I actually liked the part where he found out there's another beholder nearby because this one is a deathkiss. Made him seem like an experienced monster hunter
@@SatvikBeri Exactly, most of my player group is made up of experienced players who have also DMed at some point, and I usually allow them to put some form of backstory into their characters that would allow them certain degrees of knowledge, one player was a servant to an old mage, another worked at a library, etc. so that they can metagame a bit. The best part is, since they know a lot, they just kinda logically make the story as they go, and I just play along as if it's planned, or slightly alter it to keep them on their toes. My players think I'm a lot smarter than I am...
It's almost like this is an interactive story generation game, in which the DM is also a player, and the players also have agency over the world. Don't just lean on your DM to explain _everything_ about the world to you; feel free to infer some stuff the DM might not have thought of yet from the information you've been given.
@@Zappygunshot yeah except that's meta gaming. Your character does not know everything you know. There has to be a good reason for them knowing the information.
“Beholders have an anti magic eye cone, how could he read without putting out the lights” Quote from the anti magic cone: “At the start of each of its turns, the beholder decides which way the cone faces and whether the cone is active” The beholder can just turn it off
@@copypasta1585 honestly it's not that hard to figure out, anyone who knows anything about beholders knows that one of their main abilities is an antimagic field
Honestly I don't even see why the antimagic cone would stop it from reading books unless it was looking directly at the lights. They wouldn't wink out from behind it, and would thus provide reading light.
I had a DM kill the dragon born rules lawyer cause we faced off an incredibly racists green dragon that acid breathed him to death. Then another rules lawyer got struck by lightening
This is worse if you play on a pre-written setting. But if you play on homebrew setting with lot's and lot's of homebrew rules no one can stop you as the dm :^)
@@ninjasaga4703 Even in a prewritten setting. In Eberron, the creator encourages people to make their own Eberron, with the 5e book being lore lite and having newspapers with lore, but made it up to the DM how to interpret it. Is one of the kings of this nation really a vampire? Is this religious head really as powerful as she seems, or is a front for a powerful cardinal.
This went from a almost Rule Lawyer, to a Detective making the DM have to improvise, To a commentary on the alignment system, to a obnoxious almost Rule Lawyer again, To the DM who failed trying to prove a point. This seems quite accurate indeed to the lore of DND Sessions and how they might go.
To be fair, in the detective part he wasn’t wrong and as a DM who likes giving clues hidden around and during dialogues I’d love to have players who think about what happens and scrutinize what happens
@@Hk-ox4bb Yah, as long as the character should actually know these things, it does work quite well. But it’s clear that sometimes, DMs don’t plan for someone doing something.
@@Predator20357 Exactly the point I was trying to make, the way it happened in the video was blatant metagaming. Even if a character knew alot about beholders, I would let them make a check with advantage first and then tell them what their character can conclude. I mean, even if someone knows the monster manual by heart, a different setting may have different rules. If this adventure happened in Eberron for example, their take on the drow would be quite weird.
I HATE the detective thing, holy shit, last session my players literally spent 75% of the session recruiting randos in 3 different taverns and FORCING ME to come up with backgrounds for each one, they wanted to k now EVERYTHING about them and holy shit they havent roled bad in a single persuassion check it was nuts EDIT: might I add, they're all level 12 atm, nearing the end of the campaign (@ level 13). The randos are all 5-7, theyre gonna die in seconds in the dungeon theyre going in and wil be nothing more than trap fodder
@@Predator20357 if I'm unsure if my character would recognize something I ask if I can identify what ever it is I'm looking. My party had to move a thing away from a gate during combat to close a portal but a floating rod was stopping it, me and another player realized it's an immovable rod but he knew his character wouldn't know that so to try and help his character I asked if my sorcerer could identify it during the fight, which let me tell him there is a button that let's you turn it off. Knowing things in dnd is great because it lets you play faster but its important to play with what your character would know.
Sometimes the DM is confused and does not have the next parts ready. At that point you pause the game and ask the DM what they would like to do and offer help because you might know more ore than the DM.
The part where they jump to conclusions is my party. One time they saw two nobles talking and look at the party during a feast in their honor, so they all drew swords and attacked them. After the session I asked why, and they said "because they were going to poison us." They were just two guys talking about them. They were a plot hook, not a threat.
I had the same thing but somewhat reversed. The party met an asshole noble on the road with his four guards. No matter how rude he was they just let him be and moved on. They honestly could have one shot each of his guards as the were just basic guards and he was a normal person with 5 hp that minimum damage from their weakest persons basic attack would kill that guy. When I asked they said "Even of that guy was weak we couldn't take his guards.
You should’ve made those nobles like highly important to future hooks that would bar them from certain things. They could’ve become wanted by the kingdom as a whole because maybe one of the nobles was going to be wed to a princess or something and she told her dad.
I feel that. I've made my party really paranoid with stuff like that, except in a way that makes them scared to kill anyone. It's pretty great. None of my major villains have died yet, not have any of my story-related NPCs
NO! NO! NO! Many people say I am sick in the head. NOOOO!!!! I don't believe them. But there are so many people commenting this stuff on my videos, that I have 1% doubt. So I have to ask you right now: Do you think I am sick in the head? Thanks for helping, my dear dri
I feel this lol. Honestly it's not always a bad thing either. Sometimes what your players come up with is way cooler and creative than what you had prepared. I just roll with that shit. It allows me to explore different concepts I hadn't originally considered AND allows my players to feel cool, thats what I play this game for.
Indeed. My best campaign ideas come from players, in game, and they never seem to notice. They just think that I'm brilliant for thinking up what they came up with. They usually have better ideas than I do tbh
“That’s fair” made me laugh so hard. I’ve exasperated my fellow party members on more than one occasion with the same sentiment towards the stuff my DM has thrown at me.
i mean thats a good mentality to have when playing dnd like if the dm or anotehr player has a good reason to shit you up then just accept it and move on
@@coletrainhetrick Maybe do what Travis is doing with Chetney in Critical Role. Roll a dice every long rest and have him die of old age after a natural 1
Be group of drow Be chaotic good and followers of Eilistraee Escape from oppressive society and try to seek refuge outside the Underdark Run into a beholder's cave by mistake Get slaughtered and die 30ft away from the light of the sun Be discovered after the fact by a group of adventurers "Looks like the beholder is actually doing us a favor. Good riddance."
@@AlejandroGonzalez-ej4lp Yes, if you go to the antimagic cone section, it says the beholder decides if the antimagic cone is off or on at the start of its turn, meaning they have the ability to choose if its active at all times( lol I’m answering about a comment I made 8 months ago)
the PHB really doesnt do the source material justice, none of those races are inherently good or evil... I mean angels have to be good or they fall and illithids eat human brains and generally see people as cattle so their alignment doesn't matter
3:40 "The alighment specifed in the monsters stat block is the default. Feel free to change it to suit the needs of your campaign. If you want a good aligned green dragon or a evil storm giant, there is nothing stopping you." -dnd 5e monster manual page 7 on alignment paragrah 2
The alignment doesnt really matter for some creatures because they have preset behaviors in the lore to make them who they are. The most you could argue is if most of the monsters were chaotic neutral acting as if a part of nature. Some of the more sentient ones like dragons make sense. But if you make dragons good you would need to massively nerf them
oh 100%. Players often come up with stuff that is way better than what you had planned. Sometimes they start theorizing stuff and I'm like "write that down quick write that down"
In once sentence, Jacob proved to understand more about how to make a villain interesting while maintaining them as evil, than many major hollywood productions.
@@EldritchMcPie Villain can be pure evil and still be interesting. There is no need to have some sad sob story behind their actions. Good people don't act evil just because someone stole their candy.
@@Tespri No one said anything about "some sad sob story"? Like, it's true that a good villain does not, by default, need to be tragic, but nobody claimed otherwise.
I can be a little like this but make sure that OOC stuff I know doesn’t impact my character’s actions, and I always go “hey the books have it like this, just want to ask if it’s intentional to work different in this world or if you didn’t know”.
Players like this make Dming easier since they can use that knowledge to expand on areas that maybe you hadn't put as much thought into with very little work on your end.
Yeah, he instantly turned a stereotypical monster attack village scenario into discovering a passage to the underdark while hunting a beholder through the sheer power of being annoying. It's almost admirable.
Are you doing a bit? I thought the incoming Rules Lawyer joke was because beholders can’t be sneak attacked (cuz of all the eyes) sorry if this is woosh
that's when "give me an Intelligence roll" is the best tool in the DM's kit. that's also why the DM doesn't need a complete story, just some ballpoints that *will* be filled by the players.
I'd just say "why does your character know so much about beholders" and if they don't give a good explanation say that this level of metagaming is very banned
@@apersonwhomayormaynotexist9868 a bit confrontational. The Int roll or history roll or arcana roll is better. Though I always ask right away if I know about the lore so the DM knows I’m fishing for a roll.
Well, seems to me that aside from the bit at the end, the player was of great help to the GM who was clearly underprepared for the session. Even the bit at the end, the GM could have spun off on. "Yeah, what a mystery" *gives the beholder a piwerful 'ally' who uses the library* Would be more of an issue if it was a prepared adventure, but since it seems wholly improvised, the extra lore only seem to help.
It's clearly a skit where he wanted to show that the monster was intended to just be a beholder, but little, and probably less challenging. It's probably a small informal gathering.
This is why you ask your DM "What do I know about this creature?" Official sources are nice and all but your DM is the ultimate authority on how their world works and your character doesn't necessarily know all the details.
Jacob: annoys the shit out of the DM Jacob: character is so old he fails a con save and dies of an embolism Jacob: understandable have a nice day Robert Downy Jr: he's Lawful Neutral
This is the difference between being Rules Adherent and a Rules Lawyer. A Rules Lawyer doesn't care what the rules actually are, they're just arguing for the sake of a thing they want to do and the rules are just a tool in their argument. Rules Adherents live and die by the rules.
As a DM I usually roll with this when players show interest and knowledge, I can't tell you how many times players have made things harder for themselves by giving me ideas mid session.
I mean, his in-depth knowledge of the lore led to a far more immersive and entertaining, tense campaign, and he didn't even complain when lore accuracies hurt his personal character. That's exactly the kind of guy I wanna play D&D with.
He never did actually disagree with anything, he was just questioning everything, and even handed free plot to the unprepared DM. Sounds like a pretty great player to me.
it starts out fine with the killing of the death kiss and the reasoning that there's a beholder nearby but gets annoying when the DM can't finish a sentence without being questioned about everything mid-thought. you're right about helping an underprepared DM though. if a party member killed a small band of goblins and a player reasoned that there were more nearby in a cave or in the larger trees that have been hollowed out and the party went looking for them it'd be fine. it wouldn't be fine if the player is straight up just racist because of written lore. when the player declares every drow, orc, goblin, duregar, and mind flayer as evil and selfish beings purely because of their race because that's how the lore is written it wouldn't be fine, that's the issue being addressed in the video. maybe the dungeon master did have a plan and it's different than simply a drow necromancer raising the dead to conquer the world because "come on drows are evil that's totally what they'd do with an army of the undead".
