. And what about the exeptions (Drizzt characters)?

[ryancaveney]

On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Azrai wrote:

> I still see no reasonable argument why not to include e.g. these
> races. What about the gamers who like to play a Orog or Goblin
> campaign? Why should one differ between NPC`s and PC classes?

Orogs and goblins should definitely be playable PC races. Goblins in
particular I have said before are a more playable PC race in BR than the
elves are, in large part because goblin realms actually have diplomatic
relations with other species, and individual goblins and humans are
actually much less likely to just shoot each other on sight than are
individual elves and members of any other race.

> I even heard people here in this forum who dislike elves or halfelves
> as PC`s. Maybe they should play Harnmaster.

I love elves in BR. The Sidhelien of Cerilia are my favorite RPG race
ever. However, as part of that I very strongly feel that under almost no
circumstances should they ever be found in the same adventuring party as
non-elves. Either all elves and half-elves, or no elves at all. The
reason, of course, is that to me their homicidal isolationism is a
(perhaps even the) crucial part of their cultural character.
Hurrah for the Gheallie Sidhe! ;> (And there are elves in Ha^rn...)


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Fizz]

I believe goblins should be available as a player race. They exist in sufficient numbers and are sufficiently civilized that one could reasonably be found anywhere on the continent, even working in human lands. And goblins certainly don't pose any balance issues.

Orogs, i'd lean against. They seem too hostile to fit in with any campaign. While elves vary greatly in their response to humans, orogs (afaik) don't. Now, if someone wanted to run an all-orog campaign, that's fine. But i don't think such a decision warrants an addition to the core books.

The core books should include those options that are, well, core to the game. Elves, dwarves, halflings, and humans should always be available to the players. I think goblins should be there too. But not orogs nor other weird critters.

-Fizz

[Mourn]

I just wanted to pop a word in... since we know what was originally intended for gnomes, why don't they get written into the setting like that? Fey creatures, dwelling as guardians of the natural places of the world... perhaps unable to gain a bloodline, because of their lack of association with Deismaar, but can gain other abilities...

[A_dark]

Originally posted by Azrai



Originally posted by Mark_Aurel

Orogs are EVIL. They aren't humans with rubber masks who just happened to get the wrong end of the shaft in a scuffle. Gnolls are SAVAGE
Thats not the point. Are "Evil" and "savage" non-playable attributes? Why not give the possibility to play an evil campaign. And what about the exeptions (Drizzt characters)?





1) Nobody said you cannot have an evil and savage campaign, but that needs not be in the core book
2) Does the PHB have goblin or kobold as character races? No. Why? because they are not the canon. You are welcome to have a campaign with these races, but that would be the exception, not the rule and the rule is what is in the book. Exception is all the little house rules we use....
3) You are saying that you have not heard an argument against adding these races. By your logic, we should add EVERY monster as a playable PC race in our book, because using your logic, we should give the option.... Does it make sense? No. As others said, the burden to prove that something is on you, since you need to prove that what was not in the books before needs to be part of them now, not the other way around.

[Azrai]

Originally posted by A_dark
You are saying that you have not heard an argument against adding these races. By your logic, we should add EVERY monster as a playable PC race in our book, because using your logic, we should give the option....

No, not every monster, but the most reasonable.



As others said, the burden to prove that something is on you, since you need to prove that what was not in the books before needs to be part of them now, not the other way around.

Again, no. It's the other way round. These races are 3. Edition standard.

[Fizz]

>No, not every monster, but the most reasonable.

What defines reasonable? That 90%+ of players want to play that race? 50%? 10%?

> Again, no. It's the other way round. These races are 3. Edition standard.

But, goblins, gnolls, and orogs are NOT 3rd Edition standards. So, by that reasoning, they should not be in the book.

I agree goblins should be available (because i feel they are sufficiently common and civilized in BR to justify it). But nothing about orogs and gnolls suggest to me that either should be commonly available as a PC race. If you allow gnolls and orogs as standard PC races, you could end up with a party of an elf, a dwarf, an orog, a gnoll. Does that sound appropriate for Birthright? Well, it might work in a very specific adventure, but it certainly wouldn't happen as a general rule. Heck, even a party of pure gnolls or orogs won't occur with anywhere near the frequency that elves, dwarves, halflings and humans set out on adventures.

As for Cerilian gnomes, well, they -could- be added, -if- (and only if) there is consensus to revive them as a race as originally envisioned by Rich Baker. I don't think most people are interested in that, however, because it's not true to the original Birthright.

