D&D stereotypes you can't stand

[Agrippa]

Honestly that sounds closer to chaotic evil to me. Being evil doesn't mean doing evil things you can't get away with, that's being stupid.

Good characters are the ones who take actions that harm themselves, evil characters are the ones motivated by self-interest.

I don't quite agree with that so I'll offer an alternative. Good characters act with kindness, compassion and a well reasoned sense of justice. Neutrals are motivated by either self interest or collective interest but lack cruelty, malice or willingness to cause great suffering to achive their goals. Evil characters are willing to almost, if not entirely, do anything to win. In some cases it isn't so much about succeding as guaranteing that others don't rise any higher than them. "The nail that sticks out gets hammered down."

[Shinkuro]

Sir Axebeard; the drunken berserker usually a dwarf with some kind of martial class. frequently wields either a hammer or axe. fights as if he were some kind of berserker and tries to fight in every circumstance. even if it wouldn't be beneificial. motivated solely by experience points and wealth. gets drunk and picks up tavern wenches for his own Hedonistic purposes. writes chaotic neutral on his character sheet, he can wield a 2handed weapon, a 1handed weapon and shield, or 2 1handed weapons, but they usually are either axes or hammers, or at least have the head of one. frequent surnames involve the word, axe, hammer, beard, or any combination of the three.

the crazy gnome . this can be a gnome, halfling, or other similar race, they usually have a chaotic alignment, and commonly tend to be spellcasters, the especially irksome focus being explosions. these little guys have severe ADHD, absurdly long or strange names, and they usually (though not always) play the Mad Bomber, Mr. Hyde, Dr. Frankenstein or similar derivative concept. the focus being on their excessive craziness and disregard for both ally and enemy alike. other races don't necessarily have to be small, but such tendencies as impulsiveness, aggressiveness and napoleon syndrome are an especially common factor in race selection.

Merlin , this is when the player takes an old human male and builds him as a wizard or similar class. he typically is either named after Merlin from Arthurian legend or Gandalf from lord of the rings. recent Eragon fans might use the name Brom to the same effect. they typically take all the flashy classic spells thier class has to provide and have no resemblance to their original counterpart besides being an old man with the same name. most of the time, they don't have the patience or experience to pull their class off.

the Unsynergistic Snowflake while a Snowflake can be effective if built right. the Unsynergistic Snowflake usually combines options that don't mesh well together. especially irksome examples include light armored melee combatants with a base attack bonus of only +1 at 4th level and use finesse weapons with dumped strength and no compensatory damage boost. elven fighters who dump constitution and wield melee weapons whilst wearing light armor and only having basic levels of dexterity.

a steriotype that doesn't bother me

the competent snowflake. while clearly an attempt at making a snowflake. they are actually reasonably good at what they do. a fighter/rogue/shadowdancer with weapon specialization and darkvision who focuses on ambush combat via the bounding assault line is a good example. as is a rogue/wizard/unseen seer/arcane trickster with reserve feats.

[littha]

Hell just look at almost every portrayal of Slaanesh and the Emperor's Children on the internet.

That there would be your problem. You could go looking for portrayals of My Little Pony in the wrong parts of the internet (4chan) and get the same thing.

[Terminus Est]

Honestly that sounds closer to chaotic evil to me. Being evil doesn't mean doing evil things you can't get away with, that's being stupid.

Good characters are the ones who take actions that harm themselves, evil characters are the ones motivated by self-interest.

Chaotic evil I consider to be the actual psychopath. The difference between a psychopath and a sociopath is that a psychopath is driven to hurt, exploit and prey. Like the sociopath, they have no real ability for remorse but they tend to be flashy and showy. Charles Manson was a classic psychopath. They enjoy lean towards cruelty, even when it's not necessary at times.

I consider a sociopath someone who doesn't relate to people or have any sympathy/empathy.

I consider a psychopath someone who ultimately dislikes people and is predatory.

That's roughly where I've always considered the chaotic neutrals and evils split. One will do what they have to, including bad things, to make sure they get what they want. The other will enjoy doing it.