@@penjaminthestrange4427 I am sure there is a nice wasp out there...but as someone who is alergic I am not gonna catch and kiss every wasp I see just because "it could be good" He did nothing but get important information out to his team
That's why we always distinguish between character knowledge and player knowledge. That's why you write backstories for your character so the DM can anticipate what your character might know. That's why the DM (should usually) reads up on lore aspects if he can anticipate a PC might know about it.
Yeah, except everyone comes into the game with expectations that don't match the setting and then blow off all the DM's attempts to explain that goblins in the setting aren't villainous scum, and that humans aren't the most populous and common race, and all manner of other issues.
I’m building a homebrew world, and my best friend plays in every session. He won’t stop arguing with me about how his character “should” be able to teleport or use his subclass features (he’s a horizon walker ranger) that don’t use slots *as many times a day as he’d like. This is technically true, however I explained *in the beginning* that planar travel on this planet is very limited and what little is allowed is highly volatile, dangerous, and takes energy and effort to perform. Should I just change the lore to fit his subclass? If so, I’m going to need to bring in some more powerful monsters because he literally just uses planar warrior over and over again in *every single* turn of combat.
@@ChioniLoux Why did you allow him to play THE telports and portals subclass if you were going to make a world that makes their abilities pointless? Have some cympathy for the player- you are taking away their abilities for the sake of *your* lore. Let them change subclass or let it go man.
"You are correct, per Forgotten Realms lore, this creature is unable to cause petrification." "Oh, oh that's good." "...but we're not *in* the Forgotten Realms, are we?" "...no..." "Make a Con save."
I'm usualy ok with custom settings that use various d&d lore while allowing themself to change stuff here and there. Yet when my DM introduced us to the order of Bahamuth, to almost immediately reveal that they were a bunch of corrupted, power hungry murder hobos that use the term "justice" to perform harsh punishement to anyone who stand in their way, I had to just stay quiet for 30min straight ^^. Why use Bahamuth to represent something that is the opposit of him ?
I would ask the DM if my character would know X or Y. Sometimes the answer was yes. Sometimes it was no. Sometimes I had to roll for it. I always played according to the ruling. I hope I wasn't annoying about it, but I don't think I was. I haven't been diagnosed with any degree of autism, but I do find a deciphering emotions and people's expressions challenging.
It’s true, I’d much rather players ask if their characters know something instead of just assuming they know everything about everything, makes things more interesting I feels
That's what this video lacked, a skill check on how they know all this stuff. Even at 300 years old they still aren't going to know everything and then, hey we're in dementia territory now!
Leaving the original comment below because it’s a teaching moment, but the intention was to convey that it would be a very dumb decision to learn magic with a low stat block attribute. But go off I guess. They’d have to make the stat minimum for Intelligence for wizardry otherwise their spellcasting stats would be absolute garbage.
@@ChioniLoux There is no minimum. You can be an INT 3 Wizard if you really want to. You'll be really bad at it and probably die very quickly, but it's technically possible. You only need a certain minimum to multiclass into or out of a class.
@@emileo5024 I do realize that. A lot of those technically require relevant backstories, some even require ancestral or hereditary magic. I think it’d be cool to see someone pull off a convincing backstory for a beholder to take a spellcaster player class.
is it bad that I actually loved that player and would want him in my game? :D Provided that he would RP that lore knowledge (his character would have to know it) and was ready to accept that it might be hearsay (meaning reality in my world is different but some people believe this version) or that it's general truth but exceptions exist.
No, I kind of feel the same. There's a different kind of enjoyment playing really "crunchy" games like that if the whole group is in on it, it's fun to find ways around and through rules
When I started getting interested in the Forgotten Realms Lore, I was that guy. I was proud of knowing all of this fiction and wanted to show. I wasn't as obnoxious as Goodberry-Shirt-Jacob, but it was hard not to metagame, man.
I generally find it funny how little 5e talks about anything, I haven't played older editions but I read about them a lot, and I'm currently in an OotA game with this old Baphomet Warlock who was like my first PC. (The DM let me make an Int casting warlock cuz I told him the character was very research-oriented) Now a fun thing about demons is a lot of people research them, one of which (from 3e Fiendish Codex I) was Tolket nor Ahm, writer of the Black Scrolls of Ahm. When he died his followers spread out and grew a community known as the Black Cult of Ahm. A neutral cult bent on knowledge (and not worship) of demons, of which my warlock is a member. This basically means I have like... demonlord metagaming reasons given these guys have been writing info since pre-spellplague Do I correct the DM? Rarely, as simplified as 5e is, it's not too far from the complex version of demonlord lore. Do I mention some rlly crack stuff? Oh yeah- all the time. - Graz'zt crossdressed as Malcanthet and flirted with an ugly demonlord (Kotstchtchie) to bring Malcanthet (succubus queen) embarrassment. - Baphomet has a rumored relationship with Pale Night (who is usually regarded as Graz'zt's mother during 2e-3.5e) - Kotstchtchie goes on a Twitter rant every time someone tells him he was a human in his past life (which he was) because he identifies himself as Frost Giant - One source literally said Yeenoghu might as well have been the Prince of Demons if only he wasnt do stupid. - And weirdly enough... Demogorgon's got a humanoid demons fetish which is why his ex and his current gf are Succubi queens.
I actually like this type of player (as long as it's not a homebrew). He wasn't metagaming for unfair advantage. And for the most part presumed you were already planning all of this. As long as it's general lore, something feasible for a character to know, and the players at the table show more interest I course correct all the time.
Eh, I would prefer players don't infer that their characters know things about monsters just because they do personally. Especially something as intricate as the birth mechanisms of beholders, which is something they tend to keep as secretive as possible due to their extreme paranoia. Common things in the location the group are from? Sure... If you have trolls near by, you'd know trolls are hurt by fire and acid. But an adventurer from the desert lands of Anauroch is much less likely to know. In that kind of situation I would say the player needs to make a relevant knowledge roll to see exactly what they know. When players do it once, they do it every single time they know something and while sometimes it can be helpful, other times it can derail an ongoing plot for something the character realistically had absolutely no way of knowing, so shouldn't have acted on.
@@Grigeral The presumption was that he wasn't simply metagaming, and it makes sense for his character to know such details, like going to a wizard college, studying lore in books, listening to the stories of other adventurers, etc. Example why I'd allow it: he was wrong about two things, the antimagic cone is something Beholders can turn off, he didn't know that because whoever gave him the knowledge was wrong. And not all underdark residence are evil, that's just bias from people that had horrible encounters. I'd have the beholder pop up while they're looting the place thinking it's safe and empty. On the other hand, if someone starts metagaming out of character there are simple, civilized solutions. Most people adjust their behavior when you talk with them about it, most people understand a group activity has to be fun for the group. Unless there's something deeply wrong with them; in which case you don't want to associate with such people. But that's pretty rare.
@@letopizdetz generally I only play with 2 groups, both of which contain some of the same players, so it's safe to say I know my players well enough that I know they won't meta-game in a destructive manner. 'Sometimes' they push it a bit far, but I'll either run with it or ask for a check depending on how far. There are certain things I would say that don't count just for being a wizard studying books though. How beholders are created is most certainly in my eyes. We play pretty heavy on the character/roleplay side of things over the 'raaaar let's kill the next thing!' method, so whether the character would actually know about it would be a pretty big point. Allowing the wizard to know everything simply because they're a wizard? That basically gives them free range to know everything about everything. Wizards have a naturally high Int and knowledge checks 'because' of their studying, they don't just know everything because the player studied the lore and MM. That said, I wholly agree on the underdark creatures. Not 'all' are evil, but most are (except Svirfneblin at least). I wholeheartedly disagree with what he said regarding celestials though. Celestials and fiends are literally created with good/evil as a part of their very being!
@@letopizdetz The player would DEFINITELY have to make an Intelligence check at my table if he was going to try to tell how a Beholder gives birth to this thing he guessed it was. They'd want to check and see if any townsfolk had actually been fed upon (?) by this thing before running off to see where a lair is. Again though, it's a skit about a caricature.
@@Grigeral As a counterpart about the angel thing, I believe Zariel is/was an angel originally and is currently listed as Lawful Evil, so it is possible for them to at least change alignments (though that might result in a physical change in them too perhaps?).
Seriously, I want an entire party of that dude. What kind of GM complains about a player handing them a plot on a silver platter because they cared too much about their campaign world? This shit is why we need gatekeeping.
What's the extent of spells? Can they cure everything? How much you get healed depends on level of spell. In description of spell it says "You imbue a creature you touch with positive energy to undo a debilitating *effect* " One effect so I would argue it wouldn't remove blood clot
Chaotic Good Drow Bard: "Uh... _Draws Rapier_ the f___ you say?" Neutral Evil Drow Rogue: "Eh, whatever. I never apologized." Lawful Neutral Drow Paladin: "Only fools fail to check for discrepancies in the walls of dungeons, much like our kind."
There used to be a Prestige class in the older editions for beholder only that made them into spellcasters. They could cast 7 spells per turn. It was one of those things for DMs to slap onto a monster to create a super villain to challenge their high level party.
Would suck. Turns on the lights, they turn off cause of the anti-magic cone. Repeat. Poor beholder just wants to read his fanf-.. i mean, books in peace. :
I get this is a joke but too those who do take it serious. Rules & Lore rulers who don't fanboy over Faerun or 5e will be fine with homebrew as long as it is not bad. They will hold you too it though and I have seen GMs hate their world / homebrew as they try to gotcha "vile" lawyers & the lawyers use it later in the game as your "great" homebrew tend to be not well thought out.,
I liked the beginning with the specific lore packed into a story that was such a nice way to learn stuff. Make this more little story about a monster or a town or something that captures a lot of lore.
this entire video was just *chef's kiss* I love the multiple instances of subverted expectations and the dm's expression when he looked down at "lil beholder attacks village" 1:56
@@monsieurdorgat6864 I'd still do it even for campaign books because there might be some things in it that you adapt for your group. Never assume, always ask.
@@Ailieorz Yeah, for sure. It almost makes it easier to ask poignant questions, but it's definitely worthwhile to ask - and consider your character's archetype before asking too.
I mean to be fair when they said to ignore the fact that certain races are evil and just kill the beholder, the Lore Lawyer agreed. He’s not a bad player and the DM should have pulled him aside out of game and asked him to stop pointing out lore inconsistencies instead of calling him out in front of the table and killing his character. #Justice4LL
If this were really happpening, I'd agree with you. But this is a comedic video meant to exaggerate the frustration the DM feels about this. If you go into an XP to Level 3 skit expecting people to act rationally, you're in the wrong place.
@@joshuareynolds23 It's actually really poignant because old lorebeards in the old guard of DnD are pretty used to old-school games where you died for stupid and arbitrary reasons lol.
