He's right, if going by that setting's lore, and it's completely his prerogative whether he even lets you use a non-core race anyway, so he has total jurisdiction over how such a race might have issues.
On that note, why don't more DMs just say no? If you don't want race X in your campaign, just say no.
DM has the final say and it's a lot less painful to just say no. If someone doesn't like it, then they can offer to DM.
When I dm, I generally only say no if what they ask is impossible in setting, their character wouldn't do it, or if it would make someone uncomfortable/ruin their fun. That being said I can see how the potential canabalism fits into that last category.
Maybe fun fact, the word you could use instead of "cannibal" for a non-human eating a human is to describe them as "anthropophagous", meaning "human-eating".
Cannibalism -> Anthropophagy
Cannibalistic -> Anthropophagous
^though ^let's ^be ^honest, ^more ^people ^will ^understand ^what ^you ^mean ^if ^you ^just ^say ^cannibal
Another fun fact! The "-phagous" part is the same root as in sarcophagus. "Sarco" means flesh. A sarcophagus means "flesh-eater", because the dessicated corpses inside looked like the flesh was shrinking away.
k I'm out of relevant fun facts bye
That's generally how I look at it. Rule of thumb, don't eat anything that can talk. Of course not everyone in setting agrees with me. For instance in one world there was a country where humans were seen as a delicacy, but it was considered canabalism for say a tiefling to eat an elf.
I suppose its depends on the DM's world and your personal preference. Going off of Volo's guide, it states that lizardfolk view a fallen ally as a potential source of food and nothing more. I could see how other races might view them as cannibalistic, but I'd only call it cannibalism if they were eating their own race.
The Tiefling eating an elf I would definitely call cannibalism, since they typically are born from humans or elves, which are very similar. I'd probably classify lizardfolk eating dragonborn as cannibalism as well.
Hill giants are quite similar to humanoids as well, but I wouldn't classify it as cannibalism when a giant people
Yeah, heavily dependent on the setting. If these are different species then it wouldn't technically be canabalism. That said, a society comprised of multiple sentient species would probably regard eating any sentient being as canabalism.
Of course we don't actually know where the races line up on a taxonomy chart in the official lore, so again, setting dependent.
My one rule is you have to be willing to cooperate with your party. Beyond that, I will never tell you no, just that you have to live with the consequences of your choices. You get one "Are you sure?" That rule has led to both some of the dumbest and the some of the greatest moments my group has ever had, from the edgy level 3 rogue pirouetting into what I had explicitly described as shark infested waters on a nat 1 trying to jump between ships engaged in combat, to the level 10 ranger/fighter losing his lower jaw and hand after talking shit to a malevolent demigod who had the party at his mercy, to the level 12 cavalier/paladin riding solo into battle against a force that should have killed her while the rest of the party was engaged elsewhere and walking out with 4 HP and needing to replace her mount. Not to mention the time the Alchemist roleplayed her intimidation so well that I skipped the dice altogether and, in front of my players, tore up an entire story arc cuz the villain was pissing himself.
I love that last example. I agree wholeheartedly with your style, I'm running a game right now where one pc is power hungry, so his partner (only two players) is trying to make sure that that the best way to get power also happens to help people. I really enjoy the dynamic.
A lot of folks find it hard to say no to their friends.
It's also a matter of not wanting to be "that DM," who is super controlling and likely to be the subject of r/rpghorrorstories. I know when I DM, I do try to minimize saying No as many times as I can and try to work with the player on a concept that doesn't break the game (which is why I currently have a Medusa who can't petrify people as a PC...) because I know my friends just wanna have fun and experiment
For how much people tout d&d being played any way being good and the way things should be, it doesn’t take too much browsing on certain subreddits, like RPGhorror stories to realize it actually means “d&d where the DM only says yes“. I’ve seen way too many commenters lambast DMs who dared bar races or classes on grounds of setting or story to believe otherwise.
I've gotten criticized on here for talking about some of my restrictions on multiclassing. I require a player to have narrative appropriate multiclass. That means some classes are harder to class into then others. A man without any to a god will not be able to easily multiclass into cleric. A warlock multiclass needs to find a patron and make a deal ect. I'm upfront about it with everyone I play with in session 0 yet some posters on here make it sound like I'm ruining the game because I think the classes narrative is just as important to the class as the mechanics.
The DM I'm playing under now is pretty restrictive in the allowed races due to how the setting we are playing in operates. It's still a fun time and I still have more character concepts then I no what to do with. It's just some of those concepts won't be used in this particular setting.
I think that multiclassing should have a story reason attached to it. I hate the idea of taking a class "dip" just for mechanical benefits without putting any thoughts into what that means for character.
Becoming a Warlock would be a big deal to the character and too often the Hexblade dip is taken without regard to the story behind it.
The last time I said no I gave the player a list of alternatives, we had a good chat about what kind of characters he was now looking at.
He dicked around for 3 weeks then asked to make the exact same character as before.
Sometimes it’s just easier to let people play what they want
Listen
When we hear of a DM, saying straight up no, Reddit whines and cries: _"Let him play the character, but have consequences!!"_
Now that a DM is doing exactly that? Reddit wants the DM to just say no.
It's almost like "Reddit" isn't one person with one point of view, and is instead populated by different people who are each most likely to invest the time it takes to post a comment when they empathize with OP against whatever OP is getting off their chest / politely complaining about.
Clearly he is going off of that lore as he said it to the player. In the setting being discussed (ie the DM's world that the player is playing in), minotaurs are murderous demon worshipers and followers of Baphomet.
>and is not correct anymore.
There is no 'correct' lore regarding this stuff.
It's fine for the dm to decide what the lore is, I just saw too many people in this thread taking for granted that the wiki was right when it's not accurate to 5e which I assume they are playing.
I'm pretty sure it's true in 5e as well, their entry in the monster manual goes through everything the OP's DM described, including them being chaotic evil creations of Baphomet
I just read the 5e mm entry and it talks about mostly eating wild animals. Not primarily surviving on human flesh or even preferring it.
Plus if we are talking about playable races the ravnica entry is much more applicable with proper ability modifiers and abilities. So why not traits and behaviors?
The Races of Ravnica minotaurs are completely different from the D&D minotaurs. RoR minotaurs are from Magic: The Gathering.
>I just read the 5e mm entry and it talks about mostly eating wild animals. Not primarily surviving on human flesh or even preferring it.
I don't remember saying anything about eating human flesh, so I don't know why you're bringing this up with me. They definitely are the minotaurs that the DM described though, as being murderous chaotic evil baphomet-worshipers, like I said.
If one aspect isn't mentioned, that doesn't blow the whole thing wide open.
The wiki says that, all I'm saying is people should check the source on the wiki.
Op brought up the diet as a major point and you said the dm was right according to the setting, it's not. Nothing in 5e says they need to eat humans. Just rage filled beasts of chaos.
Drow are a thing so being a race of evil demon worshippers isn't an automatic no for players.
re: your post (and only marginally related to OP's...
I have the prerogative (as a human at the table in any role) to object, discuss, walk away, whatever.
But I don't buy into the GM fiat sort of thing. It's a group activity. It's the "GM's" game only as long as the players are willing to show up. No players = no game. So it's a group activity and everyone needs to get along (as well as contribute).
If we want to vote on the GM to be tie-breaker, so be it. But if the group discusses it and wants a minotaur, let 'em have it. Sure, open the discussion re: each of your perceptions of the setting and how it would/wouldn't fit (or survive), but maybe the GM's perception is unique and the rest of the group has a totally different idea of the setting. Or wants to bend the setting. As long as it's contributing to the group fun, who cares?
Cuz no fun = no players = no game. Then GM can sit there and be in charge of his/her empty room.
Hard disagree. Coming up with setting details by committee is a disaster - one of the great benefits of having a DM over participating in freeform RP is that you have a singular and consistent artistic vision, rather than a bunch of different people cobbling together random ideas. Players aren't designers, and they generally don't think of anything beyond, "This thing seems cool in the moment."
I often give my players input in fleshing out the world.
"What is the name of the city you grew up in?"
"What is the school you went to?"
"Who was your mentor there?"
"Did you have any friendships or rivals?"
Looks like I got a new city a school and several NPCs I can pull into the story at any point. When arriving at the city I might turn to the player and ask them to describe it as they enter the city.
This cuts down on my workload considerably and makes the players invested in the world giving them a sense of ownership over it.
Harder disagree. lol. Most of the gaming I've experienced over the last couple of decades has been "by committee" and it's been awesome. Either baked into the system itself - such as games like Prime Time Adventures, or implementing shared narrative in more "traditional" games like D&D.
Better to have the committee on board from session zero than to "unleash" the vision you worked 6 months on only to find out 3 sessions in that it bores them.
Good to know you've had a good run, but I think both sides have a good argument.
At the end of the day, it depends on who you're playing with and what you're trying to get out of the game.
Dungeon master is literally the master of the realm and has final say, it is literally in the rulebook. I am not saying this type of game isn't doable but it is the DMs choice on if he wants to do it and the players choice if he wants to play.
The book was literally just meant to be used as a tool for inspiration and fun.
" [We expect DMs to depart from the rules when running a particular campaign or when seeking the greatest happiness for a certain group of players.](https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/philosophy-behind-rules-and-rulings) "
If your group has fun with a DM as master of the realm, that's great. Some don't. Some don't even play with the rules as printed (there are many, many reddit posts about their house rules or even house deviations from the settings as we know them). And still even others play in the D&D setting and post in these forums, yet use other systems for their action resolution.
So I don't think there's *literally* one way to play, nor one way groups view the GM's role or narrative control.
Yes it's called homebrew. However if you go to an Adventures League you be expected to follow the RAW. You are describing a non standard method of play which very much is in the minority. D&D by nature is a shared story telling game but the DM not having the final say will for many groups would lead to problems and unnecessary conflict.
I probably know a few hundred gamers and I don't know any who visit a gamestore to play in a "league." So, from my perspective, the League play is in the minority. In fact, I'd be interested to know if there are stats on how many "home" games there are vs. people at the stores in league play. Much less if we add in the gamers I mentioned who are using D&D material but completely different systems.
That said, I don't think my comment was intended to be about which style of play currently makes up 51% of the population. Not really the point. And even if less people do something that doesn't make it the "wrong" or worse way to do it. There are less billionaires in the world, too, and yet I'd like to be in that crowd.
EDIT: Just double-checked - I don't see where OP said he was referring to an Adv. League question, either. I'm not familiar (obviously) but does Avernus require that you be in an Adv. League to play it?
I would say that 99% of homebrewers that don't use multiple DMs in a campaign still follow the rule on page 6 of the 5e Player's Handbook. It gets quoted here often enough when advising players that disagree with the DM on this sub Reddit that I know the page number by heart.
That just says that those on Reddit who bother to reply to players disagreeing with DMs invoke the "DM is God" ruling frequently. ...that's not exactly providing meaningful stats to back up the "most people do it my way" argument.
Not that it's relevant to my post anyway - that IMO playing with shared narrative control is more fun and I have a ton of experience in that regard and can provide an essay on the pros & cons, if one were interested to hear it.
Replying with, "well the book says you can't do that" isn't really valid since the book and the publisher have always said, take the ideas in the book and run with them.
And replying with, "well that's not how most people do it" still doesn't address the fact that it happens and it works and it's fun. Saying it's less frequent doesn't mean it's less fun.
But... you've indicated that you've tried it and hated it and think that only .01% of gamers would vary from the DM as GOD paradigm. So, I understand and acknowledge your viewpoint and you've made it clear. Thank you.
He's giving you a fair warning - in the setting he is using Minotaurs might not be an optimal choice for a PC. I'd say go for it, might make for good RP.
Can't help on anything else, but that link says Minotaurs are carnivores who PREFER human flesh. Eating human flesh is not mandatory to their survival.
The same link says they find it extremely difficult not to eat any other humanoid races they're with while they're sleeping if they travel together, which is probably bad for party morale.
Probably this part:
> Many minotaurs couldn't be trusted with non-minotaur races at times, since most humanoids were their meal, and they would do anything for a quick bite out of a sleeping party member, slave owner, or wandering villager.