When I look back on what I wrote I realize I wasn't doing a good job at describing how he thinks he behaves versus, in the meta aspect, how I view him to behave. He doesn't go into situations with the concept that he's manipulating everyone, it's just what he does to get what he wants. I, of course, understand that he's being manipulative.

[Bozwevial]

Please elaborate on this stereotype, with pics if possible.

Basically imagine Bayonetta if she was a ninja and a lesbian

I'm sorry, bit late to the party here, but...if?

[SneeR]

Eesh. There are other threads to argue the connotations of alignments.

Anyways, this is more of a notion I can't stand rather than a stereotype I can't stand: that any mechanic has fluff baggage. What I mean is that a paladin must follow a deity, a rogue must be a sneaky backstabber who was raised in alleys, and all fighters are ex-military men. I hate it when DMs limit feats because "you couldn't have possibly been trained to do that with your backstory." Most of all, I hate when someone says, "I am [insert alignment], so I can't go/help/fight/etc. because a person of my alignment just wouldn't do that.

RP COMES BEFORE ALL ELSE BUT RAW.

[phaedrusxy]

Honestly that sounds closer to chaotic evil to me. Being evil doesn't mean doing evil things you can't get away with, that's being stupid.

Good characters are the ones who take actions that harm themselves, evil characters are the ones motivated by self-interest.

Chaotic evil I consider to be the actual psychopath. The difference between a psychopath and a sociopath is that a psychopath is driven to hurt, exploit and prey. Like the sociopath, they have no real ability for remorse but they tend to be flashy and showy. Charles Manson was a classic psychopath. They enjoy lean towards cruelty, even when it's not necessary at times.

I consider a sociopath someone who doesn't relate to people or have any sympathy/empathy.

I consider a psychopath someone who ultimately dislikes people and is predatory.

That's roughly where I've always considered the chaotic neutrals and evils split. One will do what they have to, including bad things, to make sure they get what they want. The other will enjoy doing it.

When I look back on what I wrote I realize I wasn't doing a good job at describing how he thinks he behaves versus, in the meta aspect, how I view him to behave. He doesn't go into situations with the concept that he's manipulating everyone, it's just what he does to get what he wants. I, of course, understand that he's being manipulative.

This is getting a bit off topic here, but you're basically proving my point...

Evil doesn't mean that you're a baby-eating psychopath. All baby-eating psychopaths are by definition evil, but not all evil people are baby-eating psychopaths. The guy who beats his wife, cheats on his taxes, and murders his neighbor's dog for crapping on his lawn is chaotic evil. So is Charles Manson. They're just evil to different degrees.

[Pencil]

RP COMES BEFORE ALL ELSE BUT RAW.

+1

[RobbyPants]

Kender or, in 3E Halflings = Kender
Basically, any excuse to play a short person who:
1) has no fear, and
2) has no understanding of personal property.

So, this tends to be a totally disruptive PC in that they either wander off and get themselves (and/or the group) in excessive trouble, or they steal stuff from the PCs or NPCs and get themselves (and/or the group) in excessive trouble.

[ariasderros]

the crazy gnome . this can be a gnome, halfling, or other similar race, they usually have a chaotic alignment, and commonly tend to be spellcasters, the especially irksome focus being explosions. these little guys have severe ADHD, absurdly long or strange names, and they usually (though not always) play the Mad Bomber, Mr. Hyde, Dr. Frankenstein or similar derivative concept. the focus being on their excessive craziness and disregard for both ally and enemy alike. other races don't necessarily have to be small, but such tendencies as impulsiveness, aggressiveness and napoleon syndrome are an especially common factor in race selection.

I agree with you about the extent that this is sometimes taken to, but I feel as though I should point out, Gnomes having long names is actually true to their racial fluff (although they usually do shorten it themselves when dealing with non-gnomes). And there are many Gnomes throughout the various fiction books that are either ADHD and/or the "Dr. Frankenstein".

So while it does get old if this is common, it isn't really against the existing fluff. It just gets taken too far, and is used to often, in some groups.