@@monsieurdorgat6864 it's not exactly arbitrary or, stupid hes a super old dwarf who probably doesnt get regular medical checkups. Dying from a blood clot can take anyone at any time and, because it fits with common sense and, the lore he was okay with it.
@@joshuareynolds23 there's a level of meta common sense, though (also some extra scientific reasons this wouldn't happen but that's kind of beyond the point). Embolisms don't happen that often, so the DM specifically targeting your character to randomly and instantly die without some kind of warning of a medically specific disease in a completely fantastical setting is about as arbitrary and petty as it gets.
I feel called out. Though I’m not this bad, I swear. My most recent “Lore Lawyering” situation is probably the time where I convinced my DM that a PC killed in Chult was a ghost because I read the Ring of Winter novel. This is because Ubtao is still somewhat active in Chult in my DM’s world and the character had low Int and Wis, so he failed the Maze of Life to get into the Fugue Plane/the afterlife while the PC’s deity was busy.
I don’t know about you but I always viewed the alignments for races to be reflected on their culture rather than each individual being since it adds a bit more flavour to each character
The part about D&D lore having races that are written to just be evil was too real. Like seriously, they need some better worldbuilding than "dark elf bad".
It's a problem in a _lot_ of fantasy settings. Generally it starts from a place of simple recognition; 'you're humans, and there's goblins, you know who the enemies are,' and then as lore grows and expands the goblins get a bit more development and suddenly them being always-evil grunts doesn't fit so well anymore.
for me is cool about this, i don't see any problem about races just be evil. Because exist just be evil races like demons, why the evil have to be grey or have a motivation? sometimes people are just evil and don't have justify about it.
3:36 Ack-shually, while mortal creatures are not wholly of one alignment, angels explicitly can't be evil. They are by their very essence good, and were they to stop being good, they would turn into something else, like a devil. This is described both in the lore on angels in the Monster Manual and in the "Alignment in the Multiverse" section on PHB page 122. Drow can be good, though, the errata did good fixing that and Drizzt has always been around proving it.
Drizzt existing meant there was no need for an errata. Makes his whole struggle seem kinda pointless and insignificant if he could always just waltz on down to the city full of nice drow.
@@Snowie7826 I should point out that per word of god from WotC the Drizzt novels exist in a separate canon from the lore presented in Fifth Edition. So while 5e canon has stated that not all drow are evil, this has no real effect on the Drizzt novels and in those books he is just as special as he always was. I should _also_ point out that what the errata did was _not_ what you are presenting it as. Drow _society_ is still evil, and corrupted by the cult of Lolth. Drow cities in the Underdark are _still_ predominantly evil. The only thing that changed was Drow having a natural predisposition towards being evil. This means that Drizzt is still special in canon since most Drow are still indoctrinated, even if they aren't evil by default. This is, however, specific to the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk (which means it still applies to Drizzt even in 5e). The removal of the book painting all Drow as evil was to accomodate worlds like Eberron where Drow are painted in a more neutral light.
Players, always remember: Don't assume things about how the DM's world works, and don't assume your character knows things about how the world works. Always ask your DM "What would my character know about such and such" and/or "Can I roll to see what my character would know". If the DM's lore about creatures is different from the established material, that's their way. And hey, if it turns out the DM **doesn't** have special setting lore and just forgot how certain creatures are supposed to operate, that's on them, not you. Let them fumble over the cracks in their own storytelling if it comes to that, but don't take it upon yourself to tell your DM how their world is supposed to work. Unless they literally ask you to do that and you're okay with it, of course. Then go nuts.
I have a player who WILL NOT stop doing this even though I explicitly tell them, its a hombrew setting if you need more information you feel I haven't filled in please ask. Nope. Just assumes and then gets made when I go "no we already established this in the homebrew setting five sessions ago."
Most of the time if you just say "Generic fantasy world" most lore lawyers like me would go for the default option aka what is said in the book. Because 8/10 times you wouldn't have all of the lore needed to scratch the itch of being a all knowing lore god.
I always handled this type of situation with his player knowledge wouldn't necessarily translate to his charterers knowledge. For this type of player there are going to be a ton of Lore Checks in his future, with various modifiers.
I think even then it would be odd since most campaigns start at lvl 1. Next-to-no experience; fresh-eyed young adventurers. For example if they've fought a Beholder and got away to tell the tale wouldn't they at least gotten enough exp for lvl 2? Assuming killing creatures grants experience then it only makes sense that a wizened forager or guardsmen would be lvl 4+ if they've been at it for a few years. But that might just fall back on the whole 'why am I lvl 2 from killing a bear but that butcher who kills 100 cows a year is still lvl 0?' problem that comes up with the gamification of a setting. So if a character is old and well traveled enough to know so much then why can't they cast Fireball, Rage etc? You could probably try to argue they were a helluva-pacisifst-nerd who has only studied books, bestiaries, and observed other's fighting but have never picked up a sword themselves or left their local town I guess. Or maybe they've heard tale at local bars and trivia nights (rolling a D20 for these would be funny and flavorful). Kind of hard to RP the know-how without the experience.
Was about to comment that, but eeeh. Been playing a Drow Fighter in a party on the surface with a Druegar Cleric and a Svirfneblin artificer its kinda funny if you know the lore and play off of it.
Frankly, the alignment thing is my greatest pet peeve about these people anyway. "Always Evil" is a bad trope, Tolkien regretted writing orcs like that and the most annoying part about fans that really "care about lore" is when they won't allow DnD to allow from lore aspects they don't want anymore, often for good reason, because somehow this has to be the one franchise that must be immune to retcons occuring within 40 years of game history.
At first i was thinking "this isn't to bad, a bit meta, but .makes for a good plot". Then the race thing came up and i had flashbacks to a game i ran where the bard told me OFC "i don't adsociate with green skins, they are evil" Edit for context: it's a homebrew setting and the goblin was a book keeper for a merchant
I played a game with a similar player, but me being a player, I leaned into and ended up having our characters being professionally trustworthy, but hating each others guts. The banter was fantastic
Orcs are an evil race, just like drow, and mindflayers etc ... Exceptions to the rule are fine if someone wants to play a good member of an evil race, but if you want to say that the vast majority of these races are not necessarily evil or that its odd or inappropriate for someones character to assume that a member of an evil race IS evil then you aren't playing in a forgotten realms setting. You are playing in your own setting which is fine but you should tell your players thats the case.
If you play "standart" D&D setting then orcs are literally mad barbarians who occasionally rape other races to produce half-orcs, so they are pretty much evil and killed on sight.
@@Din0za occasionally? You would think that a race depicted as war mongering as Orcs would do that more than occasionally specially when warmongering requires plentiful reserves of strong hands to go around. Then again it would be a nightmare for them if they don’t have the supplies to sustain the population.
@@mr.badguy8500 which is why they end up making hordes to go gather food and territory when their numbers get too big for their area to support, causing wars every 20 or so years and for them to be classified as an evil race, especially when they often cannibalize other sentients and worship an evil deity.
@@Ailieorz oh yeah, that's lovely. You create a character and when you are almost in reach of your life long objective with your friends, Welp, too bad, the d100 makes you have a heart attack. Revivify doesn't work on natural death, so sorry if you died in the corridor just before the final door, leaving you friends to fight alone and you to watch them for the rest of the session. Next time make someone young and with no fatal conditions. Oh, you made a fat character? Look how the dice rolls...
Drizzt, “I rose above the evil nature of the Drow, escaped Menzoberranzen, came to the surface world to become a protector to the people who feared and hated me, eventually being accepted as a hero…” DM: “Yeah…we’re not doing that anymore. Apparently, we got some complaints on Twitter.” Drizzt: “But my hero’s journey?” DM: “Yeah, nothing special about you anymore. Also, dual wielding sucks now.”
WoTC is doing exactly what Syndrome was doing in The Incredibles. "Once everyone is super, no one will be". Also, why did they nerf dual wielding, it totally sucks now.
@@cjnf11 *Ahem* Sounds to me like it's time for involuntary manual labor program! Always knew this one would be real popular with the nobles. Whats that? Slavery? Never heard of it!
The way I see it, there are three possibilities. The Svirfneblin - being a good, but cautious folk - was captured as used as a slave by the other members of the party, as was the insane Derro, in a bid to capture more slaves from the nearby town they just saved... OR The Drow had been lured by Eilistraee to seek the surface and learn to live with the people of the surface, away from the influence of Lolth. The Derro had his insanity reigned in by powerful magic or drugs - possibly with the help of the Myconids. The Duergar might have simply been paid to escort them, or perhaps he learned to forgive the ancestral enemies of his people. And the Svirfneblin was there, possibly to find help for his isolationist town who were too stubborn to seek it on their own. The lore supports both, and more. No need to remove stuff from the books, just maybe point out the connections that are already there.
I thought I would tire of these type of video's... nope. This one made me laugh. They tend to follow a similar format of "People who are ignorant tend to be funny". yet you add manner twists that are unexpected. Good show!
Ok, every “um, actually” lore player i’ve played with has never eeeever been this genuinely cool. When I was gming Star Wars (at a point in time where i felt pretty knowledgeable on the lore and mythos) I had several players basically lecture me on everything I got wrong all the time constantly when we would play. “UHhhhm actually Corellia shouldn’t have its own government anymore, and everyone on the planet who hates the empire should have been executed.” “Err yeah there’s no way a Rancor could be on Felucia. that doesn’t make any sense haha.” It caused me such immense anxiety. I would spend the entire week reading multiple star wars novels cited by wookiepedia as having information on specific planets and settings (which, btw, mostly contradict eachother), coming to the weekly session with very little actually planned because of the amount of research i was doing instead of designing, literally trembling in fear of the inevitable disapproval from people i thought were supposed to be my friends. To this day I still think I’m stupid and a shitty gm for being unable to meet the expectations of those players. In fact it scared me from the hobby for years.
@@phelps6205 At the time i wanna say they were native to dathomir at the time but god fuck if i know. the moves say they come from like four different planets at this point
Not trying to shit on you, but my approach to a situation like that would simply be to roll with the criticisms and provide answers like to the “UHhhhm actually Corellia shouldn’t have its own government anymore, and everyone on the planet who hates the empire should have been executed.” - maybe this section does because the current mayor used to be a doomsday prepper who took a selection of likeminded people into the bunker he hid amid a cave system to wait out the extermination orders. Then, once the focus of their oppressors fell elsewhere they emerged and used old smuggler contacts to entice allies down to Corellia to begin anew, all while hiding silently in the shadows of a hostile world, doing their best to blend in and keep their sentiments secret until a time to act arrives (a time such as the arrival of a bunch of heroes). As for the Rancor, it's not uncommon for people to have exotic pets IRL, it's not inconceivable that maybe it escaped from a freighter that was transporting dangerous animals to a resortworld, or again - it's just someone's escaped pet. If they say it can't be there due to the atmosphere/environment, maybe it's got gastank on it's back it tubing plugged into nostils to provide breathable air (being a weakness the party can take advantage of) or a full armoured bodysuit built with claws and stuff because it was part of an abandoned millitary experiment into the viability of weaponising wildlife to augment galactic forces. Or alternatively, just say 'that's their canon, this is mine' because as you say - lots of lore inconsistencies between different writers.