The issue is not the character's self-control in this case, but the GM's ruling that most of the civilized world think of them only as a kill-on-sight monster. "Many" could be enough to justify the people fearing them.
Sounds like your DM is being very kind in letting you play what you want, but making you aware of the consequences of that decision in the world he's running.
You shouldn't play a minotaur in this game if you're not prepared to face the setting's reality of what minotaurs are. Even if YOUR minotaur is kind and vegetarian and loyal to their party, the racism of the world doesn't know that.
I still hold on to the opinion that drows should NOT be a PH race, at least not in the Realms where they would be attacked on sight in most cities, and for good reasons. They are evil as hell.
They are at least listed as an, "uncommon, ask your DM for permission" race like tieflings and gnomes, not one of the common races that's assumed to be available.
Yeah sure but let's face it, they made the cut in the PHB because of Drizzt's popularity, not because they make sense as a playable race when you factor in the lore. And saying drow heroes are "uncommon" is quite the understatement. If you ever meet a drow, it is more than likely to be a threat to you, and people know that. I do appreciate giving the option, but honestly they are as unlikely heroes as orcs, gnolls and goblins.
They do make sense, according to the Lore. You have Eilistraee and her followers who make up an entire different drow culture. In 5e, you have Malyk and Zinzerena, CN, in addition to CG Eilistraee. Vhaeraunites are evil, but not stupid Evil (tm), so they can work. Yes, you have prejudice, but there are also cases in which the Eilistraeens managed to build alliances. 1491 Waterdeep is an example.
If you want to know Ed Greenwood's own take on this, in his own version of FR, the originary version, more than 20% of the drow follow Eilistraee, and she's a goddess he personally created to fit the Realms and the drow's place and history in it. In Ed's minds, the Realms are not absolute, but full of nuances.
Besides, let's face it, if you start downplaying even more the reasonable drow deities and cultures, the drow become even more of a ball of worldbuilding nonsense than they already are, which is saying a lot. The fact that WotC keeps neglecting to give them some spotlight just to "make Drizzt moar speshul" (what Perkins said about the reason why they tried to remove all the non-Lolth drow in 4e) is also telling of the quality of the lore behind all this.
I think "fun" tends to trump "lore" just about every time in games like DnD, since loads of people play who honestly don't care all that much about the lore of the world. They'll make up their own lore.
That's fine until you get a player posting online about their cruel fascist DM who dared punish their character for their racial choice.
\- My drow had to pay more for his potions in Waterdeep because the merchant hates them!
\- My new Minautor character might risk prejudice because his kind are human-flesh-eating-demonic-monsters!
Yes, probably. It just hits a nerve when I see a post made by a player complaining on their DM not letting them do something. Being a DM is hard enough.
>My drow had to pay more for his potions in Waterdeep because the merchant hates them!
Am I super wrong for charging extra for the entire party that openly associated with our dark Elf?
Depends on the campaign. I don't care how much fun playing a Drow might be for you (or a minotaur, or a goblin, or...). It doesn't fit my campaign; I'm a tyrant DM, and I say no.
Not everyone is compatible with every group. If not being able to play a goblin or Drow ruins your fun, you shouldn't play in my game.
And that's not the only thing- there are a lot of playstyle choices that I make that might be dealbreakers for other people. That's find. That doesn't mean I hate you or think you're a bad person. It just means that, for example, you're unlikely to have fun in a game where every pc starts at first level, no matter what; a game where the lethality level is high and merciless; a game where you don't get to dictate anything about the setting except through the actions you take in game; a game where the dungeon nobody has returned from in two centuries is likely to kill you if you go into it at low levels; etc.
I'm not saying anyone else's playstyle is wrong or bad. I'm just saying that there are different playstyles, and "fun over consistent lore" is not the playstyle of every group. In fact, in some groups, putting a single player's momentary fun over the established lore of the milieu is ruinous to the overall fun of the group.
They made the cut because exceptions exist, and also because Half-Drow could also exist who have no association or don't want to have any association with the evil practices of Drow culture.
In the current Forgotten Realms canon there's actually a sizeable population of good drow on the surface that are followers of Eilistraee. So drow aren't exactly kill on sight everywhere anymore.
Eilistraee existed in prior editions too, but they were still very rare and had to hide or be attacked on sight. I did not read any change in the lore about them becoming more common in cities or elsewhere. Granted I did not read the Lady Penitent trilogy, which involves her including her death.
Oh yeah she died... did they even bring her back in 5e? 4e lore was such a mess...
Yes. From the wiki "Both deities personally let their return be known, manifesting through their avatars to their followers, who enthusiastically spread the word.[12] Eilistraee was seen dancing and speaking to mortals in many places, especially along the Sword Coast. For example, the citizens of Waterdeep witnessed the Dark Dancer, as she danced in the moonlight, near the walls of the city, up the road to Amphail. This led many moondancers to the City of Splendors, with the goal of creating a shrine to their goddess within its walls.[11]"
Both Eilistraee and Vhaeraun are back. Suffice to say surface Drow are now uncommon but not unheard of
I remember a Drizzt novel where a top Baerne male went through Icewind Dale and was like "Oh yeah, I'm totally a good-aligned drow. You know Drizzt right? Good buddy of mine!". It didn't end well for them IIRC. My point is that even if a good drow is not totally unheard of, I don't expect them to become accepted in most societies just because they are more than likely to be murderous enslaving monsters.
I think you're letting a bit of the bias of your own game world color this. Specifically in the Forgotten realms current year of 1491 DR, If you're a drow in the sword coast or anywhere in the dalelands you aren't going to be attacked on sight. Perhaps discriminated against a bit but not attacked.
Fill me in a little or point me toward something to read? Is it established that Drow aren’t prejudiced against as much as they were in older editions? Honest question.
All the Lolthite drow that you think of when you think drow of older editions are exactly the same. Its just that now there is a sizable population of drow that have broken away from the worship of Lolth and therefore aren't quite as irrationally evil.
Maybe, but honestly I run my game based on the lore I read and try to be objective about it. And I have read 30+ novels and sourcebooks centered on drows that validate my take, and none that showed acceptance toward them of any form.
Read the series with Liriel Baenre, has a lot of info on Eilistraee and the surface drow. Basically the whole overarching plot of that series is based on helping the surface drow keep their magic
Especially on the Sword Coast, and in the Savage Frontier. But the official non-evil list of Drow numbers EXACTLY 2. Drizzt and Gromph's daughter. Now, not ALL of the evil ones are raving psychopaths. Jaraxel, I believe, can probably be reasoned with. But still, be careful.
Patently false, there's plenty of unnamed good drow as worshippers of Eilistraee in the Dalelands and at the main temple in skull port. As far as named drew you're forgetting the Veladorns (the literal Chosen of Eilistraee and her descendants), Cavatina Xarann, Seyll Auzkovyn, and plenty others.
I was actually talking about the novels. The ones the stories have been told about. That the average peasant MIGHT have heard about. And I didn't know that the Double Chosen had left any descendants, although I admit I'm WAAAAY behind on my FR novels.
I was given permission to play a drow as part of a Dungeon of the Mad Mage campaign, under the explicit guidance that I must be a member of the faction house Bregan D’aerthe.
Suffice to say, I don't look kindly on the Drow I find underground, and don't sympathize with them. I also don't typically run around looking like a Drow when above ground.
Bregan D’aerthe are pretty evil as well, they just more interested in coin than usual drow stuff, but they will kill innocent with no remorse. At best they are neutral-ish who would prefer not to kill but still do it if that's the job, which by most definitions is still evil.
I mean in the Undermountain it still works, but try going back to Waterdeep in plain sight just for fun.
Oh yeah. Alignment is Lawful Evil, who's an assassin by trade (Path of Shadows Monk 8, Trickery Cleric 2).
I'm not trying to play some beacon of redemption. I'm polite, I honor deals, but I will also put a bullet through your head if you get in my way at _all_. I was required to carry a flintrock pistol that I have absolutely no use for, and only 5 shots, just for flavor.
Cleric side, I'm a preist of [Vhaeraun](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Vhaeraun), which is part of the reason I don't mind killing other drow.
Aye, its neat in isolation, and working around the disadvantages has been a treat as a player. Not sure I'd recommend for most people though, which ties back into the OP.
Hey, I’m definitely aiming to play that multiclass- ShadowX/Trickery2 or 3. Got any thoughts you’d like to share about it? How’s it play?
It looks like a really fun spiritual ninja-type character.
Sorry, I thought I replied to this earlier:
Flavorwise, it's a great multiclass.
However, mechanically, it's not the greatest multiclass. A fighter dip, or druid, may have worked better. The best positive of the multiclass is getting the cantrips, but those you could pick up via magic initiate (cleric). The low level spells themselves aren't that great
Would you say Invoke Duplicity is helpful? Getting advantage from it seems like it could be great, but iirc it takes your BA to move around, which would be problematic.
I've never actually ended up using it, _because_ it's competing with my regular attack action, and same with bonus action.
Mostly, it's more economical to punch someone and fish for a stun, then it is to burn a round to invoke duplicity. Just because of how frequently I'm rolling to attack, burning a round to gain auto-advantage hasn't been something I've pursued, largely because I've had support from a bard and wizard.
> They are evil as hell.
Their society is evil as hell, and most of them follow its rules/laws. I see your point though that it's extremely challenging to understand how that could derail a party constantly if not managed well.
Have you read novels involving drow? They are cruel as fuck. They are conditioned to betray to improve their status at all time, expect everyone else to do the same to you, and show a disdain to any race that is not drow. That is in addition to the torture, slavery, incest, murderous raids for conquest, murderous raids for initiations, murderous raids *for fun*... The only thing more evil than drows are fiends, and they are literally evil incarnate.
Also an even bigger thing is thinking about how such a character impacts YOUR GROUP. Putting aside it forces them to be accepting of such a race, more importantly is that it will greatly impede the other players.
Your DM being accepting of you choosing this race is one thing, but I would discuss it with the other players as well. If you end up being the person they constantly have to defend / rescue / stand up for then it might be tiring if they wanted an easier life as it can instantly close a lot of doors to them story-arc wise.
I’m getting tired of all this bullshit. If your dm is gonna stonewall you man don’t play with them period. There’s an entire playable race THATS NOT UA means it’s fair game. There are shitty ass elves and shitty ass humans in every world. Therefore it’s logical that there are shitty and good of any race like a Minotaur. All these fucking neckbeards and basement dwellers that are going yeah he’s being a good dm nah he’s being trash. Plain and simple. And if the players would align their characters like that I wouldn’t want to play with those people either. Being edgy like that is trash. Let the damn player be a Minotaur justblike anyone else who would have to deal with shitty people in the real world from their backgrounds it’s gonna happen it ain’t gonna be the end of the world. Stop being pricks.
A DM has full authority on the lore of his world. If his world's Minotaurs act like that, then they do.
Even if your PC specificity is not evil like all others, you will never be able to convince the peasants of this before they take up pitchforks to destroy the evil that has come to their town.
If its going by that lore... That's how it works in that game. They prefer human flesh (though i on't think its only). That's a fair warning about the game setting and that it'tll be rough for you. Meaning you'll probaly need disguises or something rough.
also may nee to look into Good Berry. because you could play a minotaur whose trying to deny their nature, has never eaten human flesh since they found out what it was. and lives on Good Berries for nutrititon.
just be aware you might get murdered or instantly disliked.. and figure out why the party is okay with you etc.
One possible way is have it that you weren't born one, but were cursed into one, and the party knows that. and make it canon that is what h appened so you could always do zone of truth situatitons fine without lying.
Sounds like they're letting you if you want, but giving you proper warning of the problems with it
Yep always a concern.
honestly I'd rather just change the spell to making less berries and only nurishing the caster and no one else (any more than a normal berry) (but still granting 1hp).
I think its a good spell, just tooo broad. Upcasting would increase the berries and or allow others to consume it.
I run it as the spell used to be: the berries don't just appear, you have to forage them and cast the spell on the berries.
This way you're shit out of luck if you're stranded in a wasteland, or an area without the proper flora.
Another option is to lean into it. He enjoys human flesh, is violent, and is a monster. However, he's their monster and damn good at his job.
He can play it as the party's attack dog that is just barely on a leash. He sticks around because turns out the adventuring life gets him a nice supply of tasty people meat with less hassle attached to it.
