Gm and one other person in our group are discussing a fantasy rpg like pathfinder

You were both wrong, but you were wronger.

You should consider yourself lucky, my DM had a fucking heart attack when I wanted to play a female dwarf.

Dumb frogposter.

You're not just a dumb frogposter, you're also in the wrong. It's not bad GMing to limit player options when working off an actual premise for the adventure. You don't want people to play retarded shit if the game is going to be at all serious.

If we were playing high fantasy or a monstrous races themed campaign I'd be cool with it.

But usually I just assume people who always want to play anthro races are furry trash. I know it isn't always the case, but unless I've known the person for awhile I tend to assume otherwise.

dumb frogposter + wrong, fuck off faggot

not all races fit the context of a GM's campaign and they have every reason and right to prevent you from playing some dollhouse furshit race/class combo

>Want to see Veeky Forums becomie a Pepe funposting board like /qa/?
A little late for that, I'm afraid.

>gm and one other person in our group are discussing a fantasy rpg like pathfinder
PROTIP OP IS TALKING ABOUT WARHAMMER FANTASY AND WANTED TO PLAY A SKAVEN

YOU WANT TO PLAY A SKAVEN? FUCK YOU SKAVEN ARE EVIL

How is that retarded shit when pathfinder includes ratfolk as a fully fledged player race?

Frogposters are retards as usual. DMs decide what races are in their settings, period.

If it was pathfinder, OP would have said a pathfinder setting.
It was fucking skavens from Warhammer Fantasy.

What character and backstory did you have in mind? If it's a skaven it would probably be difficult to include in a traditional party (if only because most NPC's would want to kill you on sight) but I'm pretty sure people have done it before. It could be quite fun actually.

Beastfolk can be sort of iffy, but people who play ratfolk are usually decent players, unlike tabaxi and other furry fodder.

As a gm, I always try to handle people's character ideas on a case by case basis. The player would have to suggest playing a loli succubus ninja for me to say no to it outright.

Your GM is bad and he should feel bad

This cannot be evil.

Kill yourself, frogposter.

Making a list of races for the setting is perfectly normal and sane.

Thinking that ratfolk are evil is just misinformed.

PS: If you meant Skaven then the GM is right and you should wait for when the group does a Skaven campaignOR look for a separate group doing a Skaven campaign.

Genericfags need to leave. Sure op deserves the rope dor wanting to go full yiff but limits should only ever be for fleshed out story reasons. "This is the human/elf/dwarf kingdom where nothing else exists" ain't good enough

>can’t even spell superior right

your GM doesn't want to run snowflake races and the other players value having a game over you having a snowflake race

I guess you could got find another game dude

See
OP GM was right. Fuck off OP.

>call someone a bad GM for not wanting you to be a snowflake race in their setting
Holy shit player entitlement at its best. I bet you think it's bad GMing to tell players not to play Chaotic Evil characters, too.

>I can only RP degenerate non human freak races

Is there a greater sign of autism than this?

I think these kind of degenerates can't stand playing a human because they themselves are deeply uninteresting people, ergo they cannot play an interesting human.

They need the gimmick of being a freak.

It's the gm's world user. Maybe he doesn't want a amoral ratfolk running around good Pelor praising towns

While I hate the generic tolkien-tag-team lineup, and I especially hate the idea that a sentient being capable of exercising free will is locked into an alignment by virtue of them being made that way, you're totally in the wrong.

The good thing is that you apologized for what was probably a knee-jerk reaction to a situation which does admittedly suck, but keep in mind that even if you think something's dumb, it's still their right to be dumb the way they want. If something's a dealbreaker, you should let someone know, but don't do so in a way that implies they're somehow wrong for doing things the way they want.

I hope things work out well for everyone involved.

>I should be able to run around any humanocentric city as a dragonrat because I don't subscribe to your generic alignment boxes

Sure you can, and the peasant mob can skewer you with pitchforks tearing you from limb to limb to.

Your overly hostile attitude over a perfectly reasonable stance is a pretty good indicator you should go take a break from this site and cool off. If a Drow walks through an elven settlement, naturally the elves will assume they're up to no good, a natural response because it's a darn Drow, and Drow are generally (usually) evil. However, that doesn't mean the Drow *is* evil, only that the population assumed he is.

What I'm saying is that a Drow isn't evil because they're a Drow, I'm saying they're evil because they choose to be evil.

Philosophize about the morality of inherently evil creatures all you wish user.

I run the game, average peasants will react accordingly, knowing this you may still pick your furrykin race if you choose.

>Who was in the wrong
You, hands down. Don't get all faggy about the DM introducing limitations in his own game. It's not "bad DMing" to follow your vision or to make the options manageable for yourself. If was correct (which experience and trips both suggest), then you were double wrong and should feel bad.

Okay

Why are frogposters always such terrible people?

I agree with you in principle and I also don't particularly like the idea that the holy trinity of human/dwarf/elf can be all shades of grey whereas other sapient races are evil from birth.
However if you want to have a non-evil drow (or any other member of a typically always evil race), how would you explain it? Do 99.99% of his people "choose" to be evil but he somehow freely decides not to?

A good first step would involve getting rid of the massive sea of bullshit that is the standard Drow society.
They can still be an evil-leaning society without being the Dumbest Mafiosos Ever.

Cringe

It's funny the way some of the logic in these threads work.
>GM this system! You can run it however you want!
>Limit players based on how you think your world would be.
BAD GM! I WANT TO BE A DRAGONKIN NECROMANCER AND KEEP MY ZOMBIES BY THE PUB!

Wouldn't that be fun? Of course the rest of the party would need to be on board but playing a character who needs to hide his identity sounds interesting.

Well when it comes down to it you have to go with what the GM is comfortable with.

It's a bit shit to say you can't play X entirely, but I'm hesitant to say that it's BAD GMing, because he might be relatively unexperienced or maybe you just want to play something he really doesn't know how/want to run.

So you've got to give him the benefit of the doubt and give him a chance. After all, you could GM if you wanted to, but you're not GMing, he is.

Dumb frogposter

Did someone said "ratfolk"?

>limiting player options is bad gming
You wouldn't know bad GMing if you were beaten regularly with the GM's handbook.

I recommend you run your own game and stop being a whiny frogposting bitch.

>sneaky
>squeaky
>kills in the dark
Yeah, checks out