I only get players like this and i love it, honestly i dont even care i have to rewrite the campaign almost every session- it just gets more interesting for everyone.
The funny part is that a lot of D&D lore is written from an in-universe perspectives, meaning they contain biases, stereotypes, preconceptions and prejudice about their subjects. Interestingly this does also say something about the people and cultures from which these sources have their perspective. Not all truth is contained within the lore.
"......... That's fair." "NO, THAT IS NOT FAIR!" Actually, DMs are historically known for killing off characters at a moment's notice, so, yes, it does coincide with D&D lore.
Tbh, this guy sounds like a perfectly good guy to play with. Initially (in the "not a beholder" correction) he seemed like he was just sharing some lore that he thought the rest of the table might enjoy. In doing this, he helped the DM (unknowingly) to give extra plot to the game. And then in the end he proved that he is consistent, even when it's to his own detriment. Very reasonable and enjoyable guy. Also "where are you getting this?"? The players handbook, man. It says in the Drow section that practically all Drow are evil except for very few exceptions (I know nothing about him, but it names Drizzt), and this is due to the active influence of their EVIL goddess who is in constant rule over them.
unfortunately the alignment system in general, and most writing in D&D is a bad crutch for bad writers. Also built by Gary Gygax, a total asshat and somewhat of a racist.
Alignment system is a bit archaic and I would argue it's used in a wrong way. When it says that some races are this alignment, I would argue it usually means: usually when you'll meet this race, expect that. But not as if: every single representative of that race are this. Tho I would still argue that some races are more rigid within alignment system than other. Beholders will be evil, because that's how they are biologically, mimics won't be good or evil, and I definitely wouldn't call mind flayers good since they have to feed on inteligent brains. But yeah, all Drow being evil? Nah, most maybe, looking at how their culture works. But not all.
They're evil through nurture, not nature. Pertaining to their upbringing they may not be birthed evil, however if you are brought up by a society of "evil" then you will most likely conform even if merely to survive. Drizzt did the same in the books until it eventually got too much for him and he escaped. If you are brought up in a world where skinning your next door neighbour is perfectly fine then you will most likely do so as it's normal for you, but for a human from a farmstead it's abhorrent to think of, evil of course in the end is based on perception rather then definitive ideals from every race.
I’ll play Zarial’s advocate and say you can make the argument that most of the Races is DND are not all evil. But things like mind flares, beholders, chromatic dragons… basically any “monstrous” race can be argued that Yes, “those monsters are Evil No Cap” I mean it’s in their title “Monster races”
Yeah, feels. What your *character* knows for creature lore is so important in the Witcher TTRPG that there are two classes of knowledge check: Education (what common folk believe) and Witcher Training. So for a Grave Hag you can make a DC 18 Education check to see if you have a basic clue and know the layman's supersitions for Grave Hags. Or you can make a DC 14 Witcher Training check if you've got that to see if you've got a lot more insight. Geralt's got a 10 Witcher Training skill level. "Incredibe" but not "Legendary" (11-12) nor "Superheroic" (13). I dunno, by the end of the books maybe he's at whatever level the player in this vid is. *Player* knowledge might differ a bit from *character* knowledge. At least I'd like to think so.
Ah yes, 2 cousin species Rules lawyers are a destructive race of humanoids who get sustainable by draining the joy of cool dnd game moments, and relished in causing chaos Lore lawyers on the other hand are constantly seeking accurate lore of the creatures which inhabit the planes. While destructive varieties exist, many end up becoming walking sentient bestiaries, a great help for adventurers, although sometimes annoying.
As a DM, I genuinely build my campaigns with all lore in mind so that the world makes more sense. I feel like a DM should know their world and how it works.
Surely someone who knows the lore would know about drizzt, and so would know that Drow can be good, even if it's incredibly rare. In my campaign I tried to show that Duergar were mostly "evil" because of their terrible history, the conditions they live in, and what they have to do to survive.
The player explaining a death kiss is basically the sort of conversations I have daily with a player as I exposition about monster lore that I find really cool.
I play 3.5e, the races and monsters that are considered "evil" are noted as "Usually chaotic evil" or "Usually lawful evil" instead of just outright good or evil.
I actually liked the part where he found out there's another beholder nearby because this one is a deathkiss.
Made him seem like an experienced monster hunter
I love it when my players do something like this. Makes my life easier.
@@SatvikBeri Exactly, most of my player group is made up of experienced players who have also DMed at some point, and I usually allow them to put some form of backstory into their characters that would allow them certain degrees of knowledge, one player was a servant to an old mage, another worked at a library, etc. so that they can metagame a bit.
The best part is, since they know a lot, they just kinda logically make the story as they go, and I just play along as if it's planned, or slightly alter it to keep them on their toes.
My players think I'm a lot smarter than I am...
It's almost like this is an interactive story generation game, in which the DM is also a player, and the players also have agency over the world. Don't just lean on your DM to explain _everything_ about the world to you; feel free to infer some stuff the DM might not have thought of yet from the information you've been given.
@@Zappygunshot yeah except that's meta gaming. Your character does not know everything you know. There has to be a good reason for them knowing the information.
@@SatvikBeri until they get TPKd by that beholder because they're not strong enough for that yet. lol
“Beholders have an anti magic eye cone, how could he read without putting out the lights”
Quote from the anti magic cone: “At the start of each of its turns, the beholder decides which way the cone faces and whether the cone is active”
The beholder can just turn it off
I would consider house ruling that it can’t solely for that sick deduction though. As annoying as the lore guy was, that part was cool, ngl
@@copypasta1585 honestly it's not that hard to figure out, anyone who knows anything about beholders knows that one of their main abilities is an antimagic field
"Beholders have an antimagic cone." He closes the eye with his special ability: Eyelids.
@@swashhustler1326 So your saying that a beholder just reads with its eyestalks? As paranoid as Beholders are? This guy....🤣🤣🤣
Honestly I don't even see why the antimagic cone would stop it from reading books unless it was looking directly at the lights.
They wouldn't wink out from behind it, and would thus provide reading light.
Got to admire the guy, scientifically accurate to the end.
I know, right?
You got a fucken' love the that's fair
@@aaronlock9461 Lawful Evil done right.
Gotta do your Lesser Restoration check up every month
@@EldritchMcPie technically wouldnt he be lawful neutral?
XP: "That's fair."
Me: *Dead from laughing so hard.*
That would have been my reaction as well.
it has 69 likes im sorry i cant give you one
@@alucardbunche4197 it is over 70 now.
@@alucardbunche4197 why do you care about a number
@@YSleepish because haha 69 that’s the sex number nice.
@@YSleepish no, probably he cares about at least two numbers... I'm guessing 420 as well because memes
I have NEVER heard of a DM literally just saying "You have a heart attack and die", but boy howdy is that now something I am terrified of
I had a DM kill the dragon born rules lawyer cause we faced off an incredibly racists green dragon that acid breathed him to death. Then another rules lawyer got struck by lightening
I kept missing attacks left and right with a goblin for like 6 turns, almost died, DM got so bored he gave the goblin a heart attack midfight
Well, to be fair, he did let him roll a con save first.
Pulmonary embolism actually. 😉
Yeah, randomly struck by lightning is how the DM lets the player know they are in trouble….
Love the joke at the beginning where both the DM and the Rogue were anxious they might be facing a rules lawyer.
Yah, it’s like The Lore accurate person is close but not close enough to be a Rule Lawyer. Just a bit too assuming
This is worse if you play on a pre-written setting. But if you play on homebrew setting with lot's and lot's of homebrew rules no one can stop you as the dm :^)
@@ninjasaga4703 Even in a prewritten setting. In Eberron, the creator encourages people to make their own Eberron, with the 5e book being lore lite and having newspapers with lore, but made it up to the DM how to interpret it. Is one of the kings of this nation really a vampire? Is this religious head really as powerful as she seems, or is a front for a powerful cardinal.
A 'rules knower' looks a lot like a 'rules lawyer' to people who don't know the rules. - A rules law- erm ahh knower.
@@Predator20357 pp lo plllpllplllpplllpplp
This went from a almost Rule Lawyer, to a Detective making the DM have to improvise, To a commentary on the alignment system, to a obnoxious almost Rule Lawyer again, To the DM who failed trying to prove a point.
This seems quite accurate indeed to the lore of DND Sessions and how they might go.
To be fair, in the detective part he wasn’t wrong and as a DM who likes giving clues hidden around and during dialogues I’d love to have players who think about what happens and scrutinize what happens
@@Hk-ox4bb Yah, as long as the character should actually know these things, it does work quite well. But it’s clear that sometimes, DMs don’t plan for someone doing something.
@@Predator20357 Exactly the point I was trying to make, the way it happened in the video was blatant metagaming.
Even if a character knew alot about beholders, I would let them make a check with advantage first and then tell them what their character can conclude. I mean, even if someone knows the monster manual by heart, a different setting may have different rules.
If this adventure happened in Eberron for example, their take on the drow would be quite weird.
I HATE the detective thing, holy shit, last session my players literally spent 75% of the session recruiting randos in 3 different taverns and FORCING ME to come up with backgrounds for each one, they wanted to k now EVERYTHING about them and holy shit they havent roled bad in a single persuassion check it was nuts
EDIT: might I add, they're all level 12 atm, nearing the end of the campaign (@ level 13). The randos are all 5-7, theyre gonna die in seconds in the dungeon theyre going in and wil be nothing more than trap fodder
@@Predator20357 if I'm unsure if my character would recognize something I ask if I can identify what ever it is I'm looking. My party had to move a thing away from a gate during combat to close a portal but a floating rod was stopping it, me and another player realized it's an immovable rod but he knew his character wouldn't know that so to try and help his character I asked if my sorcerer could identify it during the fight, which let me tell him there is a button that let's you turn it off. Knowing things in dnd is great because it lets you play faster but its important to play with what your character would know.
I feel personally attacked
Hey Mr Rhexx surprised you are here. Love your videos and use them as a basis for a lot of my games
Dude I swear, 95% of the lore I learn about dnd comes from your videos. I think you helped to give birth a new type of player, THE LORE LAWYER!
Still gonna rip off your mt celestia lore for my game lmao
As a "well, technically" lore person, I must admit you're the one most responsible for my creation. Thanks hehe
I literally sent this to my GroupMe captioned "Me after watching a few MrRhexx videos."
You're a champ, dude, keep up the good work!
Personally, I’d prefer someone who does this than a rules lawyer.
As long as they don’t try to correct the dms own written lore.
I'm the opposite, I don't mind ruling corrections but you'll be asked to leave if you start spouting about the lore.
To*, not than
I guess it’s a pick your poison type thing nothing wrong with that.
I agree, especially this cuz it adds to the game, I don't kind rules lawyer if it's helpful suggestions and not straight telling me how to play
Sometimes the DM is confused and does not have the next parts ready. At that point you pause the game and ask the DM what they would like to do and offer help because you might know more ore than the DM.