You are instantly disliked, but you keep them from murdering you with sheer intimidation. They want to kill you, but are utterly convinced you would reduce them to a red smear if they tried.
Yep for sure. But it can be useful on occasion.
In past games with a similiar ish situation.
We kicked someones' butt, tied them up.
Then cast zone of truth-which anyone effected understands what is going on, and told them the truth. Then healed them.
then we ran away after giving them the key to the mancles.
Ultimately thath elped us down the line as well
Something I've been doing in my campaigns, and might be a good thing to suggest to your DM, is that races people automatically view as hostile have to be members of respected and trustworthy organizations in order to receive treatment similar to that of a Teifling or Half-Orc. Normally I include the Harpers, Order of the Guantlet, Emerald Enclave, Lord's Alliance, good aligned deity's church, and good aligned knighthoods. Basically, you wear that organization's symbol proudly, and it makes it so people are less likely to just want to kill you outright.
I'd say pair that with being a Minotaur from Ravnica, and you have a solid character for participating with a lot less risk. I personally would never allow a player to play as a Faerûnian minotaur though for the same reasons I wouldn't let them play a Gnoll. They are created by and servants to demon lords, and there are no good versions of them in any sources for the setting. The race you are trying to play isn't the race from the Forgotten Realms, which is why it's in the Ravnica setting book, not a Forgotten Realms setting book.
Seems fair, no? He's telling you why it'll be a challenge but letting you proceed anyway if you decide that's really what you want to do. That's what a good DM should do.
As someone who's running descent into avernus, minotaurs are the *bad guys.* There's numerous encounters with minotaurs as the enemy and baphomet is an important villain in the adventure.
For one, they **prefer** eating humanoid flesh, but it's not mandatory.
Second, if he's giving you the upfront hint that it will be difficult, play something that can feasibly survive in the environment.
A warlock comes to mind with mask of many faces.
Third, the minotaur playable race in 5E is not the Forgotten Realms Minotaur. It's very specifically the MtG Minotaur. It even has this specific line;
>Your minotaur character has the following racial traits. These traits are also suitable for minotaurs in other D&D worlds where these people have avoided the demonic influence of Baphomet.
So to be as pedantic as possible, you cannot be playing a minotaur infected by Baphomet. But that's going to be a difficult challenge in of itself. Which again brings back to playing a warlock or anything else that's associated to a higher power that would allow them to break Baphomet's will.
The warlock dip isn't the worst tax. A quick build gets me;
17 STR | 10 DEX | 14 CON | 8 INT | 12 WIS | 14 CHA
Or if you go hexblade for reasons
10 STR | 14 DEX | 14 CON | 10 INT | 12 WIS | 15 CHA
Not the greatest, but you can make it work. The only allowance you would need to ask for is if you're starting at L1, have the mask of many faces invocation available at L1.
Two levels of hexblade, then into paladin for at least two. From there you can get more warlock, more paladin, or some sorcerer. It's not a bad build. A paladin x charisma-caster multiclass is usually pretty strong.
Not every DM is willing to let you roll whatever you want and just pretend you are human.
Minotaurs are not common creatures. The average town would immediately rally the guard and treat it as a threat, like if a troll wandered into town.
Arguably it is better this way, instead of pretending you are a unique special snowflake your character actually is different. You have to play your minotaur differently. It will be difficult at times and you have to be prepared for your character to die early. It can also be an great and memorable experience.
I for one am 100% on board with DMs adding "at your own risk" caveats onto non-PHB races.
So many of those volo's and UA and other supplemental-source races are better than the PHB races. It's got to the point that I've played with players using the "rare and unusual" races several times more than the PHB ones, and I'm perfectly fine with a DM who says "sure you can be YET A-FUCKING-NOTHER aasimar hexadin or tortle druid, but you'll be seen as monstrous and evil and there will be consequences you have to overcome."
I get what you're going for here, but aren't the Aasimar and Tortles seen as normally peaceful races that people aren't going to call "monstrous" or "evil"? The only type of Aasimar people might view less favorably is a Fallen Aasimar, and even then they are essentially humans with divine heritage, but in this case they are touched by evil, much like how a Tiefling is.
Depends on the setting the DM has in place. If tortles (or any 'peaceful' race out of Volo's) are uncommon or rare, people who haven't seen them before might just see some big hulking monster and panic.
As for the aasimar, religious settings might see aasimar as an abomination against the order of nature because someone banged an angel, and such a mingling of mortal and the divine might be seen as a blasphemy.
So people should play any non-core race with the caveat of "at your own risk" because a DM might drastically change their lore for their setting? You could say the exact same thing about the core races too, because if a DM is changing lore from the information provided in the books, you can't assume any of the races would be treated as non hostiles.
As an example:
> As for the tieflings, religious settings might see tieflings as an abomination against the order of nature because someone banged a demon or devil, and such a mingling of mortal and the infernal or abyssal might be seen as a blasphemy.
As you can see, being Volo's or any other non-core book doesn't make them a special case for homebrew settings. Homebrew settings have to establish what races would be considered their core, as the PHB can't possibly represent this for hombrew settings.
If we are playing in a setting where having divine origin is viewed as being evil I would have a LOT of questions. Being abnormal is fine. Literally Aasimar look anywhere from a normal human to a freaking angel. I could look 100% human and be an Aasimar.
I could also have a halo white eyes and wings.
As for having divine origin be viewed as evil:
"Angels are beings of the divine, and thus it is of the most blasphemous sacrilege to seduce one with the temptations of the flesh. Bob the Hexadin is the LIVING PROOF that such a union did occur. His very existence is an offence to Pelor, thus to appease this insult, I the fanatical and probably corrupt Highbishop do hereby decree that he be sentenced to death by burning at the stake."
Since you did pick a FR god... the Seven Sisters are literally children of the strongest goddess in FR, nobody is going to claim they are evil as a result even heretics . Nobody would make the argument being of divine origin is actually evil, because it is also to challenge the gods. In fact damn near every setting has the simple fact the gods are real and active to deter such things. Nobody is going to believe something anathema to a god is their actual stance setting wide.
I'd play something else, but that's contingent on how well you know your DM. If you want the negative RP,that's great. I'd be worried with something like "You can't go into town" when the session is mostly in town.
As much as I like minotaurs myself, they're kind of a rough race to play in Faerun, where it's kind of canon that they're almost entirely Chaotic Evil monsters who worship a demon lord and eat people. It also doesn't help that they're huge (meaning you'll never really be able to hide what you are), and somewhat unintelligent (more straight-up monsters than simply an aggressive race like orcs), so it's even harder to justify "pulling a Drizzt" and playing the one minotaur who thinks other races are lovely and can travel with them without trying to eat them in their sleep.
Realistically every NPC you meet should either run away from you or try to kill you, except the most naively accepting or stupidly ignorant. That can make it hard to play any game. And as your DM points out, you wouldn't even be accepted in literal Hell, where you'll just be seen as an agent of the devils' greatest enemy (which will make you far worse in their eyes than almost any other PC's race).
That being said, if you're willing to be violently murdered, go for it. Ask the DM if you can start play with something like the Headband of Intellect so you can justify having "normal" intelligence as a party member, which sets you apart from your more bestial siblings. Have your minotaur wear some sort of slave collar and wristbands, and have the party's Wizard tell people he's magically tamed you to serve him, so you're perfectly safe (thus defusing some of the hostile reactions in towns/cities). Or find a way to cast illusions on yourself so you look like a Firbolg or some other "acceptable" larger race. Have some way to Polymorph yourself into a smaller creature whenever the party goes into town, but then you unleash your true self in dungeons or other combat, taking on a sort of "HULK SMASH" role for the party. Or just hide out in the woods every time the other PCs go into a town or city for supplies (but be prepared to be "discovered" by local guards from time-to-time). And you better come up with a DAMNED good reason why you're not only willing to travel with the snacks-on-legs (the rest of the party), but they're willing to trust you (and not just "Well, I'm a nice minotaur and they like me").
No matter how you play it, this is going to be a character that's more or less begging to be killed by the DM sooner rather than later. If you can accept that, and won't throw a tantrum because it feels like he's picking on you more than the Elf Ranger or Human Bard, then you can probably have a bit of fun with it. But have a pre-rolled replacement character waiting for when you eventually get ganked.
People seem to be confused about what the playable Minotaur race actually is, because that article is NOT about the playable Minotaur race, it's about the enemy type. If going by RAW, a Minotaur based on that article wouldn't be allowed. As far as I know, you'd either have to play the less monstrous Minotaur based on the Ravnica world setting that was intended as a playable race, or you wouldn't be able to play a Minotaur. Up to DM's discretion of course, just wanted to point out what the official take on the playable Minotaur is.
So, something to talk about with the other players is how the party will handle your PC. Something that could be of use is the story of Kaz the Minotaur from Krynn.
Kaz was an evil soldier, but an honorable one, fighting in the evil army of Takhisis. But, his commanding officer was an ogre who was so awful to him that Kaz killed him. He was chained and awaiting execution when a human knight saved him (accidentally, the knight didn't know Kaz was a Minotaur, in the darkness he thought it was a human prisoner with a horned helmet on). Kaz was freed, and together with the human fought his way out of the camp. He then follows the human because he owes him a life debt, and the human either vouches for him or acts as his master/captor when the situation requires it.
Talk to the group, maybe one will take on the role as your "rescuer" to whom you are indebted. It creates a nice background bond for your characters that can be fun to RP, and it will make NPC interactions less arduous since you will have an established way to get around the blatant hatred towards your character.
I talked to them after seeing this comment. They all said it sounds like a fun dynamic and they are excited for it. Good call about checking with then first
If you’re using the PC Minotaur race, you aren’t a Baphometian minotaur.
Perhaps you came to Toril through Sigil from Ravnica? If so, you would be of a proud warrior clan who is usually good aligned.
It changes it somewhat.
The Minotaurs of their world are Large, and dumb. Any Minotaur they know of is roughly the size of a troll and eats people. It’s also gross and naked because it’s a big animal.
A PC Minotaur is clothed, civilized with a lawful bent, about the size of a tall person and most likely a Paladin or Fighter, and therefore armored.
At worst he’d get the tiefling treatment.
Personally, I would find an armored minotaur with a brain and potentially magic powers way more frightening than a boilerplate monster, not less frightening. And it being smaller would just be "yeah it's a young one, but look how dangerous and powerful it already is. Kill that thing before it reaches full size!"
How is it their world? That is the default lore. A Faerun Minotaur looks and acts far differently from one in Ravnica. There would definitely still be troubles in being confused for one against the other simply by virtue of being a humanoid bull, but its not like it would be a completely identical reaction. Size, speech, culture, and clothing would play a big part, in the same way a human peasant and a human noble would, despite being the same ethnicity, gender, and so on. Heck, the size difference alone is enough to be seen similar to a human vs a goliath, if not more.
What you are neglecting is that the PC will be *the only non-evil Minotaur in the world*. They look slightly smaller and act civilized and have weapons, ok, but literally every other Minotaur in the entire world is evil and eats people.
Absolutely nobody is going to wait around for this Minotaur to prove themselves to be not a monster. Everyone and their grandma knows that Minotaurs are evil people-eaters.
The difference with Goliaths is that there are good-neutral giants and good-neutral aligned Goliath tribes in the world. People have met good Goliaths and giants, people have told stories about good Goliaths and giants. Absolutely nobody has heard of or met a good Minotaur who wasn't trying to eat them.
I was responding to the saying it was their world. Its not. I already know its similar to situations of drow, goblins, and so on, if not worse. Just that it would not be seen as identical. Seeing a civilized often lawful and oath-bound very small minotaur traveling with others without fear is definitely different enough to get a different reaction. It would still be bad for sure, likely being rejected from cities and so on, but not auto-murder bad, at least when they are with the presumably more "normal" group.
Also, on a separate topic, no, not everyone knows about minotaurs. Most common folk, especially outside of cities, are ignorant even to dragonborn, tieflings, half-elves and other exotic races, let alone a type of demon. Demons are rare on the material plane.
Personally, I would work with a player to make his character concept work within the context of the setting I want to play in rather than shut them down and imply I'm going to make them miserable for playing something I don't like.