-Fizz

[irdeggman]

Genasi are not 3rd standard races, they are Forgotten Realms (semi-standard) races. That is not the same thing as being a 3rd ed standard race. Half-orcs are a 3rd ed standard race, but there are no orcs in Birthright (at least not in Cerilia) so half-orcs aren't included in the core BRCS rules.

Gnomes are a standard 3rd ed race, but there has never been any mention (again except for the one entry under monsters in the 2nd ed Birtright rulebook) of them in the campaign (again at least not in Cerilia).

Heck in the 3rd ed DMG hill dwarves, deep dwarves, Duergar, and Mountain dwarves are all mentioned - but no one has suggested that there be separate subraces for elves and dwarves in Birthright. The same logic/arguements apply in this case also.

Regarding playing evil characters. 3rd edition is the first time that the "official" rules make the suggestion that evil is not an alignment to be played by PCs. PHB p87 "Standard characters are good or neutral but not evil. Evil alignments are for villians and monsters." While essentially everything is optional as stated in many many places in the various core books, this is the "first" time I can every recall seeing anything like this in the "core rules", and in my opinion this suggestion should not be readily dismissed.

Also note that "mother" was actually a half-ogre not a half-orog. I, too originally that he was a half-orog but it was pointed out to me I was mistaken.

As far as goblins as PCs go, IMO this is a very good suggestion. In Mhoried especially this could be very possible. There was much discussion about including goblins as "standard" PC race in the BRCS but this was dismissed due to their application as a PC race would be very, very limited. It was also felt that this could best be captured in the Atlas when the goblin regions are discussed more fully. Remember that Cerilian goblins encompass 3 different monster races (goblins, hobgoblins and bugbears) so any attempt to quickly codify them would fall short. They also are lawful evil (racial tendancy).

Half-orogs, hmm can an orog breed with a human? As the 3rd edition core rules are written dwarves and humans don't breed. In Dark Sun they do but the birth of a Mul (their sterile offspring) usually results in the death of the mother during childbirth. There are no half-halflings nor half-gnomes in the core rules either. So just because it sounds neat doesn't mean that it is necessary.

Following the rules in Savage Species (SS) a character must obtain all the monster class levels first before acquiring any other class. For example the centaur monster class has 6 levels, before a PC centaur ranger could be created the character would have to be a 6th level centaur then he could acquire his 1st level of ranger. None of the goblinoid races have been so captured in SS so they would have to be (IMO at least the bugbear (Huge cerilian goblin) and maybe the hobgoblin (Elite Cerilian goblin)) first created in the same format.

With the rare exception, Birthright is a "human-centric" campaign setting. The one notable exception is halflings that sem to be able to intermingle in all societies, but dwarves, elves and half-elves don't generally interact freely with humans. Yes this is a role-playing issue, but it is very much a central theme of the campaign setting.:)

[geeman]

At 07:13 AM 3/7/2003 +0100, Fizz wrote:

>The core books should include those options that are, well, core to the
>game. Elves, dwarves, halflings, and humans should always be available to
>the players. I think goblins should be there too. But not orogs nor
>other weird critters.

The races that I`d like to see in a core rulebook are the ones that are
most common in the campaign setting whether they are to be PC or NPC. I
just want the stats and information. Particular templates can be described
as PC or NPC in a sourcebook to keep it in line with the original
materials. All things considered, of course, the choice of what races are
available to players is up to individual DMs despite such a designation by
the folks who write the gaming material. I don`t really want to run an all
orog campaign or anything, but stats for those creatures would be useful
since PCs will run into them as part of a typical campaign.

Lots of times people seem reluctant to include such material directly in a
core text. Apparently for fear that it would be seen as an endorsement of
the kinds of role-playing that many people see as immoral or something. My
opinion is that playing such a campaign is more likely and less offensive
than, say... fey Cerilian gnomes. (Who would have both psionicist and monk
as favored classes, right?) Including orogs, goblins and gnolls won`t lead
to a decline of gaming morality in any way. I fear the degenerate
influence of gnomes in a BR text far more than an orog template.

Even if one doesn`t base a campaign on making PCs out of such an NPC race,
however, I think we still need the information to make for a well rounded
text for both players and DMs.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Fizz wrote:

> If you allow gnolls and orogs as standard PC races, you could end up
> with a party of an elf, a dwarf, an orog, a gnoll. Does that sound
> appropriate for Birthright?