The part where they jump to conclusions is my party. One time they saw two nobles talking and look at the party during a feast in their honor, so they all drew swords and attacked them. After the session I asked why, and they said "because they were going to poison us." They were just two guys talking about them. They were a plot hook, not a threat.
I had the same thing but somewhat reversed. The party met an asshole noble on the road with his four guards. No matter how rude he was they just let him be and moved on. They honestly could have one shot each of his guards as the were just basic guards and he was a normal person with 5 hp that minimum damage from their weakest persons basic attack would kill that guy. When I asked they said "Even of that guy was weak we couldn't take his guards.
Joke's on them, nobles being killed at a feast is still a plot hook.
You should’ve made those nobles like highly important to future hooks that would bar them from certain things. They could’ve become wanted by the kingdom as a whole because maybe one of the nobles was going to be wed to a princess or something and she told her dad.
I feel that. I've made my party really paranoid with stuff like that, except in a way that makes them scared to kill anyone. It's pretty great. None of my major villains have died yet, not have any of my story-related NPCs
@@Zorant0Zero So it was an evil party since they might kill a bunch of people because one of those people were rude?
Player: That’s fair.
DM: NOT ITS NOT!!!
Is today Opposite Day? Are we in an alternate reality?
Favorite Line in the whole video
It was glorious. But good on him for playing it to the end
NO! NO! NO! Many people say I am sick in the head. NOOOO!!!! I don't believe them. But there are so many people commenting this stuff on my videos, that I have 1% doubt. So I have to ask you right now: Do you think I am sick in the head? Thanks for helping, my dear dri
@@AxxLAfriku yes
That's just old-school DnD, where it was kind of normal for your DM to just dick all over you and randomly kill your character for stupid reasons.
The whole, "there must be a beholder nearby" and the dm just rolling with it is like 90% of my games
I feel this lol. Honestly it's not always a bad thing either. Sometimes what your players come up with is way cooler and creative than what you had prepared. I just roll with that shit. It allows me to explore different concepts I hadn't originally considered AND allows my players to feel cool, thats what I play this game for.
Indeed. My best campaign ideas come from players, in game, and they never seem to notice. They just think that I'm brilliant for thinking up what they came up with. They usually have better ideas than I do tbh
How many times have your players faced Beholders then? Lol
@@zaghadka That's always fun.
The best games are basic plots which the players flesh out themselves.
I do like to have a little more than
"Lil beholder attacks Villagers" though
“That’s fair” made me laugh so hard. I’ve exasperated my fellow party members on more than one occasion with the same sentiment towards the stuff my DM has thrown at me.
Personally I always wanted my character to die to something like that, just an old age related problem.
@@coletrainhetrick better than bleeding out in some dungeon or scarred battlefield
i mean thats a good mentality to have when playing dnd
like if the dm or anotehr player has a good reason to shit you up then just accept it and move on
Do stupid actions, get stupid consequences
@@coletrainhetrick
Maybe do what Travis is doing with Chetney in Critical Role. Roll a dice every long rest and have him die of old age after a natural 1
Be group of drow
Be chaotic good and followers of Eilistraee
Escape from oppressive society and try to seek refuge outside the Underdark
Run into a beholder's cave by mistake
Get slaughtered and die 30ft away from the light of the sun
Be discovered after the fact by a group of adventurers
"Looks like the beholder is actually doing us a favor. Good riddance."
Fucking Diggers
Goddamn knife ears
Based
For the record, beholder's can turn off their antimagic cone, so the beholder could've been in the cave
How do you know that?, that is written in the official monster description?
@@AlejandroGonzalez-ej4lp Yes, if you go to the antimagic cone section, it says the beholder decides if the antimagic cone is off or on at the start of its turn, meaning they have the ability to choose if its active at all times( lol I’m answering about a comment I made 8 months ago)
@@allnighter_boy8850 and in less of 10m, thanks man
I love the fact that Jacob is able to play an entire party and still have the effect of a crazy table
Jacob is a crazy table...
3:11 actually svirfneblin's alighnment is 'good', making them the only un hostile creature- I think I get the point of this video
And Mychonids.
Deep Gnomes are just as chill as their surface counterparts and its great
@@koopagrandfleet I don't know about "chill" but ya they are pretty nice
flumps
the PHB really doesnt do the source material justice, none of those races are inherently good or evil... I mean angels have to be good or they fall and illithids eat human brains and generally see people as cattle so their alignment doesn't matter
Lore corrector: "Technically tieflings cant be blue, it says human pigments and shades of red only"
Tiefling PCs: *is every color to ever exist*
rgb tiefling.
Also applies to having green orcs instead of grey ones.
Not if you look at the SCAG and old Planescape character generation tables xD
In Planescape they could even be green! GREEN!
I have a Tiefling who is pale and one that is green.
COLORS ARE FUN OK
3:40
"The alighment specifed in the monsters stat block is the default. Feel free to change it to suit the needs of your campaign. If you want a good aligned green dragon or a evil storm giant, there is nothing stopping you."
-dnd 5e monster manual page 7 on alignment paragrah 2
King
Your mistake was expecting dnd players to read.
Signed, guy who browses r/dndmemes
The alignment doesnt really matter for some creatures because they have preset behaviors in the lore to make them who they are. The most you could argue is if most of the monsters were chaotic neutral acting as if a part of nature. Some of the more sentient ones like dragons make sense. But if you make dragons good you would need to massively nerf them
@@MyFunnyVids888 But you don't have to use the preset behaviors.
DnD 3.5e: "All drows are evil. Fuck you."
The DM notes that just say "lil beholder attacks the village" I thought was really cute
I actually see this as an opportunity, if the player starts writing the quest for me I consider it a win
oh 100%. Players often come up with stuff that is way better than what you had planned.
Sometimes they start theorizing stuff and I'm like "write that down quick write that down"
Totally
And this is exactly the kind of thing that makes me paranoid to discuss my worst suspicions with the rest of the party, lol
"That's fair" - Say what you want, the man has integrity
In once sentence, Jacob proved to understand more about how to make a villain interesting while maintaining them as evil, than many major hollywood productions.
Haha, it got me too at the end
*TEGRIDY WEED.*
@@EldritchMcPie Villain can be pure evil and still be interesting. There is no need to have some sad sob story behind their actions. Good people don't act evil just because someone stole their candy.
@@Tespri No one said anything about "some sad sob story"? Like, it's true that a good villain does not, by default, need to be tragic, but nobody claimed otherwise.
I actually think these players can be pretty invested and I appreciate them as a DM
I can be a little like this but make sure that OOC stuff I know doesn’t impact my character’s actions, and I always go “hey the books have it like this, just want to ask if it’s intentional to work different in this world or if you didn’t know”.
De, it touches!
Same
I'm sort of like this, but currently I am playing a wizard in a module campaign, and I ask the dm if they would know this stuff via checks.
Players like this make Dming easier since they can use that knowledge to expand on areas that maybe you hadn't put as much thought into with very little work on your end.
Hahaha! I love the DM's "No, that is not fair!" But at the same time, respect for rules lawyer being consistent.
Sounds almost like a benefit (albeit annoying) to have this person since they can passively help flesh out your game
Yeah, he instantly turned a stereotypical monster attack village scenario into discovering a passage to the underdark while hunting a beholder through the sheer power of being annoying. It's almost admirable.
For the record, the Incoming Rules Lawyer at the beginning is about the shortsword not being a thrown weapon.
You can still thrown it, you just don't add proficiency
@@orelyosif5852 ...unless you have proficiency with improvised weapons, since it would be an improvised weapon attack. then go nuts.
@@VimyGlide But the attack still would not be a sneak attack, because improvised weapons have no weapon attributes.
@@CaptainDCap Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner. A thrown short sword is no better than throwing a particularly sturdy table leg.
Are you doing a bit? I thought the incoming Rules Lawyer joke was because beholders can’t be sneak attacked (cuz of all the eyes) sorry if this is woosh
that's when "give me an Intelligence roll" is the best tool in the DM's kit.
that's also why the DM doesn't need a complete story, just some ballpoints that *will* be filled by the players.
I'd just say "why does your character know so much about beholders" and if they don't give a good explanation say that this level of metagaming is very banned
@@apersonwhomayormaynotexist9868 tjat's why I'd ask for the Int roll. they can't BS outta low or medium roll.
This works fine until the player rolls a nat20.
@@ChioniLoux then I ask how and we work together on the lore. also impossible knowledge would be DC 35, which is really high even for a Nat 20
@@apersonwhomayormaynotexist9868 a bit confrontational. The Int roll or history roll or arcana roll is better.
Though I always ask right away if I know about the lore so the DM knows I’m fishing for a roll.
Now we only need the _Lore Lawyer vs Rules Lawyer_ video.
the Lore Lawyer would just accept it until it got in the way of the story or broke the world's rules
yes please
I like this lore lawyer. In fact, I try to anticipate their points in advance and build that into the story.
That just sounds like DMing with more steps.
Well, seems to me that aside from the bit at the end, the player was of great help to the GM who was clearly underprepared for the session. Even the bit at the end, the GM could have spun off on. "Yeah, what a mystery" *gives the beholder a piwerful 'ally' who uses the library*
Would be more of an issue if it was a prepared adventure, but since it seems wholly improvised, the extra lore only seem to help.
It's clearly a skit where he wanted to show that the monster was intended to just be a beholder, but little, and probably less challenging. It's probably a small informal gathering.
@@andrewl9191 Yes
Beholders can choose to turn their anti-magic cones off.
So it's actually the LORE MASTER THAT FUCKED UP!
What a twist!
@@haku8135 while its true, beholders are paranoid, so it aint turning it off only cause it can, cause its paranoid all the time!
This is why you ask your DM "What do I know about this creature?" Official sources are nice and all but your DM is the ultimate authority on how their world works and your character doesn't necessarily know all the details.
- Roll Lore:Nature.
- ...Twooo?..
- You know that it's big. And stinky.
@@cjnf11 ahh. I go up to greet it and say. Hello Uncle
@Peters6221 If I ever where to play DND I would just create my own world and do my own system as I would not be able to manage a leveling system
Jacob: annoys the shit out of the DM
Jacob: character is so old he fails a con save and dies of an embolism
Jacob: understandable have a nice day
Robert Downy Jr: he's Lawful Neutral
thank you robert downy jr
This is the difference between being Rules Adherent and a Rules Lawyer. A Rules Lawyer doesn't care what the rules actually are, they're just arguing for the sake of a thing they want to do and the rules are just a tool in their argument.
Rules Adherents live and die by the rules.
That's not RDJ, his name is "Stuff" (at least, according to comedy necromancy)
wait, did rdj play dnd online at some point?
@@shannonirion5234 it's from a meme called "Robert Downey Jr comments"
Gotta say, unlike a rules lawyer he honored the same set of rules regardless
Still just as annoying tho...