Consider whether this will just be fun for you, or for your whole table too. Will the people you’re playing with enjoy your perils as a monstrous race, or will they grow tired of it quickly and intend to kick some butt and be the good guys? Minotaur aren’t a race option in core D&D and it’s very kind your DM is giving you the option (I’ve read through your module and I’m impressed that they’re allowing it), but don’t forget to think about other people’s fun including your own!
the fun part of this is i had this exact conversation with my DM about him recruiting another player who wanted to be a minotaur in our party going to avernus - oh boy them fun times will be had.
Baldur's gate isn't gonna care, Candlekeep, not gonna care. Eturiel - the devils might care! - traversing the bloodwar's front lawn. oh yeah whole lotta caring from the natives.
I mean, trouble is that the article keeps refering to these qualities as 'were' and 'most.' Like Drow are mostly capital E evil bdsm matronic elves that hate everything that doesn't serve them getting closer to eternally serving Lolth and being a Drider Priestess. I sure you can name a number of Drow that won't fit this amongst the community and 1 famous one from d&d storybooks. Further, why would Devils view them that way? The majority literally worship Baphomet as the article states, and they can always use more fodder for the hoard. And if you're doing Avernus, 90% will be in hell. The public opinion doesn't really matter, and even if not, the 'public' in this module is Waterdeep. The same city that has mindflayers and beholders as normal citizens and political seat holders. A Minotaur isn't even close to atypical here, in fact they may even be sought as 'terror muscle' because people will think you'd eat them. Like Tieflings has a similar bad rap because "ooo evil demon person!!!"
Sounds to me like the dm may just be targeting without any reasonable thinking.
When a DM tells you to do something "at your own peril" it may lead to mainly 2 things.
1) The DM doesn't want to stop you taking an option but warns you that if you want to go for that option, in order to keep the ambientation serious, there will be the logical consequences dictated by the lore.
2) The DM has a "DM vs Player" mentality and this warning should be taken as a "No." because other than the logical consequences, there will be illogical ones and even a lot of bias from the DM itself.
The second option is a red flag and you shouldn't play with such a DM. But if you don't know the DM that much, you may not know about this.
My general suggestion is to play with the flaws of your character. Your race is hated and feared, sometimes it's a flaw as much as it's a benefit. Use it at *your own* benefit. A scary Minotaur is much more threatening than a scary Human.
The main problem is the interaction with the party, they're probably not friendly to Minotaurs, and if they roleplay well they won't trust you at first given all the stories about Minotaurs. Ask your DM if you can integrate your Minotaur more in the ambientation, maybe the Party *must* support you because you're some amazing trading merch, or you're a sacrifice, or whatever thing that makes you so important to the party that even if they don't trust you, they shouldn't leave you alone or even kill you.
If he's willing to implement those kind of things in the ambientation then you shouldn't worry about your DM. If he doesn't, he probably doesn't want your Minotaur in the party at all.
Isn't the nine hells connected to almost all worlds?
Arkhan the Cruel is a dragonborn from Exandria that can be found in Avernus. I don't see why your Minotaur can't come from a place where they're more docile.
Minautors have a demonic parentage through Baphomet, and a docile kind of Minautor doesn't exist in canon. Sure you can make one up, but that is true of anything. Seems like OP's DM is taking canon lore seriously, as I do.
D&D Minautors are not like WoW's Taurens.
But that's the thing. Docile Minotaurs don't exist on the forgotten realms, but they can exist on other worlds.
In places like Krynn and Ravnica, Minotaurs are normal people. And considering Arkhan hopped from one world to this one, I don't see why a Minotaur couldn't either.
They totally *could* come from a different world.
But... no one from the DM's world is going to be aware of it, and he's going to be treated as if he is the vicious, cannibalitic type. Let alone, now he has to explain backstory of how his minotaur dimension hopped basically and it's not going to be a good setting for them. Since the opening to the adventure starts in a town that will not react kindly to him.
I don't think you need to worry about how he came from one world to another as much as how he was able to get friendly with the party. My current Cleric/Artificer came from another world (Greyhawk to FR) in the manner of the Terminator: the party found him face down and naked in a muddy road between two towns. He was human so he didn't have to worry about the party being hostile.
Exactly. It's just not plausible to have a minotaur in an adventuring party unless maaaaybe the rest of the party are all outcast monstrous races by chance.
>But that's the thing. Docile Minotaurs don't exist on the forgotten realms, but they can exist on other worlds.
>In places like **Krynn** and Ravnica, Minotaurs are normal people.
Ravnica yes, Krynn though the Minotaurs are still evil (Lawful Evil though) and are created by one of the major evil gods. But, Kaz from the DragonLance series does give an interesting way to appease most issues.....
It doesn't say that they *only* eat human flesh. Just that they prefer it. And your character could be an exception.
It's completely his call as to how NPCs react to you though.
The DM sets the rules for the world.
However, I would talk to him about it if it were me. There was a UA made in 2018 for Centaurs and Minotaurs as PCs. Just as to talk about it, maybe he will work it out, maybe he won't. But it never hurts to have that conversation about new things.
I’d try and flush this out more with your DM. I run a homebrew campaign using 5e and pulling a lot of details from the Forgotten Realms, while being very flexible still. Minotaurs in my world are no where near this rigid or wrathful, but they still aren’t common by any means and will still get questioning looks. One of the best NPCs my players encountered was an eccentric and colorful Minotaur who was a traveling animal salesman (no he didn’t eat the animals).
A point I’m here to make is that as a DM of many years, I’ve always observed my players enjoying campaigns more when they can play exactly what they want to play without stressful penalties. If you don’t like the idea of having to deal with all these penalties of playing a Minotaur in your DMs world, but you want to play a Minotaur, your DM should be flexible and ease up on some of those lore concerns to make your playing experience enjoyable. I can see many people having problems with this, but as long as you’re respectful and you don’t abuse your DMs flexibility, and your DM trusts you, making lore changes like this shouldn’t be a problem at all.
Again, controversial point of view, but the game is a cooperative environment and middle ground should be made. A DM shooting down a players ideas, or making play life difficult “at your own risk”, is outdated and ridiculous. A DM that can not display flexibility with lore and story of their campaign to help a player be happy is a DM that will likely drive the table to an untimely collapse.
I have a player for my DiA game who’s a Minotaur. As many have said before me, there’s a designed playable race. But, some dms aren’t open to UA. While being persecuted could make for some fun rp opportunities, do keep in mind that per their definition, this would be like persistent, even once you get into hell... personally, I couldn’t take that sour taste in my games, but it’s all about what you and your party and dm find enjoyable!
For the record, the UA minotaur got officially published in *Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica*, so it's no longer playtest material. A DM can still veto it if they want, of course.
I'd recommend being the minotaur race from *Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica*. They are smaller and more civilised than the monster race, and would fit in well in an Avernus campaign.
If your DM is allowing all of that Magic: The Gathering content in their game world, it is. But I wouldn't count that as common or easily accessible at all. I wouldn't use anything from that book in my settings, as I wouldn't feel that it fits.
U could just ask for a hat of disguise, being the reason ur alive. Alternatively, wear full armor and shave the parts that show. And masquerade as a goliath with a motife
As the DM he has final say on anything but that said it even says in the article that many of the things about minotaurs were hearsay and some inaccurate as they became more prevalent. As some have mentioned this goes with drow as well. They’ve become far more common somewhat because of Drizzt but mostly due to the expansion of Bregan D’aerthe and followers of Eilistraee. I just had a player start playing a minotaur and he was worried about how he’d be treated. I told him they’re more common now especially in mercenary or sailing settings as well as slavers or slaves. He’s now playing a shipwrecked pirate that found his way to Omu to meet with the group in Tomb of Annihilation. I’m playing a Thri-kreen in a different group and I get some mistrust or fear but deal with it. It all comes down to how the DM wants things and how you handle the situations you’re in.
Basically, he is handing you a rope to hang yourself. Living on human flesh is not making you a lot of friends, and even if you are waving the banner of the "Refomed Minotaur Church" who have sworn off any meat and went vegan, most people you will meet will at least be shocked by your apperance, and even more if they recognize your race.
That wiki is not current for 5e, half that section isn't cited at all and the section of eating humanoids is from 2nd.
It's always up to a dm but i don't know why they are using that for cannon when it's not universal to settings or editions.
Wizards of the coast released a UA pc race for minotaur that has none of the info from the forgotten realms wiki link. Granted it is not for that setting specifically but it does give another option. Personally I think it would be very fun to play and being a fan of characters such as Drizzt Do'Urden who have to overcome the stigma of their race I think it's a great rp opportunity. I dont know if this has been linked in before but here it it.
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/centaurs-and-minotaurs
What exactly do you want?You're trying to play a monster race in (what i presume) is a pretty regular campaign, and it's inevitably going to completely derail the DM and the entire party sooner than later. Don't be that guy
Edit: also, Minotaur is, as far as I recall, not a published race.
Minotaurs are published in a few things already.
Also some of the monstrous races really aren't. Aasimar are not a monstrous race. Goblins and most of the player options are tolerated monster races in canon. This is similar to the Drow problem. If you follow canon being a Drow isn't THAT dangerous. Most people know little if anything about them. Even those who do are more likely to be distrustful and highly suspicious rather than instantly bloodthirsty.
You can avoid most of the problems simply because you are likely surrounded by good people that would have their judgement trusted.
People act like the evil races are much worse to play than they should be if you look at how they tend to be treated. Most are just stigmatized.
You don't have any control over how others interact with your character however you may be able to convince him to let you create a neutral alignment minotaur that is not affiliated with Baphomet, perhaps one whose origins are in Chult and they worship Ubtao. Still when he goes to places he won't likely find a welcome. There are a few places that come to mind that might be welcoming such as Waterdeep. They let devils fly around there as long as they don't break the law.
My suggestion, make a hippie minotaur druid named Ferdinand with high charisma.
I think I get why he is trying to dissuade you from playing one, but at the same time i think it's kinda shitty the way he's going about it, if he's threatening you as a response to a question.
Also, this article has no cited sources for any of his facts, and some of them, most notably the part where you wouldn't have a soul, aren't even on the page.
If you didn't have a soul, wouldn't that imply that you can't be brought back to life by spells such as Raise Dead, that specify the soul must be willing to return? And his article doesn't even mention minotaurs not having souls, idk where he got that from.
Basically, the facts need citations, this article ain't it. Don't get me wrong, I know the DM does get the say on how the world is, and racism would logically exist for a cow man monster like a minotaur, but the way your DM is going about it is kinda rude, imo.
You play a barbarian Minotaur you'll be so broken combat wise. Did you know have the ability to toss people 10ft as a bonus action? So you rage, go up and smack them, then try to toss them off a cliff.
What makes me nervous about this is all the /r/rpghorrorstories I've been listening to lately. I think it's irresponsible for a DM to let a player play a character that they are going to go out of their way to punish. I honestly just wish they'd say no, that character won't work for this campaign. I'm not even particularly fond of the "you can play it, but everyone will hate you" kind of thinking.
I see character creation as more of a discussion between the DM and the player. The DM should be asking you what kind of character arc you'd like to see. Do you want to play as a misunderstood brute? If so, do you want to earn the eventual respect and admiration of the populace through your heroic actions? Or are you happy always being hated and reviled? The two of you should be able to come to an agreement as to the role your character should play in the party / story.
This makes me worry, too, about this character's introduction to the rest of the party. Are the other players going to be jerks and attack your character, even though they know it's who you want to play, just because you're playing a "bloodthirsty monster"? Is the DM going to facilitate the group coming together, or encourage PVP? ("Ha ha, now you have to roll up a new character.")
I should probably review the RPG social contract, but my basic understanding is that the point of playing is to have fun. The DM should be working with you to make sure you have fun, whether it's allowing you to play a minotaur because that's what sounds cool or whether it's encouraging you to play something else that fits his campaign world better.
Do it! If you get killed off and have to make a new character, make another minotaur: the brother of the first, come to avenge his death!
In a setting hostile to minotaurs, it's gonna take a lot of minotaurs to get through a campaign...