If you allow elves and humans as standard PC races, you could end up with
a party including both elves and humans. That doesn`t sound appropriate
for Birthright! I don`t think the answer is to exclude races; I think it
is to state -- loudly, clearly and explicitly -- that most of the BR races
hate most of the other BR races, so cross-racial campaigns are discouraged
as being contrary to the cultural standards of the setting.

A campaign of goblins and gnolls raiding out of the Spiderfell into
Roesone, or the gnollish conquest of Hjorig, seem perfectly appropriate BR
campaigns to me. Either side of the Dwarf-Orog wars ought to be equally
playable.

And actually, if the elf was from Rhoubhe`s lands and the dwarf was from
Mur-Kilad, and the group was raiding out of the Five Peaks into Mhoried to
kill humans, I think the foursome you object to would make a great deal of
sense -- certainly more than one including an elf from the Sielwode, a
human from Elinie and a halfling from the Burrows trying to oppose them.

> Heck, even a party of pure gnolls or orogs won`t occur with anywhere
> near the frequency that elves, dwarves, halflings and humans set out
> on adventures.

On the contrary, there are lots of purely gnoll adventuring parties!
They`re called "raiders" or "marauders" or suchlike by their nongnoll
neighbors, but they`re adventuring parties all the same. Gnoll society is
organized around them. Certainly a purely orog war party also ought to be
much more common than an adventuring party including *all four* of the
races you mentioned. There ought to be maybe two of those on the whole
continent, and everyone they met would think them very strange indeed.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Mourn]

Quick mechanical treatment of gnome idea, with the three types mentioned by Rich Baker (meadow gnomes, mountain gnomes, forest gnomes)

Gnomes
* +2 Con, -2 Str.
* Small.
* Gnome base speed is 20 feet.
* Low-light vision.
* +2 racial bonus on Wilderness Lore checks.
* Type is fey.
* Automatic Language: Gnome.

Forest Gnome
* +2 racial bonus on Climb checks.
* +4 racial bonus on Hide checks in forest.
* Trackless step.

Meadow Gnome
* +2 racial bonus on Move Silently checks.
* +4 racial bonus on Hide checks on plains
* Base speed is 30 feet.

Mountain Gnome
* +2 racial bonus on Jump checks.
* +4 racial bonus on Hide checks in mountains.
* Climb speed is 20 feet.

Comments?

[A_dark]

Again, no. It's the other way round. These races are 3. Edition standard.

As far as I know the goblin etc were not in the 3rd ed PHB book....

Now, as for the goblins etc, I would not mind goblins being added as a PC race, but I wouldn't ask for it from the Dev Team either, because I don't find it a necessity.

I would expect t a lenghty coverage of thse humanoid races in the monster section and of course with a small paragraph at the bottom that would detail how they are treated as races. (eg. The Tiefling and Aasimar entries of the Monster Manual) This would be IMHO the best approach :)

[kgauck]

BR had regional suppliments for five human regions. There was no supliment
for elves, dwarves, nor was there a suppliment for humanoids. BR could very
well produce a suppliment for the humanoids which detailed humanoid realms,
characters, religion, culture, PrC`s, how to play a campaign set in one of
these realms, how to use thse realms as major opponants for human realms,
how to make a major villain out of a character like the Scarlet Baron. It
would be a different style of campaign, but it could be played. As long as
it dealt with goblins, orogs, and gnolls as both possible PC`s and as a
detailed sourcebook of enemies for human realms, it could have wide appeal.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Fizz]

Originally posted by Mourn

Quick mechanical treatment of gnome idea, with the three types mentioned by Rich Baker (meadow gnomes, mountain gnomes, forest gnomes)

Gnomes
* +2 Con, -2 Str.
* Small.
* Gnome base speed is 20 feet.
* Low-light vision.
* +2 racial bonus on Wilderness Lore checks.
* Type is fey.
* Automatic Language: Gnome.

Forest Gnome
* +2 racial bonus on Climb checks.
* +4 racial bonus on Hide checks in forest.
* Trackless step.

Meadow Gnome
* +2 racial bonus on Move Silently checks.
* +4 racial bonus on Hide checks on plains
* Base speed is 30 feet.

Mountain Gnome
* +2 racial bonus on Jump checks.
* +4 racial bonus on Hide checks in mountains.
* Climb speed is 20 feet.

Comments?