@@Ailieorz yeah. Still pretty annoying. But more respectable
As a DM I usually roll with this when players show interest and knowledge, I can't tell you how many times players have made things harder for themselves by giving me ideas mid session.
I mean, his in-depth knowledge of the lore led to a far more immersive and entertaining, tense campaign, and he didn't even complain when lore accuracies hurt his personal character. That's exactly the kind of guy I wanna play D&D with.
that final "That's fair" and the reaction, 😂
Gotta give this lore corrector respect for accepting his fate. The others might not like his convictions, but he stands by them to the bitter end.
Love that setup. Once I get my own place that’s what I’m doing with one of my rooms
He never did actually disagree with anything, he was just questioning everything, and even handed free plot to the unprepared DM.
Sounds like a pretty great player to me.
it starts out fine with the killing of the death kiss and the reasoning that there's a beholder nearby but gets annoying when the DM can't finish a sentence without being questioned about everything mid-thought. you're right about helping an underprepared DM though. if a party member killed a small band of goblins and a player reasoned that there were more nearby in a cave or in the larger trees that have been hollowed out and the party went looking for them it'd be fine. it wouldn't be fine if the player is straight up just racist because of written lore. when the player declares every drow, orc, goblin, duregar, and mind flayer as evil and selfish beings purely because of their race because that's how the lore is written it wouldn't be fine, that's the issue being addressed in the video. maybe the dungeon master did have a plan and it's different than simply a drow necromancer raising the dead to conquer the world because "come on drows are evil that's totally what they'd do with an army of the undead".
@@penjaminthestrange4427 Projecting? You're assuming SO much.
@@penjaminthestrange4427 if there is a rule, there is exception.
@@penjaminthestrange4427 I mean everything the player said was objectively correct
@@penjaminthestrange4427 I am sure there is a nice wasp out there...but as someone who is alergic I am not gonna catch and kiss every wasp I see just because "it could be good"
He did nothing but get important information out to his team
That's why we always distinguish between character knowledge and player knowledge. That's why you write backstories for your character so the DM can anticipate what your character might know. That's why the DM (should usually) reads up on lore aspects if he can anticipate a PC might know about it.
All of this is mitigated when you create a homebrew world. Drives my Forgotten Realms obsessed brother crazy
Yeah, except everyone comes into the game with expectations that don't match the setting and then blow off all the DM's attempts to explain that goblins in the setting aren't villainous scum, and that humans aren't the most populous and common race, and all manner of other issues.
I’m building a homebrew world, and my best friend plays in every session. He won’t stop arguing with me about how his character “should” be able to teleport or use his subclass features (he’s a horizon walker ranger) that don’t use slots *as many times a day as he’d like.
This is technically true, however I explained *in the beginning* that planar travel on this planet is very limited and what little is allowed is highly volatile, dangerous, and takes energy and effort to perform. Should I just change the lore to fit his subclass? If so, I’m going to need to bring in some more powerful monsters because he literally just uses planar warrior over and over again in *every single* turn of combat.
@@ChioniLoux Why did you allow him to play THE telports and portals subclass if you were going to make a world that makes their abilities pointless? Have some cympathy for the player- you are taking away their abilities for the sake of *your* lore. Let them change subclass or let it go man.
"You are correct, per Forgotten Realms lore, this creature is unable to cause petrification."
"Oh, oh that's good."
"...but we're not *in* the Forgotten Realms, are we?"
"...no..."
"Make a Con save."
I'm usualy ok with custom settings that use various d&d lore while allowing themself to change stuff here and there.
Yet when my DM introduced us to the order of Bahamuth, to almost immediately reveal that they were a bunch of corrupted, power hungry murder hobos that use the term "justice" to perform harsh punishement to anyone who stand in their way, I had to just stay quiet for 30min straight ^^. Why use Bahamuth to represent something that is the opposit of him ?
I would ask the DM if my character would know X or Y. Sometimes the answer was yes. Sometimes it was no. Sometimes I had to roll for it. I always played according to the ruling. I hope I wasn't annoying about it, but I don't think I was. I haven't been diagnosed with any degree of autism, but I do find a deciphering emotions and people's expressions challenging.
That's the way to do it, my dude.
It’s true, I’d much rather players ask if their characters know something instead of just assuming they know everything about everything, makes things more interesting I feels
I mean, even without relative social impediments people struggle to understand each other so...
Same dude
That's what this video lacked, a skill check on how they know all this stuff. Even at 300 years old they still aren't going to know everything and then, hey we're in dementia territory now!
A beholder can learn spells, since technically anyone can learn magic.
Leaving the original comment below because it’s a teaching moment, but the intention was to convey that it would be a very dumb decision to learn magic with a low stat block attribute. But go off I guess.
They’d have to make the stat minimum for Intelligence for wizardry otherwise their spellcasting stats would be absolute garbage.
@@ChioniLoux You know that essentially EVERY CLASS has a spellcasting subclass soooo...
@@ChioniLoux
There is no minimum. You can be an INT 3 Wizard if you really want to. You'll be really bad at it and probably die very quickly, but it's technically possible.
You only need a certain minimum to multiclass into or out of a class.
@@emileo5024 I do realize that. A lot of those technically require relevant backstories, some even require ancestral or hereditary magic. I think it’d be cool to see someone pull off a convincing backstory for a beholder to take a spellcaster player class.
@@ChioniLoux Even if that were true the Beholder has (on average) a 17 INT.
is it bad that I actually loved that player and would want him in my game? :D Provided that he would RP that lore knowledge (his character would have to know it) and was ready to accept that it might be hearsay (meaning reality in my world is different but some people believe this version) or that it's general truth but exceptions exist.
Gotta respect his dedication to being THAT-guy.
"That's fair." lmao
Is it bad that this makes me nostalgic. I used to play with a whole group of people like this. Half our games were arguing rules and lore.
Sounds awful
No, I kind of feel the same. There's a different kind of enjoyment playing really "crunchy" games like that if the whole group is in on it, it's fun to find ways around and through rules
Feel the same. Makes me remember long hours of preparing via pouring over ancient tomes to hold the DM accountable for his misdeeds & power tripping.
Does sounds pretty toxic ngl.
Sounds awesome!
When I started getting interested in the Forgotten Realms Lore, I was that guy. I was proud of knowing all of this fiction and wanted to show. I wasn't as obnoxious as Goodberry-Shirt-Jacob, but it was hard not to metagame, man.
I dunno. I like this guy. He’s invested in the setting. Doesn’t get mad when dm says “I kill you for no reason”
I honestly think it’s cool when someone knows this much and plays some sort of experienced monster hunter, kinda like Geralt
I generally find it funny how little 5e talks about anything, I haven't played older editions but I read about them a lot, and I'm currently in an OotA game with this old Baphomet Warlock who was like my first PC. (The DM let me make an Int casting warlock cuz I told him the character was very research-oriented)
Now a fun thing about demons is a lot of people research them, one of which (from 3e Fiendish Codex I) was Tolket nor Ahm, writer of the Black Scrolls of Ahm. When he died his followers spread out and grew a community known as the Black Cult of Ahm. A neutral cult bent on knowledge (and not worship) of demons, of which my warlock is a member. This basically means I have like... demonlord metagaming reasons given these guys have been writing info since pre-spellplague
Do I correct the DM? Rarely, as simplified as 5e is, it's not too far from the complex version of demonlord lore. Do I mention some rlly crack stuff? Oh yeah- all the time.
- Graz'zt crossdressed as Malcanthet and flirted with an ugly demonlord (Kotstchtchie) to bring Malcanthet (succubus queen) embarrassment.
- Baphomet has a rumored relationship with Pale Night (who is usually regarded as Graz'zt's mother during 2e-3.5e)
- Kotstchtchie goes on a Twitter rant every time someone tells him he was a human in his past life (which he was) because he identifies himself as Frost Giant
- One source literally said Yeenoghu might as well have been the Prince of Demons if only he wasnt do stupid.
- And weirdly enough... Demogorgon's got a humanoid demons fetish which is why his ex and his current gf are Succubi queens.
MFW 15 int = super stupid. Poor Yeenoghu
I'm reading some old editions too and something I saw is how brutal it is compared to 5e. In 1e sometimes it was "make con save or die"
I actually like this type of player (as long as it's not a homebrew). He wasn't metagaming for unfair advantage. And for the most part presumed you were already planning all of this.
As long as it's general lore, something feasible for a character to know, and the players at the table show more interest I course correct all the time.
Eh, I would prefer players don't infer that their characters know things about monsters just because they do personally. Especially something as intricate as the birth mechanisms of beholders, which is something they tend to keep as secretive as possible due to their extreme paranoia.
Common things in the location the group are from? Sure... If you have trolls near by, you'd know trolls are hurt by fire and acid. But an adventurer from the desert lands of Anauroch is much less likely to know. In that kind of situation I would say the player needs to make a relevant knowledge roll to see exactly what they know.
When players do it once, they do it every single time they know something and while sometimes it can be helpful, other times it can derail an ongoing plot for something the character realistically had absolutely no way of knowing, so shouldn't have acted on.
@@Grigeral The presumption was that he wasn't simply metagaming, and it makes sense for his character to know such details, like going to a wizard college, studying lore in books, listening to the stories of other adventurers, etc.
Example why I'd allow it: he was wrong about two things, the antimagic cone is something Beholders can turn off, he didn't know that because whoever gave him the knowledge was wrong. And not all underdark residence are evil, that's just bias from people that had horrible encounters.
I'd have the beholder pop up while they're looting the place thinking it's safe and empty.
On the other hand, if someone starts metagaming out of character there are simple, civilized solutions.
Most people adjust their behavior when you talk with them about it, most people understand a group activity has to be fun for the group. Unless there's something deeply wrong with them; in which case you don't want to associate with such people. But that's pretty rare.
@@letopizdetz generally I only play with 2 groups, both of which contain some of the same players, so it's safe to say I know my players well enough that I know they won't meta-game in a destructive manner. 'Sometimes' they push it a bit far, but I'll either run with it or ask for a check depending on how far.
There are certain things I would say that don't count just for being a wizard studying books though. How beholders are created is most certainly in my eyes.
We play pretty heavy on the character/roleplay side of things over the 'raaaar let's kill the next thing!' method, so whether the character would actually know about it would be a pretty big point. Allowing the wizard to know everything simply because they're a wizard? That basically gives them free range to know everything about everything.
Wizards have a naturally high Int and knowledge checks 'because' of their studying, they don't just know everything because the player studied the lore and MM.
That said, I wholly agree on the underdark creatures. Not 'all' are evil, but most are (except Svirfneblin at least). I wholeheartedly disagree with what he said regarding celestials though. Celestials and fiends are literally created with good/evil as a part of their very being!
@@letopizdetz The player would DEFINITELY have to make an Intelligence check at my table if he was going to try to tell how a Beholder gives birth to this thing he guessed it was. They'd want to check and see if any townsfolk had actually been fed upon (?) by this thing before running off to see where a lair is. Again though, it's a skit about a caricature.