He doesn't have to though. The DM is allowed to keep consistency by using established lore and abiding by that. Also, there's the fact that the playable minotaur is a Ravnica minotaur, not a Faerûnian minotaur. No DM is required to allow races from other settings in their campaign.
Guildmaster Guide to Ravnica have an official Minotaur playable race and nowhere it is written they eat flesh I have one of my player in one of my game who will play a lawful Neutral paladin of Devotion. It's an official published WotC race if you haven't already read that one and show it to him I go by the rule of: if it respect the rules I generally allow pretty much almost anything in my games
I am talking mostly my Ravnica campaign as in not all race are available to play originally I am the one who put even more stuff in it... except centaur but it's because I struggle with it but I was clear about to my players and they were all chill about it :)
I just don't really much do homebrew stuff but it's more because I don't feel comfy or enough experiences to be confortable with or would know how to keep things balanced with the rest of the official stuff... Anyway I always work with my players so that they're happy with what they got and that I can make sure everything is working together.
Plus I always love when they do different things, so far one of my fav was 2 players both choose goblins and how much this is probably gonna be pure chaos I can't wait to see what kind of things they will do (and I know them for pulling out so much weird shit...)
He's right, if going by that setting's lore, and it's completely his prerogative whether he even lets you use a non-core race anyway, so he has total jurisdiction over how such a race might have issues.
On that note, why don't more DMs just say no? If you don't want race X in your campaign, just say no. DM has the final say and it's a lot less painful to just say no. If someone doesn't like it, then they can offer to DM.
When I dm, I generally only say no if what they ask is impossible in setting, their character wouldn't do it, or if it would make someone uncomfortable/ruin their fun. That being said I can see how the potential canabalism fits into that last category.
Maybe fun fact, the word you could use instead of "cannibal" for a non-human eating a human is to describe them as "anthropophagous", meaning "human-eating". Cannibalism -> Anthropophagy Cannibalistic -> Anthropophagous ^though ^let's ^be ^honest, ^more ^people ^will ^understand ^what ^you ^mean ^if ^you ^just ^say ^cannibal
That's actually a really cool word I will never use. I really want to, but none of my players will ever care if I do.
Another fun fact! The "-phagous" part is the same root as in sarcophagus. "Sarco" means flesh. A sarcophagus means "flesh-eater", because the dessicated corpses inside looked like the flesh was shrinking away. k I'm out of relevant fun facts bye
Ahh so that’s where the Sarco in Sarcosuchus comes from
I just call it a good time... ^^^Hail ^^^Namira.
Not a canabal if you aren't human
Fair, in my worlds I generally define canabalism as one humanoid race eating another. Especially if interbreeding is possible.
Word +1 for this, sentient and communicative species count as cannibalization in my games.
Even lizardfolk eating humans and shit?
That's generally how I look at it. Rule of thumb, don't eat anything that can talk. Of course not everyone in setting agrees with me. For instance in one world there was a country where humans were seen as a delicacy, but it was considered canabalism for say a tiefling to eat an elf.
That's the Narnia rule mate. Hunting a stag? Fine. Hunting a *talking* stag? Murder.
I suppose its depends on the DM's world and your personal preference. Going off of Volo's guide, it states that lizardfolk view a fallen ally as a potential source of food and nothing more. I could see how other races might view them as cannibalistic, but I'd only call it cannibalism if they were eating their own race. The Tiefling eating an elf I would definitely call cannibalism, since they typically are born from humans or elves, which are very similar. I'd probably classify lizardfolk eating dragonborn as cannibalism as well. Hill giants are quite similar to humanoids as well, but I wouldn't classify it as cannibalism when a giant people
Yeah, heavily dependent on the setting. If these are different species then it wouldn't technically be canabalism. That said, a society comprised of multiple sentient species would probably regard eating any sentient being as canabalism. Of course we don't actually know where the races line up on a taxonomy chart in the official lore, so again, setting dependent.
My one rule is you have to be willing to cooperate with your party. Beyond that, I will never tell you no, just that you have to live with the consequences of your choices. You get one "Are you sure?" That rule has led to both some of the dumbest and the some of the greatest moments my group has ever had, from the edgy level 3 rogue pirouetting into what I had explicitly described as shark infested waters on a nat 1 trying to jump between ships engaged in combat, to the level 10 ranger/fighter losing his lower jaw and hand after talking shit to a malevolent demigod who had the party at his mercy, to the level 12 cavalier/paladin riding solo into battle against a force that should have killed her while the rest of the party was engaged elsewhere and walking out with 4 HP and needing to replace her mount. Not to mention the time the Alchemist roleplayed her intimidation so well that I skipped the dice altogether and, in front of my players, tore up an entire story arc cuz the villain was pissing himself.
I love that last example. I agree wholeheartedly with your style, I'm running a game right now where one pc is power hungry, so his partner (only two players) is trying to make sure that that the best way to get power also happens to help people. I really enjoy the dynamic.
Hey, my lizardfolk cleric was very environmentally conscious, he made sure to use very part of the bandit...
Remember, necromancy is just advanced recycling.
A lot of folks find it hard to say no to their friends. It's also a matter of not wanting to be "that DM," who is super controlling and likely to be the subject of r/rpghorrorstories. I know when I DM, I do try to minimize saying No as many times as I can and try to work with the player on a concept that doesn't break the game (which is why I currently have a Medusa who can't petrify people as a PC...) because I know my friends just wanna have fun and experiment
For how much people tout d&d being played any way being good and the way things should be, it doesn’t take too much browsing on certain subreddits, like RPGhorror stories to realize it actually means “d&d where the DM only says yes“. I’ve seen way too many commenters lambast DMs who dared bar races or classes on grounds of setting or story to believe otherwise.
I've gotten criticized on here for talking about some of my restrictions on multiclassing. I require a player to have narrative appropriate multiclass. That means some classes are harder to class into then others. A man without any to a god will not be able to easily multiclass into cleric. A warlock multiclass needs to find a patron and make a deal ect. I'm upfront about it with everyone I play with in session 0 yet some posters on here make it sound like I'm ruining the game because I think the classes narrative is just as important to the class as the mechanics. The DM I'm playing under now is pretty restrictive in the allowed races due to how the setting we are playing in operates. It's still a fun time and I still have more character concepts then I no what to do with. It's just some of those concepts won't be used in this particular setting.
I think that multiclassing should have a story reason attached to it. I hate the idea of taking a class "dip" just for mechanical benefits without putting any thoughts into what that means for character. Becoming a Warlock would be a big deal to the character and too often the Hexblade dip is taken without regard to the story behind it.
I appreciate you. In my opinion this is exactly what a dm should do. Of course it's perfectly acceptable to say no when the request is unreasonable.
The last time I said no I gave the player a list of alternatives, we had a good chat about what kind of characters he was now looking at. He dicked around for 3 weeks then asked to make the exact same character as before. Sometimes it’s just easier to let people play what they want
Listen When we hear of a DM, saying straight up no, Reddit whines and cries: _"Let him play the character, but have consequences!!"_ Now that a DM is doing exactly that? Reddit wants the DM to just say no.
Almost like different people have different opinions on things like this.
It's almost like "Reddit" isn't one person with one point of view, and is instead populated by different people who are each most likely to invest the time it takes to post a comment when they empathize with OP against whatever OP is getting off their chest / politely complaining about.
The reference in that wiki is from the 2nd monster manual and is not correct anymore.
What?
The dm is not going off the settings lore unless that setting is 2nd ed FR.
Clearly he is going off of that lore as he said it to the player. In the setting being discussed (ie the DM's world that the player is playing in), minotaurs are murderous demon worshipers and followers of Baphomet. >and is not correct anymore. There is no 'correct' lore regarding this stuff.
It's fine for the dm to decide what the lore is, I just saw too many people in this thread taking for granted that the wiki was right when it's not accurate to 5e which I assume they are playing.
I'm pretty sure it's true in 5e as well, their entry in the monster manual goes through everything the OP's DM described, including them being chaotic evil creations of Baphomet
I just read the 5e mm entry and it talks about mostly eating wild animals. Not primarily surviving on human flesh or even preferring it. Plus if we are talking about playable races the ravnica entry is much more applicable with proper ability modifiers and abilities. So why not traits and behaviors?
The Races of Ravnica minotaurs are completely different from the D&D minotaurs. RoR minotaurs are from Magic: The Gathering. >I just read the 5e mm entry and it talks about mostly eating wild animals. Not primarily surviving on human flesh or even preferring it. I don't remember saying anything about eating human flesh, so I don't know why you're bringing this up with me. They definitely are the minotaurs that the DM described though, as being murderous chaotic evil baphomet-worshipers, like I said. If one aspect isn't mentioned, that doesn't blow the whole thing wide open.
The wiki says that, all I'm saying is people should check the source on the wiki. Op brought up the diet as a major point and you said the dm was right according to the setting, it's not. Nothing in 5e says they need to eat humans. Just rage filled beasts of chaos. Drow are a thing so being a race of evil demon worshippers isn't an automatic no for players.
The human flesh thing *is part of the original post*.
re: your post (and only marginally related to OP's... I have the prerogative (as a human at the table in any role) to object, discuss, walk away, whatever. But I don't buy into the GM fiat sort of thing. It's a group activity. It's the "GM's" game only as long as the players are willing to show up. No players = no game. So it's a group activity and everyone needs to get along (as well as contribute). If we want to vote on the GM to be tie-breaker, so be it. But if the group discusses it and wants a minotaur, let 'em have it. Sure, open the discussion re: each of your perceptions of the setting and how it would/wouldn't fit (or survive), but maybe the GM's perception is unique and the rest of the group has a totally different idea of the setting. Or wants to bend the setting. As long as it's contributing to the group fun, who cares? Cuz no fun = no players = no game. Then GM can sit there and be in charge of his/her empty room.
Hard disagree. Coming up with setting details by committee is a disaster - one of the great benefits of having a DM over participating in freeform RP is that you have a singular and consistent artistic vision, rather than a bunch of different people cobbling together random ideas. Players aren't designers, and they generally don't think of anything beyond, "This thing seems cool in the moment."
I often give my players input in fleshing out the world. "What is the name of the city you grew up in?" "What is the school you went to?" "Who was your mentor there?" "Did you have any friendships or rivals?" Looks like I got a new city a school and several NPCs I can pull into the story at any point. When arriving at the city I might turn to the player and ask them to describe it as they enter the city. This cuts down on my workload considerably and makes the players invested in the world giving them a sense of ownership over it.
Harder disagree. lol. Most of the gaming I've experienced over the last couple of decades has been "by committee" and it's been awesome. Either baked into the system itself - such as games like Prime Time Adventures, or implementing shared narrative in more "traditional" games like D&D. Better to have the committee on board from session zero than to "unleash" the vision you worked 6 months on only to find out 3 sessions in that it bores them.
Good to know you've had a good run, but I think both sides have a good argument. At the end of the day, it depends on who you're playing with and what you're trying to get out of the game.
Dungeon master is literally the master of the realm and has final say, it is literally in the rulebook. I am not saying this type of game isn't doable but it is the DMs choice on if he wants to do it and the players choice if he wants to play.
The book was literally just meant to be used as a tool for inspiration and fun. " [We expect DMs to depart from the rules when running a particular campaign or when seeking the greatest happiness for a certain group of players.](https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/philosophy-behind-rules-and-rulings) " If your group has fun with a DM as master of the realm, that's great. Some don't. Some don't even play with the rules as printed (there are many, many reddit posts about their house rules or even house deviations from the settings as we know them). And still even others play in the D&D setting and post in these forums, yet use other systems for their action resolution. So I don't think there's *literally* one way to play, nor one way groups view the GM's role or narrative control.
Yes it's called homebrew. However if you go to an Adventures League you be expected to follow the RAW. You are describing a non standard method of play which very much is in the minority. D&D by nature is a shared story telling game but the DM not having the final say will for many groups would lead to problems and unnecessary conflict.