[Shinkuro]

the crazy gnome . this can be a gnome, halfling, or other similar race, they usually have a chaotic alignment, and commonly tend to be spellcasters, the especially irksome focus being explosions. these little guys have severe ADHD, absurdly long or strange names, and they usually (though not always) play the Mad Bomber, Mr. Hyde, Dr. Frankenstein or similar derivative concept. the focus being on their excessive craziness and disregard for both ally and enemy alike. other races don't necessarily have to be small, but such tendencies as impulsiveness, aggressiveness and napoleon syndrome are an especially common factor in race selection.

I agree with you about the extent that this is sometimes taken to, but I feel as though I should point out, Gnomes having long names is actually true to their racial fluff (although they usually do shorten it themselves when dealing with non-gnomes). And there are many Gnomes throughout the various fiction books that are either ADHD and/or the "Dr. Frankenstein".

So while it does get old if this is common, it isn't really against the existing fluff. It just gets taken too far, and is used to often, in some groups.

i have been on the receiving end of various gnomish explosions (and other crazy stuff), i have had at least 10 characters (including individual pets and cohorts as separate characters) killed by gnomish shenanigans in the last 2 years. all because of a boisterous and obnoxious gnome PC. his excuse was "I'm a Gnome".

[Jackinthegreen]

the crazy gnome . this can be a gnome, halfling, or other similar race, they usually have a chaotic alignment, and commonly tend to be spellcasters, the especially irksome focus being explosions. these little guys have severe ADHD, absurdly long or strange names, and they usually (though not always) play the Mad Bomber, Mr. Hyde, Dr. Frankenstein or similar derivative concept. the focus being on their excessive craziness and disregard for both ally and enemy alike. other races don't necessarily have to be small, but such tendencies as impulsiveness, aggressiveness and napoleon syndrome are an especially common factor in race selection.

I agree with you about the extent that this is sometimes taken to, but I feel as though I should point out, Gnomes having long names is actually true to their racial fluff (although they usually do shorten it themselves when dealing with non-gnomes). And there are many Gnomes throughout the various fiction books that are either ADHD and/or the "Dr. Frankenstein".

So while it does get old if this is common, it isn't really against the existing fluff. It just gets taken too far, and is used to often, in some groups.

i have been on the receiving end of various gnomish explosions (and other crazy stuff), i have had at least 10 characters (including individual pets and cohorts as separate characters) killed by gnomish shenanigans in the last 2 years. all because of a boisterous and obnoxious gnome PC. his excuse was "I'm a Gnome".

I'd be inclined to reply with "Just because you're a gnome doesn't mean you have to be a cunt."

[dipolartech]

I'm inclined to reply with a note to the DM "I awaken in the middle of the night cast silence on myself and Coup De Grace that evil creature called Gnomeo."

[Shinkuro]

I'm inclined to reply with a note to the DM "I awaken in the middle of the night cast silence on myself and Coup De Grace that evil creature called Gnomeo."

Aaron would just roll up another gnome out of spite and do the same stuff. luckily his characters kill themselves off in their own recklessly stupid actions. it doesn't matter what he plays, it's a drain on party resources, he gets several PCs killed as part of his choices, runs off and dies.

[DDchampion]

Honestly that sounds closer to chaotic evil to me. Being evil doesn't mean doing evil things you can't get away with, that's being stupid.

Do I need you to point out to all the tyrants and warlords in the real world that led armies if not whole countries into mass killings, and even when outgunned and outnumbered kept killing and maiming to the very end until they were put down? At some point they knew they couldn't get away with it, but that rarely made them stop.

Just saying, if you can get your personal army obeying you whitout question, you may be evil, but you're not exactly stupid.

[ariasderros]

Actually, all of that reminds me of a few things that fit here:

(1) These character types suck, because douches have ruined them: not a shot at anyone here's other complaints, or anything, but it is a stereotype I'm tired of nonetheless. Basically it works like this, just because you have had douchebags disguising the fact that they're douchebags behind taking given fluff for characters to illogical extremes, doesn't say anything about those races / classes / or whatnot beyond that player is a douchebag. Another version of this is when a munchkin, or just a min/maxer who doesn't know how to "play down" to the group, brings in characters that use subsystems people are not used to, and then cause whole systems to be branded as being "broken". When the truth is that any given aspect of the game can be broken, for better or worse, but the splat systems (usually psionics) get a bad rap because they are brought in by people who do not use them as intended.