@@Grigeral As a counterpart about the angel thing, I believe Zariel is/was an angel originally and is currently listed as Lawful Evil, so it is possible for them to at least change alignments (though that might result in a physical change in them too perhaps?).
That "lore knowing player" is a top notch, we need more of these guys in the TTRPG community.
We do
No.... no we really don't
100% no we don't. Get these know it all clowns out of here!
Nobody asked for clown opinion, lol.
Seriously, I want an entire party of that dude. What kind of GM complains about a player handing them a plot on a silver platter because they cared too much about their campaign world? This shit is why we need gatekeeping.
"Wait when the cleric npc casted greater restoration on me a few sessions ago wouldn't it also have gotten rid of my blood clot?"
What's the extent of spells? Can they cure everything? How much you get healed depends on level of spell. In description of spell it says
"You imbue a creature you touch with positive energy to undo a debilitating *effect* "
One effect so I would argue it wouldn't remove blood clot
Chaotic Good Drow Bard: "Uh... _Draws Rapier_ the f___ you say?"
Neutral Evil Drow Rogue: "Eh, whatever. I never apologized."
Lawful Neutral Drow Paladin: "Only fools fail to check for discrepancies in the walls of dungeons, much like our kind."
My Female Chaotic Neutral Drow Feylost background Death Domain Cleric sworn to the Raven Queen, uses Sacred Flame to teach a lesson.
Alternate title: Helpful player helps unprepared half assed DM make their campaign interesting
"Can I still end its life?" is basically just how I play my barbarian Zhanna.
Isn't that Heavy's sister or just a coincidence?
- Barbarian, it's your turn, what do you do?
- AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGHHHH!
- Raging, got it.
to be fair, a Beholder casting spells would be pretty weird, considering beholders are already pretty weird in the first place.
There used to be a Prestige class in the older editions for beholder only that made them into spellcasters. They could cast 7 spells per turn. It was one of those things for DMs to slap onto a monster to create a super villain to challenge their high level party.
Would suck. Turns on the lights, they turn off cause of the anti-magic cone. Repeat. Poor beholder just wants to read his fanf-.. i mean, books in peace. :
Everyone knows that using one small word causes rule lawyers and lore lawyers to melt:
*...........homebrew*
Lore lawyers… lore-yers?
I get this is a joke but too those who do take it serious. Rules & Lore rulers who don't fanboy over Faerun or 5e will be fine with homebrew as long as it is not bad. They will hold you too it though and I have seen GMs hate their world / homebrew as they try to gotcha "vile" lawyers & the lawyers use it later in the game as your "great" homebrew tend to be not well thought out.,
I liked the beginning with the specific lore packed into a story that was such a nice way to learn stuff. Make this more little story about a monster or a town or something that captures a lot of lore.
this entire video was just *chef's kiss*
I love the multiple instances of subverted expectations and the dm's expression when he looked down at "lil beholder attacks village" 1:56
I had a player like this, even tho my campaign was a homebrew custom setting. He always had to chime in and rave about the lore.
That's rough - if you are running a homebrew setting, players should be asking you about what's true, not telling you what's true.
I like discussions about lore but people should be able to read a room :I
Would dive across the table with a left hook if someone was doing that in a game
@@monsieurdorgat6864 I'd still do it even for campaign books because there might be some things in it that you adapt for your group. Never assume, always ask.
@@Ailieorz Yeah, for sure. It almost makes it easier to ask poignant questions, but it's definitely worthwhile to ask - and consider your character's archetype before asking too.
I mean to be fair when they said to ignore the fact that certain races are evil and just kill the beholder, the Lore Lawyer agreed. He’s not a bad player and the DM should have pulled him aside out of game and asked him to stop pointing out lore inconsistencies instead of calling him out in front of the table and killing his character. #Justice4LL
If this were really happpening, I'd agree with you.
But this is a comedic video meant to exaggerate the frustration the DM feels about this. If you go into an XP to Level 3 skit expecting people to act rationally, you're in the wrong place.
Let's be honest here even in the video the dm killing him made sense via the lore since he was playing a very old dwarf so he was okay with it.
@@joshuareynolds23 It's actually really poignant because old lorebeards in the old guard of DnD are pretty used to old-school games where you died for stupid and arbitrary reasons lol.
@@monsieurdorgat6864 it's not exactly arbitrary or, stupid hes a super old dwarf who probably doesnt get regular medical checkups. Dying from a blood clot can take anyone at any time and, because it fits with common sense and, the lore he was okay with it.
@@joshuareynolds23 there's a level of meta common sense, though (also some extra scientific reasons this wouldn't happen but that's kind of beyond the point).
Embolisms don't happen that often, so the DM specifically targeting your character to randomly and instantly die without some kind of warning of a medically specific disease in a completely fantastical setting is about as arbitrary and petty as it gets.
I feel called out.
Though I’m not this bad, I swear. My most recent “Lore Lawyering” situation is probably the time where I convinced my DM that a PC killed in Chult was a ghost because I read the Ring of Winter novel. This is because Ubtao is still somewhat active in Chult in my DM’s world and the character had low Int and Wis, so he failed the Maze of Life to get into the Fugue Plane/the afterlife while the PC’s deity was busy.
*Is a noob and doesn't understand wtf this means*
I don’t know about you but I always viewed the alignments for races to be reflected on their culture rather than each individual being since it adds a bit more flavour to each character
The part about D&D lore having races that are written to just be evil was too real. Like seriously, they need some better worldbuilding than "dark elf bad".
I mean demon's are objectively evil and dark elf's are in a situation that they kinda have to be Evil
It's a problem in a _lot_ of fantasy settings. Generally it starts from a place of simple recognition; 'you're humans, and there's goblins, you know who the enemies are,' and then as lore grows and expands the goblins get a bit more development and suddenly them being always-evil grunts doesn't fit so well anymore.
for me is cool about this, i don't see any problem about races just be evil. Because exist just be evil races like demons, why the evil have to be grey or have a motivation? sometimes people are just evil and don't have justify about it.
Honestly I’d love to have this guy as a player. My man just keeps on feeding me material and relieves me from the responsibility of info dumping.
3:36 Ack-shually, while mortal creatures are not wholly of one alignment, angels explicitly can't be evil. They are by their very essence good, and were they to stop being good, they would turn into something else, like a devil.
This is described both in the lore on angels in the Monster Manual and in the "Alignment in the Multiverse" section on PHB page 122.
Drow can be good, though, the errata did good fixing that and Drizzt has always been around proving it.
Drizzt existing meant there was no need for an errata. Makes his whole struggle seem kinda pointless and insignificant if he could always just waltz on down to the city full of nice drow.
@@Snowie7826 I should point out that per word of god from WotC the Drizzt novels exist in a separate canon from the lore presented in Fifth Edition. So while 5e canon has stated that not all drow are evil, this has no real effect on the Drizzt novels and in those books he is just as special as he always was.
I should _also_ point out that what the errata did was _not_ what you are presenting it as. Drow _society_ is still evil, and corrupted by the cult of Lolth. Drow cities in the Underdark are _still_ predominantly evil. The only thing that changed was Drow having a natural predisposition towards being evil. This means that Drizzt is still special in canon since most Drow are still indoctrinated, even if they aren't evil by default.
This is, however, specific to the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk (which means it still applies to Drizzt even in 5e). The removal of the book painting all Drow as evil was to accomodate worlds like Eberron where Drow are painted in a more neutral light.
Haha evil angels in my homebrew world go brrrr
Players, always remember: Don't assume things about how the DM's world works, and don't assume your character knows things about how the world works. Always ask your DM "What would my character know about such and such" and/or "Can I roll to see what my character would know". If the DM's lore about creatures is different from the established material, that's their way. And hey, if it turns out the DM **doesn't** have special setting lore and just forgot how certain creatures are supposed to operate, that's on them, not you. Let them fumble over the cracks in their own storytelling if it comes to that, but don't take it upon yourself to tell your DM how their world is supposed to work.
Unless they literally ask you to do that and you're okay with it, of course. Then go nuts.
I have a player who WILL NOT stop doing this even though I explicitly tell them, its a hombrew setting if you need more information you feel I haven't filled in please ask. Nope. Just assumes and then gets made when I go "no we already established this in the homebrew setting five sessions ago."
Why not?
Most of the time if you just say "Generic fantasy world" most lore lawyers like me would go for the default option aka what is said in the book. Because 8/10 times you wouldn't have all of the lore needed to scratch the itch of being a all knowing lore god.
The difference between a good metagamer and a bad metagamer is the good one always asks for an intelligence check first.
I always handled this type of situation with his player knowledge wouldn't necessarily translate to his charterers knowledge. For this type of player there are going to be a ton of Lore Checks in his future, with various modifiers.
I think even then it would be odd since most campaigns start at lvl 1. Next-to-no experience; fresh-eyed young adventurers. For example if they've fought a Beholder and got away to tell the tale wouldn't they at least gotten enough exp for lvl 2? Assuming killing creatures grants experience then it only makes sense that a wizened forager or guardsmen would be lvl 4+ if they've been at it for a few years. But that might just fall back on the whole 'why am I lvl 2 from killing a bear but that butcher who kills 100 cows a year is still lvl 0?' problem that comes up with the gamification of a setting.
So if a character is old and well traveled enough to know so much then why can't they cast Fireball, Rage etc? You could probably try to argue they were a helluva-pacisifst-nerd who has only studied books, bestiaries, and observed other's fighting but have never picked up a sword themselves or left their local town I guess. Or maybe they've heard tale at local bars and trivia nights (rolling a D20 for these would be funny and flavorful). Kind of hard to RP the know-how without the experience.
Oh no I'm a Lores Lawyer. (Except on the alignmemt thing. Also what about Eilistraee? Also svirfneblin are typically neutral good in the lore X3.)
Was about to comment that, but eeeh. Been playing a Drow Fighter in a party on the surface with a Druegar Cleric and a Svirfneblin artificer its kinda funny if you know the lore and play off of it.
Frankly, the alignment thing is my greatest pet peeve about these people anyway. "Always Evil" is a bad trope, Tolkien regretted writing orcs like that and the most annoying part about fans that really "care about lore" is when they won't allow DnD to allow from lore aspects they don't want anymore, often for good reason, because somehow this has to be the one franchise that must be immune to retcons occuring within 40 years of game history.
At first i was thinking "this isn't to bad, a bit meta, but .makes for a good plot". Then the race thing came up and i had flashbacks to a game i ran where the bard told me OFC "i don't adsociate with green skins, they are evil"
Edit for context: it's a homebrew setting and the goblin was a book keeper for a merchant
I played a game with a similar player, but me being a player, I leaned into and ended up having our characters being professionally trustworthy, but hating each others guts. The banter was fantastic
Orcs are an evil race, just like drow, and mindflayers etc ... Exceptions to the rule are fine if someone wants to play a good member of an evil race, but if you want to say that the vast majority of these races are not necessarily evil or that its odd or inappropriate for someones character to assume that a member of an evil race IS evil then you aren't playing in a forgotten realms setting. You are playing in your own setting which is fine but you should tell your players thats the case.