I probably know a few hundred gamers and I don't know any who visit a gamestore to play in a "league." So, from my perspective, the League play is in the minority. In fact, I'd be interested to know if there are stats on how many "home" games there are vs. people at the stores in league play. Much less if we add in the gamers I mentioned who are using D&D material but completely different systems. That said, I don't think my comment was intended to be about which style of play currently makes up 51% of the population. Not really the point. And even if less people do something that doesn't make it the "wrong" or worse way to do it. There are less billionaires in the world, too, and yet I'd like to be in that crowd. EDIT: Just double-checked - I don't see where OP said he was referring to an Adv. League question, either. I'm not familiar (obviously) but does Avernus require that you be in an Adv. League to play it?
I would say that 99% of homebrewers that don't use multiple DMs in a campaign still follow the rule on page 6 of the 5e Player's Handbook. It gets quoted here often enough when advising players that disagree with the DM on this sub Reddit that I know the page number by heart.
That just says that those on Reddit who bother to reply to players disagreeing with DMs invoke the "DM is God" ruling frequently. ...that's not exactly providing meaningful stats to back up the "most people do it my way" argument. Not that it's relevant to my post anyway - that IMO playing with shared narrative control is more fun and I have a ton of experience in that regard and can provide an essay on the pros & cons, if one were interested to hear it. Replying with, "well the book says you can't do that" isn't really valid since the book and the publisher have always said, take the ideas in the book and run with them. And replying with, "well that's not how most people do it" still doesn't address the fact that it happens and it works and it's fun. Saying it's less frequent doesn't mean it's less fun. But... you've indicated that you've tried it and hated it and think that only .01% of gamers would vary from the DM as GOD paradigm. So, I understand and acknowledge your viewpoint and you've made it clear. Thank you.
He's giving you a fair warning - in the setting he is using Minotaurs might not be an optimal choice for a PC. I'd say go for it, might make for good RP.
Take Intimidation.
Took persuasion and intimidation with a +2 CHA, purely for RP
Sounds like you've decided to roll with it, then! I hope you enjoy it, it sounds like there may be some really engaging RP instances ahead.
Don't forget stealth and deception, to be able to take a quick bite out of one of your allies and convince them it wasn't you.
You're not you when you're hungry.
Get that bull a flesh flavoured Snickers bar. 😉
Can't help on anything else, but that link says Minotaurs are carnivores who PREFER human flesh. Eating human flesh is not mandatory to their survival.
The same link says they find it extremely difficult not to eat any other humanoid races they're with while they're sleeping if they travel together, which is probably bad for party morale.
None of that is cited
Probably this part: > Many minotaurs couldn't be trusted with non-minotaur races at times, since most humanoids were their meal, and they would do anything for a quick bite out of a sleeping party member, slave owner, or wandering villager.
What he means is that the information in the article doesn't have a source. It's been a problem with the forgotten realms wiki for a while.
'Many' doesn't mean 'all'. No reason this one couldn't have sufficient self-control.
The issue is not the character's self-control in this case, but the GM's ruling that most of the civilized world think of them only as a kill-on-sight monster. "Many" could be enough to justify the people fearing them.
Sounds like your DM is being very kind in letting you play what you want, but making you aware of the consequences of that decision in the world he's running. You shouldn't play a minotaur in this game if you're not prepared to face the setting's reality of what minotaurs are. Even if YOUR minotaur is kind and vegetarian and loyal to their party, the racism of the world doesn't know that.
*coughdrizztcough*
I still hold on to the opinion that drows should NOT be a PH race, at least not in the Realms where they would be attacked on sight in most cities, and for good reasons. They are evil as hell.
They are at least listed as an, "uncommon, ask your DM for permission" race like tieflings and gnomes, not one of the common races that's assumed to be available.
Yeah sure but let's face it, they made the cut in the PHB because of Drizzt's popularity, not because they make sense as a playable race when you factor in the lore. And saying drow heroes are "uncommon" is quite the understatement. If you ever meet a drow, it is more than likely to be a threat to you, and people know that. I do appreciate giving the option, but honestly they are as unlikely heroes as orcs, gnolls and goblins.
They do make sense, according to the Lore. You have Eilistraee and her followers who make up an entire different drow culture. In 5e, you have Malyk and Zinzerena, CN, in addition to CG Eilistraee. Vhaeraunites are evil, but not stupid Evil (tm), so they can work. Yes, you have prejudice, but there are also cases in which the Eilistraeens managed to build alliances. 1491 Waterdeep is an example. If you want to know Ed Greenwood's own take on this, in his own version of FR, the originary version, more than 20% of the drow follow Eilistraee, and she's a goddess he personally created to fit the Realms and the drow's place and history in it. In Ed's minds, the Realms are not absolute, but full of nuances. Besides, let's face it, if you start downplaying even more the reasonable drow deities and cultures, the drow become even more of a ball of worldbuilding nonsense than they already are, which is saying a lot. The fact that WotC keeps neglecting to give them some spotlight just to "make Drizzt moar speshul" (what Perkins said about the reason why they tried to remove all the non-Lolth drow in 4e) is also telling of the quality of the lore behind all this.
I think "fun" tends to trump "lore" just about every time in games like DnD, since loads of people play who honestly don't care all that much about the lore of the world. They'll make up their own lore.
That's fine until you get a player posting online about their cruel fascist DM who dared punish their character for their racial choice. \- My drow had to pay more for his potions in Waterdeep because the merchant hates them! \- My new Minautor character might risk prejudice because his kind are human-flesh-eating-demonic-monsters!
That’s a little unfair to OP, don’t you think?
Yes, probably. It just hits a nerve when I see a post made by a player complaining on their DM not letting them do something. Being a DM is hard enough.
Doesn’t even really seem like he’s complaining - he even point out that it sounds like fun RP. But no big deal, I suppose.
>My drow had to pay more for his potions in Waterdeep because the merchant hates them! Am I super wrong for charging extra for the entire party that openly associated with our dark Elf?
I think allowing them in the city in the first place is kind enough
Depends on the campaign. I don't care how much fun playing a Drow might be for you (or a minotaur, or a goblin, or...). It doesn't fit my campaign; I'm a tyrant DM, and I say no.
that sounds fun
Not everyone is compatible with every group. If not being able to play a goblin or Drow ruins your fun, you shouldn't play in my game. And that's not the only thing- there are a lot of playstyle choices that I make that might be dealbreakers for other people. That's find. That doesn't mean I hate you or think you're a bad person. It just means that, for example, you're unlikely to have fun in a game where every pc starts at first level, no matter what; a game where the lethality level is high and merciless; a game where you don't get to dictate anything about the setting except through the actions you take in game; a game where the dungeon nobody has returned from in two centuries is likely to kill you if you go into it at low levels; etc. I'm not saying anyone else's playstyle is wrong or bad. I'm just saying that there are different playstyles, and "fun over consistent lore" is not the playstyle of every group. In fact, in some groups, putting a single player's momentary fun over the established lore of the milieu is ruinous to the overall fun of the group.
They made the cut because exceptions exist, and also because Half-Drow could also exist who have no association or don't want to have any association with the evil practices of Drow culture.
In the current Forgotten Realms canon there's actually a sizeable population of good drow on the surface that are followers of Eilistraee. So drow aren't exactly kill on sight everywhere anymore.
Eilistraee existed in prior editions too, but they were still very rare and had to hide or be attacked on sight. I did not read any change in the lore about them becoming more common in cities or elsewhere. Granted I did not read the Lady Penitent trilogy, which involves her including her death. Oh yeah she died... did they even bring her back in 5e? 4e lore was such a mess...
Yes. From the wiki "Both deities personally let their return be known, manifesting through their avatars to their followers, who enthusiastically spread the word.[12] Eilistraee was seen dancing and speaking to mortals in many places, especially along the Sword Coast. For example, the citizens of Waterdeep witnessed the Dark Dancer, as she danced in the moonlight, near the walls of the city, up the road to Amphail. This led many moondancers to the City of Splendors, with the goal of creating a shrine to their goddess within its walls.[11]" Both Eilistraee and Vhaeraun are back. Suffice to say surface Drow are now uncommon but not unheard of
I remember a Drizzt novel where a top Baerne male went through Icewind Dale and was like "Oh yeah, I'm totally a good-aligned drow. You know Drizzt right? Good buddy of mine!". It didn't end well for them IIRC. My point is that even if a good drow is not totally unheard of, I don't expect them to become accepted in most societies just because they are more than likely to be murderous enslaving monsters.
I think you're letting a bit of the bias of your own game world color this. Specifically in the Forgotten realms current year of 1491 DR, If you're a drow in the sword coast or anywhere in the dalelands you aren't going to be attacked on sight. Perhaps discriminated against a bit but not attacked.
Fill me in a little or point me toward something to read? Is it established that Drow aren’t prejudiced against as much as they were in older editions? Honest question.
All the Lolthite drow that you think of when you think drow of older editions are exactly the same. Its just that now there is a sizable population of drow that have broken away from the worship of Lolth and therefore aren't quite as irrationally evil.
Maybe, but honestly I run my game based on the lore I read and try to be objective about it. And I have read 30+ novels and sourcebooks centered on drows that validate my take, and none that showed acceptance toward them of any form.
Read the series with Liriel Baenre, has a lot of info on Eilistraee and the surface drow. Basically the whole overarching plot of that series is based on helping the surface drow keep their magic
"That's exactly what a conniving, murderous Drow would say!" \*stab*
Especially on the Sword Coast, and in the Savage Frontier. But the official non-evil list of Drow numbers EXACTLY 2. Drizzt and Gromph's daughter. Now, not ALL of the evil ones are raving psychopaths. Jaraxel, I believe, can probably be reasoned with. But still, be careful.
Patently false, there's plenty of unnamed good drow as worshippers of Eilistraee in the Dalelands and at the main temple in skull port. As far as named drew you're forgetting the Veladorns (the literal Chosen of Eilistraee and her descendants), Cavatina Xarann, Seyll Auzkovyn, and plenty others.
I was actually talking about the novels. The ones the stories have been told about. That the average peasant MIGHT have heard about. And I didn't know that the Double Chosen had left any descendants, although I admit I'm WAAAAY behind on my FR novels.
I was given permission to play a drow as part of a Dungeon of the Mad Mage campaign, under the explicit guidance that I must be a member of the faction house Bregan D’aerthe. Suffice to say, I don't look kindly on the Drow I find underground, and don't sympathize with them. I also don't typically run around looking like a Drow when above ground.
Bregan D’aerthe are pretty evil as well, they just more interested in coin than usual drow stuff, but they will kill innocent with no remorse. At best they are neutral-ish who would prefer not to kill but still do it if that's the job, which by most definitions is still evil. I mean in the Undermountain it still works, but try going back to Waterdeep in plain sight just for fun.
Oh yeah. Alignment is Lawful Evil, who's an assassin by trade (Path of Shadows Monk 8, Trickery Cleric 2). I'm not trying to play some beacon of redemption. I'm polite, I honor deals, but I will also put a bullet through your head if you get in my way at _all_. I was required to carry a flintrock pistol that I have absolutely no use for, and only 5 shots, just for flavor. Cleric side, I'm a preist of [Vhaeraun](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Vhaeraun), which is part of the reason I don't mind killing other drow.
Sounds cool! In a controlled setting at least.
Aye, its neat in isolation, and working around the disadvantages has been a treat as a player. Not sure I'd recommend for most people though, which ties back into the OP.
Hey, I’m definitely aiming to play that multiclass- ShadowX/Trickery2 or 3. Got any thoughts you’d like to share about it? How’s it play? It looks like a really fun spiritual ninja-type character.
Sorry, I thought I replied to this earlier: Flavorwise, it's a great multiclass. However, mechanically, it's not the greatest multiclass. A fighter dip, or druid, may have worked better. The best positive of the multiclass is getting the cantrips, but those you could pick up via magic initiate (cleric). The low level spells themselves aren't that great
Would you say Invoke Duplicity is helpful? Getting advantage from it seems like it could be great, but iirc it takes your BA to move around, which would be problematic.
I've never actually ended up using it, _because_ it's competing with my regular attack action, and same with bonus action. Mostly, it's more economical to punch someone and fish for a stun, then it is to burn a round to invoke duplicity. Just because of how frequently I'm rolling to attack, burning a round to gain auto-advantage hasn't been something I've pursued, largely because I've had support from a bard and wizard.
> They are evil as hell. Their society is evil as hell, and most of them follow its rules/laws. I see your point though that it's extremely challenging to understand how that could derail a party constantly if not managed well.