These sound ok to me. Though, it seems they could use something else to make them more... quirky. Maybe some abilities to speak with plants or animals, some form of charms, invisibility? All to give them more fey-like. <shrug>

Actually, i've always though elves should have the fey type. They are connected to nature and have inherent magical abilities, after all. And that's the definition of fey according to the MM.

-Fizz

[ConjurerDragon]

irdeggman wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1386
>
> irdeggman wrote:
>Regarding playing evil characters. 3rd edition is the first time that the "official" rules make the suggestion that evil is not an alignment to be played by PCs. PHB p87 "Standard characters are good or neutral but not evil. Evil alignments are for villians and monsters." While essentially everything is optional as stated in many many places in the various core books, this is the "first" time I can every recall seeing anything like this in the "core rules", and in my opinion this suggestion should not be readily dismissed.
>
Evil characters? Lots of characters, both recommended and not for
playing are "evil" in alignment. Arron Vaumel of Mieres is neutral evil,
Eriene Mierelen is neutral evil, the Baron of Ghoere is LE, Carilon
Alam is NE...

Evil comes in even more shades than good, and a greedy merchant or
selfish warlord are as playable or better playable as a lawful good
paladin - just not in a team. I assume this is the reason for the 3E
suggestion, that in a party working as a team evil characters are not
suggested. But on the domain level, just as in the real world anything
goes when the need arises...

>Also note that "mother" was actually a half-ogre not a half-orog. I, too originally that he was a half-orog but it was pointed out to me I was mistaken.
>
Could you point me to this as well? I looked it up and in "The Spiders
Test" from p. 115 on Gregor Vadmird was an orog, on p. 117 an half-orog
and so on.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Shade]

At 12:33 AM 3/8/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1386
>
> Mourn wrote:
> Quick mechanical treatment of gnome idea, with the three types mentioned
by Rich Baker (meadow gnomes, mountain gnomes, forest gnomes)
>
>Gnomes
>* +2 Con, -2 Str.
>* Small.
>* Gnome base speed is 20 feet.
>* Low-light vision.
>* +2 racial bonus on Wilderness Lore checks.
>* Type is fey.
>* Automatic Language: Gnome.
>
>Forest Gnome
>* +2 racial bonus on Climb checks.
>* +4 racial bonus on Hide checks in forest.
>* Trackless step.
>
>Meadow Gnome
>* +2 racial bonus on Move Silently checks.
>* +4 racial bonus on Hide checks on plains
>* Base speed is 30 feet.
>
>Mountain Gnome
>* +2 racial bonus on Jump checks.
>* +4 racial bonus on Hide checks in mountains.
>* Climb speed is 20 feet.
>
>Comments?

Cool, but don`t include them in the core BRCS book. They might be useful as
a monster entry in the Atlas, though.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[TheAuldGrump]

Okay, I voted no new races, but I wanted to add comments.

First, if you really want to have all the races from 3e it might be more fitting to port the domain systems to Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk than to import new critters into Cerilia. This is not a flame or troll by the way, Greyhawk began as a setting for Gygax and his friends to play Chainmail in, a wargame and not a roleplaying game, the roleplaying came later. So, I would like to suggest making a compromise system where you can play blooded or unblooded regents in settings other than BR, to be created following the BR conversion. I seem to rcall an attempt in Dragon to import the system to Al Quadim, though I don't remember the issue number. Not all races belong in all worlds.

Second, while I am against bringing in new races I would like to see the non player races fleshed out, perhaps as a later suplement rather than part of the core BR material. Even in the 2nd ed. campaign I ran I had a player with a Goblin PC. I do like the fact that 3rd ed. has fleshed out the monsters, and would like to see that continued, but it doesn't need to be in the main book.

Third, I'd like to cast an espescial vote against half dragons, I don't believe that there has been any examples of BR dragons changing shape, so it becomes pretty much a moot point. (I don't have my box set handy, so I could be wrong.)

Finally I'd like everyone on both sides of the issue to take a deep breath, the folks working on the conversion are doing their best, so let's keep it civil.

My thanks to all.
The Auld Grump

[Raesene Andu]

It is intented that there will be some fleshing out of the non player races (Gnolls, Goblins, Orogs, etc) in the d20 Atlas of Cerilia, with a look at their culture, history, etc. There is no intention at this time to go further and provide rules for goblins/gnoll/orog/whatever characters, but there will be more on them, including info on their settlements, military, culture, and so on.