(2) Gamer Nuremberg Excuse: "But I was just following my character concept": Here is the stereotype, your behavior doesn't matter, so long as you're roleplaying. This has the same flaw as all "Nuremberg defenses", it assumes that there is no basic expectation of how people treat each other, and that all you need is the flimsiest of excuses to justify whatever action. If your character concept is one that is disruptive to the enjoyment to the rest of the group, this is you. Sometimes the rest of the group might laugh along with your antics, this does happen time to time with bullies, which is what you are being under the guise of your concept.
So you want to play the lone wolf badass with no need to pay attention to the rest of the group? That isn't a valid excuse to be disruptive. Instead, that is a reason to think about why your lone wolf is with the party, and develop your character to be a better team player, because that's roleplaying too.
So you want to play the comedic relief? So you want to play the prankster? That's great when you know that there is a time, a place, and an extent to go, for such things. When players aren't laughing, stop. When characters start getting hurt, stop. If other characters start taking retributive actions against your "comedic relief" guy, stop, have your character have a moment of stupidity where he tries to escape the rest of the parties wrath by jumping overboard (out of an airship, preferably) and RE-F***ING-ROLL. Because, chances are, you're probably not going to stop with this character, so you need to start fresh. Just do not either: do the same thing again; munchkin the next guy.



As an FYI: on #2, I have gained way to much experience with that in the last year with my (now former) group IRL. New group much better.

Also, it's mentioned in the Vampire Players Guide for V:tM.

[Lord Slasher]

Please elaborate on this stereotype, with pics if possible.

Basically imagine Bayonetta if she was a ninja and a lesbian

I'm sorry, bit late to the party here, but...if?

.... Oh wait, your right. Man, it's been a long time since I played Bayonetta.

[veekie]

Well its largely a past thing, but:
Edition Warriors - They'd play in the game, but never cease to try and prove their preferred edition right. A more tolerable variant just bitches about the deficiencies of This Game(whatever game is not their favored edition). A less tolerable variant goes on to just play with their preferred ruleset, whatever everyone else at the table is doing(though with any but the most inattentive DMs they get caught and given the boot fairly quickly).

Blink Dog - Not necessarily any fault of their own, but either their presence or attention are unstable commodities. They're here today, and gone tomorrow, or are basically invisible outside of their preferred interaction type. Severity varies.

[Libertad]

Well its largely a past thing, but:
Edition Warriors - They'd play in the game, but never cease to try and prove their preferred edition right. A more tolerable variant just bitches about the deficiencies of This Game(whatever game is not their favored edition). A less tolerable variant goes on to just play with their preferred ruleset, whatever everyone else at the table is doing(though with any but the most inattentive DMs they get caught and given the boot fairly quickly).

Edition Warriors are still a mobilized fighting force, if grognards.txt is anything to go by; the difference is that they've retreated to small Internet bastions where their elitism's tolerated/encouraged.  And some of them don't really understand the own Edition they so adore.

[Unbeliever]

Well its largely a past thing, but:
Edition Warriors - They'd play in the game, but never cease to try and prove their preferred edition right. A more tolerable variant just bitches about the deficiencies of This Game(whatever game is not their favored edition). A less tolerable variant goes on to just play with their preferred ruleset, whatever everyone else at the table is doing(though with any but the most inattentive DMs they get caught and given the boot fairly quickly).

Edition Warriors are still a mobilized fighting force, if grognards.txt is anything to go by; the difference is that they've retreated to small Internet bastions where their elitism's tolerated/encouraged.  And some of them don't really understand the own Edition they so adore.

I have to admit, I didn't think this was a live issue anymore.  Although I guess it shouldn't surprise me.  I know I still have some pretty strong anti-Pathfinder feelings.