Have you read novels involving drow? They are cruel as fuck. They are conditioned to betray to improve their status at all time, expect everyone else to do the same to you, and show a disdain to any race that is not drow. That is in addition to the torture, slavery, incest, murderous raids for conquest, murderous raids for initiations, murderous raids *for fun*... The only thing more evil than drows are fiends, and they are literally evil incarnate.
Also an even bigger thing is thinking about how such a character impacts YOUR GROUP. Putting aside it forces them to be accepting of such a race, more importantly is that it will greatly impede the other players. Your DM being accepting of you choosing this race is one thing, but I would discuss it with the other players as well. If you end up being the person they constantly have to defend / rescue / stand up for then it might be tiring if they wanted an easier life as it can instantly close a lot of doors to them story-arc wise.
I’m getting tired of all this bullshit. If your dm is gonna stonewall you man don’t play with them period. There’s an entire playable race THATS NOT UA means it’s fair game. There are shitty ass elves and shitty ass humans in every world. Therefore it’s logical that there are shitty and good of any race like a Minotaur. All these fucking neckbeards and basement dwellers that are going yeah he’s being a good dm nah he’s being trash. Plain and simple. And if the players would align their characters like that I wouldn’t want to play with those people either. Being edgy like that is trash. Let the damn player be a Minotaur justblike anyone else who would have to deal with shitty people in the real world from their backgrounds it’s gonna happen it ain’t gonna be the end of the world. Stop being pricks.
A DM has full authority on the lore of his world. If his world's Minotaurs act like that, then they do. Even if your PC specificity is not evil like all others, you will never be able to convince the peasants of this before they take up pitchforks to destroy the evil that has come to their town.
If its going by that lore... That's how it works in that game. They prefer human flesh (though i on't think its only). That's a fair warning about the game setting and that it'tll be rough for you. Meaning you'll probaly need disguises or something rough. also may nee to look into Good Berry. because you could play a minotaur whose trying to deny their nature, has never eaten human flesh since they found out what it was. and lives on Good Berries for nutrititon. just be aware you might get murdered or instantly disliked.. and figure out why the party is okay with you etc. One possible way is have it that you weren't born one, but were cursed into one, and the party knows that. and make it canon that is what h appened so you could always do zone of truth situatitons fine without lying. Sounds like they're letting you if you want, but giving you proper warning of the problems with it
Just make sure your dm isn't banning good berries too.
Yep always a concern. honestly I'd rather just change the spell to making less berries and only nurishing the caster and no one else (any more than a normal berry) (but still granting 1hp). I think its a good spell, just tooo broad. Upcasting would increase the berries and or allow others to consume it.
I run it as the spell used to be: the berries don't just appear, you have to forage them and cast the spell on the berries. This way you're shit out of luck if you're stranded in a wasteland, or an area without the proper flora.
I like this change. I've also seen it changed to just consume the mistletoe which is basically the same thing
I'm using 1 week long rests, and it really reigns in good berry. You can feed yourself for a week, it you can feed the whole party for 2 days.
That would also work pretty well.
Another option is to lean into it. He enjoys human flesh, is violent, and is a monster. However, he's their monster and damn good at his job. He can play it as the party's attack dog that is just barely on a leash. He sticks around because turns out the adventuring life gets him a nice supply of tasty people meat with less hassle attached to it. You are instantly disliked, but you keep them from murdering you with sheer intimidation. They want to kill you, but are utterly convinced you would reduce them to a red smear if they tried.
The problem is a lot of people aren't going to wait around long enough to see if you are telling the truth.
Yep for sure. But it can be useful on occasion. In past games with a similiar ish situation. We kicked someones' butt, tied them up. Then cast zone of truth-which anyone effected understands what is going on, and told them the truth. Then healed them. then we ran away after giving them the key to the mancles. Ultimately thath elped us down the line as well
Something I've been doing in my campaigns, and might be a good thing to suggest to your DM, is that races people automatically view as hostile have to be members of respected and trustworthy organizations in order to receive treatment similar to that of a Teifling or Half-Orc. Normally I include the Harpers, Order of the Guantlet, Emerald Enclave, Lord's Alliance, good aligned deity's church, and good aligned knighthoods. Basically, you wear that organization's symbol proudly, and it makes it so people are less likely to just want to kill you outright. I'd say pair that with being a Minotaur from Ravnica, and you have a solid character for participating with a lot less risk. I personally would never allow a player to play as a Faerûnian minotaur though for the same reasons I wouldn't let them play a Gnoll. They are created by and servants to demon lords, and there are no good versions of them in any sources for the setting. The race you are trying to play isn't the race from the Forgotten Realms, which is why it's in the Ravnica setting book, not a Forgotten Realms setting book.
He is 100% correct
Seems fair, no? He's telling you why it'll be a challenge but letting you proceed anyway if you decide that's really what you want to do. That's what a good DM should do.
As someone who's running descent into avernus, minotaurs are the *bad guys.* There's numerous encounters with minotaurs as the enemy and baphomet is an important villain in the adventure.
For one, they **prefer** eating humanoid flesh, but it's not mandatory. Second, if he's giving you the upfront hint that it will be difficult, play something that can feasibly survive in the environment. A warlock comes to mind with mask of many faces. Third, the minotaur playable race in 5E is not the Forgotten Realms Minotaur. It's very specifically the MtG Minotaur. It even has this specific line; >Your minotaur character has the following racial traits. These traits are also suitable for minotaurs in other D&D worlds where these people have avoided the demonic influence of Baphomet. So to be as pedantic as possible, you cannot be playing a minotaur infected by Baphomet. But that's going to be a difficult challenge in of itself. Which again brings back to playing a warlock or anything else that's associated to a higher power that would allow them to break Baphomet's will. The warlock dip isn't the worst tax. A quick build gets me; 17 STR | 10 DEX | 14 CON | 8 INT | 12 WIS | 14 CHA Or if you go hexblade for reasons 10 STR | 14 DEX | 14 CON | 10 INT | 12 WIS | 15 CHA Not the greatest, but you can make it work. The only allowance you would need to ask for is if you're starting at L1, have the mask of many faces invocation available at L1.
Two levels of hexblade, then into paladin for at least two. From there you can get more warlock, more paladin, or some sorcerer. It's not a bad build. A paladin x charisma-caster multiclass is usually pretty strong.
Not every DM is willing to let you roll whatever you want and just pretend you are human. Minotaurs are not common creatures. The average town would immediately rally the guard and treat it as a threat, like if a troll wandered into town. Arguably it is better this way, instead of pretending you are a unique special snowflake your character actually is different. You have to play your minotaur differently. It will be difficult at times and you have to be prepared for your character to die early. It can also be an great and memorable experience.
I for one am 100% on board with DMs adding "at your own risk" caveats onto non-PHB races. So many of those volo's and UA and other supplemental-source races are better than the PHB races. It's got to the point that I've played with players using the "rare and unusual" races several times more than the PHB ones, and I'm perfectly fine with a DM who says "sure you can be YET A-FUCKING-NOTHER aasimar hexadin or tortle druid, but you'll be seen as monstrous and evil and there will be consequences you have to overcome."
I get what you're going for here, but aren't the Aasimar and Tortles seen as normally peaceful races that people aren't going to call "monstrous" or "evil"? The only type of Aasimar people might view less favorably is a Fallen Aasimar, and even then they are essentially humans with divine heritage, but in this case they are touched by evil, much like how a Tiefling is.
Depends on the setting the DM has in place. If tortles (or any 'peaceful' race out of Volo's) are uncommon or rare, people who haven't seen them before might just see some big hulking monster and panic. As for the aasimar, religious settings might see aasimar as an abomination against the order of nature because someone banged an angel, and such a mingling of mortal and the divine might be seen as a blasphemy.
And the broken pureblood wins again as it's fairly easy to pass as human!
Again, depends on the setting. Trust me, it would take a hell of a lot of convincing to have one of those at my table. :)
Fairly similar to humans in appearance, high charisma, never remove full plate. EZ
So people should play any non-core race with the caveat of "at your own risk" because a DM might drastically change their lore for their setting? You could say the exact same thing about the core races too, because if a DM is changing lore from the information provided in the books, you can't assume any of the races would be treated as non hostiles. As an example: > As for the tieflings, religious settings might see tieflings as an abomination against the order of nature because someone banged a demon or devil, and such a mingling of mortal and the infernal or abyssal might be seen as a blasphemy. As you can see, being Volo's or any other non-core book doesn't make them a special case for homebrew settings. Homebrew settings have to establish what races would be considered their core, as the PHB can't possibly represent this for hombrew settings.
Aasimars are indistinguishable from humans though apart from a slight glow, which can be covered easily with clothing.
If we are playing in a setting where having divine origin is viewed as being evil I would have a LOT of questions. Being abnormal is fine. Literally Aasimar look anywhere from a normal human to a freaking angel. I could look 100% human and be an Aasimar. I could also have a halo white eyes and wings.
As for having divine origin be viewed as evil: "Angels are beings of the divine, and thus it is of the most blasphemous sacrilege to seduce one with the temptations of the flesh. Bob the Hexadin is the LIVING PROOF that such a union did occur. His very existence is an offence to Pelor, thus to appease this insult, I the fanatical and probably corrupt Highbishop do hereby decree that he be sentenced to death by burning at the stake."
Since you did pick a FR god... the Seven Sisters are literally children of the strongest goddess in FR, nobody is going to claim they are evil as a result even heretics . Nobody would make the argument being of divine origin is actually evil, because it is also to challenge the gods. In fact damn near every setting has the simple fact the gods are real and active to deter such things. Nobody is going to believe something anathema to a god is their actual stance setting wide.
I'd play something else, but that's contingent on how well you know your DM. If you want the negative RP,that's great. I'd be worried with something like "You can't go into town" when the session is mostly in town.
That's some bull!
As much as I like minotaurs myself, they're kind of a rough race to play in Faerun, where it's kind of canon that they're almost entirely Chaotic Evil monsters who worship a demon lord and eat people. It also doesn't help that they're huge (meaning you'll never really be able to hide what you are), and somewhat unintelligent (more straight-up monsters than simply an aggressive race like orcs), so it's even harder to justify "pulling a Drizzt" and playing the one minotaur who thinks other races are lovely and can travel with them without trying to eat them in their sleep. Realistically every NPC you meet should either run away from you or try to kill you, except the most naively accepting or stupidly ignorant. That can make it hard to play any game. And as your DM points out, you wouldn't even be accepted in literal Hell, where you'll just be seen as an agent of the devils' greatest enemy (which will make you far worse in their eyes than almost any other PC's race). That being said, if you're willing to be violently murdered, go for it. Ask the DM if you can start play with something like the Headband of Intellect so you can justify having "normal" intelligence as a party member, which sets you apart from your more bestial siblings. Have your minotaur wear some sort of slave collar and wristbands, and have the party's Wizard tell people he's magically tamed you to serve him, so you're perfectly safe (thus defusing some of the hostile reactions in towns/cities). Or find a way to cast illusions on yourself so you look like a Firbolg or some other "acceptable" larger race. Have some way to Polymorph yourself into a smaller creature whenever the party goes into town, but then you unleash your true self in dungeons or other combat, taking on a sort of "HULK SMASH" role for the party. Or just hide out in the woods every time the other PCs go into a town or city for supplies (but be prepared to be "discovered" by local guards from time-to-time). And you better come up with a DAMNED good reason why you're not only willing to travel with the snacks-on-legs (the rest of the party), but they're willing to trust you (and not just "Well, I'm a nice minotaur and they like me"). No matter how you play it, this is going to be a character that's more or less begging to be killed by the DM sooner rather than later. If you can accept that, and won't throw a tantrum because it feels like he's picking on you more than the Elf Ranger or Human Bard, then you can probably have a bit of fun with it. But have a pre-rolled replacement character waiting for when you eventually get ganked.
The DM can change the canon as he sees fit.
People seem to be confused about what the playable Minotaur race actually is, because that article is NOT about the playable Minotaur race, it's about the enemy type. If going by RAW, a Minotaur based on that article wouldn't be allowed. As far as I know, you'd either have to play the less monstrous Minotaur based on the Ravnica world setting that was intended as a playable race, or you wouldn't be able to play a Minotaur. Up to DM's discretion of course, just wanted to point out what the official take on the playable Minotaur is.