If you play "standart" D&D setting then orcs are literally mad barbarians who occasionally rape other races to produce half-orcs, so they are pretty much evil and killed on sight.
@@Din0za occasionally? You would think that a race depicted as war mongering as Orcs would do that more than occasionally specially when warmongering requires plentiful reserves of strong hands to go around.
Then again it would be a nightmare for them if they don’t have the supplies to sustain the population.
@@mr.badguy8500 which is why they end up making hordes to go gather food and territory when their numbers get too big for their area to support, causing wars every 20 or so years and for them to be classified as an evil race, especially when they often cannibalize other sentients and worship an evil deity.
Honestly, the idea of older characters having a random chance of having a heart attack is a great idea
how
to quote literally this video, "NO THAT IS NOT"
@@AndrewTheUltraBoss99 I like chaos.
I think it's amazing and a great way to counter anyone trying to use an older character to metagame
@@Ailieorz oh yeah, that's lovely.
You create a character and when you are almost in reach of your life long objective with your friends, Welp, too bad, the d100 makes you have a heart attack. Revivify doesn't work on natural death, so sorry if you died in the corridor just before the final door, leaving you friends to fight alone and you to watch them for the rest of the session. Next time make someone young and with no fatal conditions.
Oh, you made a fat character? Look how the dice rolls...
Classic way of handling this: "How does your character know all of this?"
I would actually love to play with this guy.
Drizzt, “I rose above the evil nature of the Drow, escaped Menzoberranzen, came to the surface world to become a protector to the people who feared and hated me, eventually being accepted as a hero…”
DM: “Yeah…we’re not doing that anymore. Apparently, we got some complaints on Twitter.”
Drizzt: “But my hero’s journey?”
DM: “Yeah, nothing special about you anymore. Also, dual wielding sucks now.”
WoTC is doing exactly what Syndrome was doing in The Incredibles. "Once everyone is super, no one will be". Also, why did they nerf dual wielding, it totally sucks now.
Oh and you know what's happening to Pathfinder now? "Slavery is very bad and offensive, so we remove it. Entirely."
@@cjnf11 *Ahem* Sounds to me like it's time for involuntary manual labor program!
Always knew this one would be real popular with the nobles. Whats that? Slavery? Never heard of it!
The way I see it, there are three possibilities. The Svirfneblin - being a good, but cautious folk - was captured as used as a slave by the other members of the party, as was the insane Derro, in a bid to capture more slaves from the nearby town they just saved... OR The Drow had been lured by Eilistraee to seek the surface and learn to live with the people of the surface, away from the influence of Lolth. The Derro had his insanity reigned in by powerful magic or drugs - possibly with the help of the Myconids. The Duergar might have simply been paid to escort them, or perhaps he learned to forgive the ancestral enemies of his people. And the Svirfneblin was there, possibly to find help for his isolationist town who were too stubborn to seek it on their own. The lore supports both, and more. No need to remove stuff from the books, just maybe point out the connections that are already there.
I played a campaign where the DM mixed up Verin and Essek in the Wildemount setting. As much as it burned me inside, I said nothing.
"All Drow are evil."
The Crystal Shard and Dark Elf trilogy: "allow us to introduce ourselves."
This is why alignments for races state mostly, the always part is very rare
"All Drow are evil" *terms and conditions may apply
Gotta get those pathfinder drow then
The way to deal with lore junkies, like myself is to ask, "would your character know that?"
I thought I would tire of these type of video's... nope. This one made me laugh. They tend to follow a similar format of "People who are ignorant tend to be funny". yet you add manner twists that are unexpected. Good show!
The title should’ve been how to play Aragorn.
Or Geralt
Ok, every “um, actually” lore player i’ve played with has never eeeever been this genuinely cool. When I was gming Star Wars (at a point in time where i felt pretty knowledgeable on the lore and mythos) I had several players basically lecture me on everything I got wrong all the time constantly when we would play. “UHhhhm actually Corellia shouldn’t have its own government anymore, and everyone on the planet who hates the empire should have been executed.” “Err yeah there’s no way a Rancor could be on Felucia. that doesn’t make any sense haha.”
It caused me such immense anxiety. I would spend the entire week reading multiple star wars novels cited by wookiepedia as having information on specific planets and settings (which, btw, mostly contradict eachother), coming to the weekly session with very little actually planned because of the amount of research i was doing instead of designing, literally trembling in fear of the inevitable disapproval from people i thought were supposed to be my friends.
To this day I still think I’m stupid and a shitty gm for being unable to meet the expectations of those players. In fact it scared me from the hobby for years.
Aren't Rancor's native to Felucia? Haha
@@phelps6205 You fight quite a few there in the first Force Unleashed game.
@@dagremlindude9966 LITERALLY WHY I HAD ONE THERE!!! But no! That’s ridiculous, and force unleashed isn’t even Legends canon !
@@phelps6205 At the time i wanna say they were native to dathomir at the time but god fuck if i know. the moves say they come from like four different planets at this point
Not trying to shit on you, but my approach to a situation like that would simply be to roll with the criticisms and provide answers like to the “UHhhhm actually Corellia shouldn’t have its own government anymore, and everyone on the planet who hates the empire should have been executed.” - maybe this section does because the current mayor used to be a doomsday prepper who took a selection of likeminded people into the bunker he hid amid a cave system to wait out the extermination orders. Then, once the focus of their oppressors fell elsewhere they emerged and used old smuggler contacts to entice allies down to Corellia to begin anew, all while hiding silently in the shadows of a hostile world, doing their best to blend in and keep their sentiments secret until a time to act arrives (a time such as the arrival of a bunch of heroes).
As for the Rancor, it's not uncommon for people to have exotic pets IRL, it's not inconceivable that maybe it escaped from a freighter that was transporting dangerous animals to a resortworld, or again - it's just someone's escaped pet. If they say it can't be there due to the atmosphere/environment, maybe it's got gastank on it's back it tubing plugged into nostils to provide breathable air (being a weakness the party can take advantage of) or a full armoured bodysuit built with claws and stuff because it was part of an abandoned millitary experiment into the viability of weaponising wildlife to augment galactic forces.
Or alternatively, just say 'that's their canon, this is mine' because as you say - lots of lore inconsistencies between different writers.
I only get players like this and i love it, honestly i dont even care i have to rewrite the campaign almost every session- it just gets more interesting for everyone.
I'd lowkey love to have a player like this at the table
Me too
Don’t ask that lore guy about orcs; it will NOT end well
I mean once one casual guy told me about warcraft-like orcish moral and HONOR in dnd. He disappeared.
The funny part is that a lot of D&D lore is written from an in-universe perspectives, meaning they contain biases, stereotypes, preconceptions and prejudice about their subjects. Interestingly this does also say something about the people and cultures from which these sources have their perspective. Not all truth is contained within the lore.
When he said "that's fair" at the end, I cracked up. 🤣
"......... That's fair."
"NO, THAT IS NOT FAIR!"
Actually, DMs are historically known for killing off characters at a moment's notice, so, yes, it does coincide with D&D lore.
Tbh, this guy sounds like a perfectly good guy to play with. Initially (in the "not a beholder" correction) he seemed like he was just sharing some lore that he thought the rest of the table might enjoy. In doing this, he helped the DM (unknowingly) to give extra plot to the game. And then in the end he proved that he is consistent, even when it's to his own detriment. Very reasonable and enjoyable guy.
Also "where are you getting this?"? The players handbook, man. It says in the Drow section that practically all Drow are evil except for very few exceptions (I know nothing about him, but it names Drizzt), and this is due to the active influence of their EVIL goddess who is in constant rule over them.
unfortunately the alignment system in general, and most writing in D&D is a bad crutch for bad writers. Also built by Gary Gygax, a total asshat and somewhat of a racist.
Alignment system is a bit archaic and I would argue it's used in a wrong way.
When it says that some races are this alignment, I would argue it usually means: usually when you'll meet this race, expect that.
But not as if: every single representative of that race are this.
Tho I would still argue that some races are more rigid within alignment system than other. Beholders will be evil, because that's how they are biologically, mimics won't be good or evil, and I definitely wouldn't call mind flayers good since they have to feed on inteligent brains.
But yeah, all Drow being evil? Nah, most maybe, looking at how their culture works. But not all.
They're evil through nurture, not nature. Pertaining to their upbringing they may not be birthed evil, however if you are brought up by a society of "evil" then you will most likely conform even if merely to survive. Drizzt did the same in the books until it eventually got too much for him and he escaped. If you are brought up in a world where skinning your next door neighbour is perfectly fine then you will most likely do so as it's normal for you, but for a human from a farmstead it's abhorrent to think of, evil of course in the end is based on perception rather then definitive ideals from every race.
“Remind me again what your character’s intelligence is?”
I’ll play Zarial’s advocate and say you can make the argument that most of the Races is DND are not all evil.
But things like mind flares, beholders, chromatic dragons… basically any “monstrous” race can be argued that Yes, “those monsters are Evil No Cap”
I mean it’s in their title “Monster races”
Pretty much Geralt then.
Yeah, feels.
What your *character* knows for creature lore is so important in the Witcher TTRPG that there are two classes of knowledge check: Education (what common folk believe) and Witcher Training.
So for a Grave Hag you can make a DC 18 Education check to see if you have a basic clue and know the layman's supersitions for Grave Hags.
Or you can make a DC 14 Witcher Training check if you've got that to see if you've got a lot more insight.
Geralt's got a 10 Witcher Training skill level. "Incredibe" but not "Legendary" (11-12) nor "Superheroic" (13). I dunno, by the end of the books maybe he's at whatever level the player in this vid is.
*Player* knowledge might differ a bit from *character* knowledge. At least I'd like to think so.
@@AyarARJ I'm super late, but that sounds awesome.
Ah yes, 2 cousin species
Rules lawyers are a destructive race of humanoids who get sustainable by draining the joy of cool dnd game moments, and relished in causing chaos
Lore lawyers on the other hand are constantly seeking accurate lore of the creatures which inhabit the planes. While destructive varieties exist, many end up becoming walking sentient bestiaries, a great help for adventurers, although sometimes annoying.
Why play a role play game if you can just role play your cool moments?
As a DM, I genuinely build my campaigns with all lore in mind so that the world makes more sense. I feel like a DM should know their world and how it works.
This is my friend when I create new lore for my campaigns haha.
Surely someone who knows the lore would know about drizzt, and so would know that Drow can be good, even if it's incredibly rare. In my campaign I tried to show that Duergar were mostly "evil" because of their terrible history, the conditions they live in, and what they have to do to survive.
The player explaining a death kiss is basically the sort of conversations I have daily with a player as I exposition about monster lore that I find really cool.
I play 3.5e, the races and monsters that are considered "evil" are noted as "Usually chaotic evil" or "Usually lawful evil" instead of just outright good or evil.
Best sketch you've done in a while. Shows both good and bad side of this kind of player (I'm kind of one of these) and also very funny ending