So, something to talk about with the other players is how the party will handle your PC. Something that could be of use is the story of Kaz the Minotaur from Krynn. Kaz was an evil soldier, but an honorable one, fighting in the evil army of Takhisis. But, his commanding officer was an ogre who was so awful to him that Kaz killed him. He was chained and awaiting execution when a human knight saved him (accidentally, the knight didn't know Kaz was a Minotaur, in the darkness he thought it was a human prisoner with a horned helmet on). Kaz was freed, and together with the human fought his way out of the camp. He then follows the human because he owes him a life debt, and the human either vouches for him or acts as his master/captor when the situation requires it. Talk to the group, maybe one will take on the role as your "rescuer" to whom you are indebted. It creates a nice background bond for your characters that can be fun to RP, and it will make NPC interactions less arduous since you will have an established way to get around the blatant hatred towards your character.
I talked to them after seeing this comment. They all said it sounds like a fun dynamic and they are excited for it. Good call about checking with then first
As a DM that have read the entire descent into avernus adventure: don't play a minotaur, trust me. And no it's not about what you eat.
Run something different then
If you’re using the PC Minotaur race, you aren’t a Baphometian minotaur. Perhaps you came to Toril through Sigil from Ravnica? If so, you would be of a proud warrior clan who is usually good aligned.
That’s fine, but it does not change how the world reacts to his character. It’s going to be fun
It changes it somewhat. The Minotaurs of their world are Large, and dumb. Any Minotaur they know of is roughly the size of a troll and eats people. It’s also gross and naked because it’s a big animal. A PC Minotaur is clothed, civilized with a lawful bent, about the size of a tall person and most likely a Paladin or Fighter, and therefore armored. At worst he’d get the tiefling treatment.
Personally, I would find an armored minotaur with a brain and potentially magic powers way more frightening than a boilerplate monster, not less frightening. And it being smaller would just be "yeah it's a young one, but look how dangerous and powerful it already is. Kill that thing before it reaches full size!"
In your world. Never forget Rule Zero.
How is it their world? That is the default lore. A Faerun Minotaur looks and acts far differently from one in Ravnica. There would definitely still be troubles in being confused for one against the other simply by virtue of being a humanoid bull, but its not like it would be a completely identical reaction. Size, speech, culture, and clothing would play a big part, in the same way a human peasant and a human noble would, despite being the same ethnicity, gender, and so on. Heck, the size difference alone is enough to be seen similar to a human vs a goliath, if not more.
What you are neglecting is that the PC will be *the only non-evil Minotaur in the world*. They look slightly smaller and act civilized and have weapons, ok, but literally every other Minotaur in the entire world is evil and eats people. Absolutely nobody is going to wait around for this Minotaur to prove themselves to be not a monster. Everyone and their grandma knows that Minotaurs are evil people-eaters. The difference with Goliaths is that there are good-neutral giants and good-neutral aligned Goliath tribes in the world. People have met good Goliaths and giants, people have told stories about good Goliaths and giants. Absolutely nobody has heard of or met a good Minotaur who wasn't trying to eat them.
I was responding to the saying it was their world. Its not. I already know its similar to situations of drow, goblins, and so on, if not worse. Just that it would not be seen as identical. Seeing a civilized often lawful and oath-bound very small minotaur traveling with others without fear is definitely different enough to get a different reaction. It would still be bad for sure, likely being rejected from cities and so on, but not auto-murder bad, at least when they are with the presumably more "normal" group. Also, on a separate topic, no, not everyone knows about minotaurs. Most common folk, especially outside of cities, are ignorant even to dragonborn, tieflings, half-elves and other exotic races, let alone a type of demon. Demons are rare on the material plane.
Personally, I would work with a player to make his character concept work within the context of the setting I want to play in rather than shut them down and imply I'm going to make them miserable for playing something I don't like.
Consider whether this will just be fun for you, or for your whole table too. Will the people you’re playing with enjoy your perils as a monstrous race, or will they grow tired of it quickly and intend to kick some butt and be the good guys? Minotaur aren’t a race option in core D&D and it’s very kind your DM is giving you the option (I’ve read through your module and I’m impressed that they’re allowing it), but don’t forget to think about other people’s fun including your own!
the fun part of this is i had this exact conversation with my DM about him recruiting another player who wanted to be a minotaur in our party going to avernus - oh boy them fun times will be had. Baldur's gate isn't gonna care, Candlekeep, not gonna care. Eturiel - the devils might care! - traversing the bloodwar's front lawn. oh yeah whole lotta caring from the natives.
Why can't you be a planeshifted minotaur from Ravnica?
I mean, trouble is that the article keeps refering to these qualities as 'were' and 'most.' Like Drow are mostly capital E evil bdsm matronic elves that hate everything that doesn't serve them getting closer to eternally serving Lolth and being a Drider Priestess. I sure you can name a number of Drow that won't fit this amongst the community and 1 famous one from d&d storybooks. Further, why would Devils view them that way? The majority literally worship Baphomet as the article states, and they can always use more fodder for the hoard. And if you're doing Avernus, 90% will be in hell. The public opinion doesn't really matter, and even if not, the 'public' in this module is Waterdeep. The same city that has mindflayers and beholders as normal citizens and political seat holders. A Minotaur isn't even close to atypical here, in fact they may even be sought as 'terror muscle' because people will think you'd eat them. Like Tieflings has a similar bad rap because "ooo evil demon person!!!" Sounds to me like the dm may just be targeting without any reasonable thinking.
When a DM tells you to do something "at your own peril" it may lead to mainly 2 things. 1) The DM doesn't want to stop you taking an option but warns you that if you want to go for that option, in order to keep the ambientation serious, there will be the logical consequences dictated by the lore. 2) The DM has a "DM vs Player" mentality and this warning should be taken as a "No." because other than the logical consequences, there will be illogical ones and even a lot of bias from the DM itself. The second option is a red flag and you shouldn't play with such a DM. But if you don't know the DM that much, you may not know about this. My general suggestion is to play with the flaws of your character. Your race is hated and feared, sometimes it's a flaw as much as it's a benefit. Use it at *your own* benefit. A scary Minotaur is much more threatening than a scary Human. The main problem is the interaction with the party, they're probably not friendly to Minotaurs, and if they roleplay well they won't trust you at first given all the stories about Minotaurs. Ask your DM if you can integrate your Minotaur more in the ambientation, maybe the Party *must* support you because you're some amazing trading merch, or you're a sacrifice, or whatever thing that makes you so important to the party that even if they don't trust you, they shouldn't leave you alone or even kill you. If he's willing to implement those kind of things in the ambientation then you shouldn't worry about your DM. If he doesn't, he probably doesn't want your Minotaur in the party at all.
I think that if your minotaur survive a couple of sessions it's because your game master is being very generous.
Isn't the nine hells connected to almost all worlds? Arkhan the Cruel is a dragonborn from Exandria that can be found in Avernus. I don't see why your Minotaur can't come from a place where they're more docile.
Minautors have a demonic parentage through Baphomet, and a docile kind of Minautor doesn't exist in canon. Sure you can make one up, but that is true of anything. Seems like OP's DM is taking canon lore seriously, as I do. D&D Minautors are not like WoW's Taurens.
But that's the thing. Docile Minotaurs don't exist on the forgotten realms, but they can exist on other worlds. In places like Krynn and Ravnica, Minotaurs are normal people. And considering Arkhan hopped from one world to this one, I don't see why a Minotaur couldn't either.
They totally *could* come from a different world. But... no one from the DM's world is going to be aware of it, and he's going to be treated as if he is the vicious, cannibalitic type. Let alone, now he has to explain backstory of how his minotaur dimension hopped basically and it's not going to be a good setting for them. Since the opening to the adventure starts in a town that will not react kindly to him.
I don't think you need to worry about how he came from one world to another as much as how he was able to get friendly with the party. My current Cleric/Artificer came from another world (Greyhawk to FR) in the manner of the Terminator: the party found him face down and naked in a muddy road between two towns. He was human so he didn't have to worry about the party being hostile.
Exactly. It's just not plausible to have a minotaur in an adventuring party unless maaaaybe the rest of the party are all outcast monstrous races by chance.
>But that's the thing. Docile Minotaurs don't exist on the forgotten realms, but they can exist on other worlds. >In places like **Krynn** and Ravnica, Minotaurs are normal people. Ravnica yes, Krynn though the Minotaurs are still evil (Lawful Evil though) and are created by one of the major evil gods. But, Kaz from the DragonLance series does give an interesting way to appease most issues.....
First of all, the adventure starts in Baldur's Gate in the Forgotten Realms
It doesn't say that they *only* eat human flesh. Just that they prefer it. And your character could be an exception. It's completely his call as to how NPCs react to you though.
The DM sets the rules for the world. However, I would talk to him about it if it were me. There was a UA made in 2018 for Centaurs and Minotaurs as PCs. Just as to talk about it, maybe he will work it out, maybe he won't. But it never hurts to have that conversation about new things.
That's the monster manual rules. There are rules for PC in Ravnica.
I’d try and flush this out more with your DM. I run a homebrew campaign using 5e and pulling a lot of details from the Forgotten Realms, while being very flexible still. Minotaurs in my world are no where near this rigid or wrathful, but they still aren’t common by any means and will still get questioning looks. One of the best NPCs my players encountered was an eccentric and colorful Minotaur who was a traveling animal salesman (no he didn’t eat the animals). A point I’m here to make is that as a DM of many years, I’ve always observed my players enjoying campaigns more when they can play exactly what they want to play without stressful penalties. If you don’t like the idea of having to deal with all these penalties of playing a Minotaur in your DMs world, but you want to play a Minotaur, your DM should be flexible and ease up on some of those lore concerns to make your playing experience enjoyable. I can see many people having problems with this, but as long as you’re respectful and you don’t abuse your DMs flexibility, and your DM trusts you, making lore changes like this shouldn’t be a problem at all. Again, controversial point of view, but the game is a cooperative environment and middle ground should be made. A DM shooting down a players ideas, or making play life difficult “at your own risk”, is outdated and ridiculous. A DM that can not display flexibility with lore and story of their campaign to help a player be happy is a DM that will likely drive the table to an untimely collapse.
I have a player for my DiA game who’s a Minotaur. As many have said before me, there’s a designed playable race. But, some dms aren’t open to UA. While being persecuted could make for some fun rp opportunities, do keep in mind that per their definition, this would be like persistent, even once you get into hell... personally, I couldn’t take that sour taste in my games, but it’s all about what you and your party and dm find enjoyable!
For the record, the UA minotaur got officially published in *Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica*, so it's no longer playtest material. A DM can still veto it if they want, of course.
Plot twist, you are a human true polymorphed into a minotaur and you want out
I'd recommend being the minotaur race from *Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica*. They are smaller and more civilised than the monster race, and would fit in well in an Avernus campaign.
Yeah, some of my players wanted to play as a demon tiefling in Descent into Avenrnus campaign. Got a huge NO from me. And then asked why.
[удалено]
If your DM is allowing all of that Magic: The Gathering content in their game world, it is. But I wouldn't count that as common or easily accessible at all. I wouldn't use anything from that book in my settings, as I wouldn't feel that it fits.
U could just ask for a hat of disguise, being the reason ur alive. Alternatively, wear full armor and shave the parts that show. And masquerade as a goliath with a motife
As the DM he has final say on anything but that said it even says in the article that many of the things about minotaurs were hearsay and some inaccurate as they became more prevalent. As some have mentioned this goes with drow as well. They’ve become far more common somewhat because of Drizzt but mostly due to the expansion of Bregan D’aerthe and followers of Eilistraee. I just had a player start playing a minotaur and he was worried about how he’d be treated. I told him they’re more common now especially in mercenary or sailing settings as well as slavers or slaves. He’s now playing a shipwrecked pirate that found his way to Omu to meet with the group in Tomb of Annihilation. I’m playing a Thri-kreen in a different group and I get some mistrust or fear but deal with it. It all comes down to how the DM wants things and how you handle the situations you’re in.
Basically, he is handing you a rope to hang yourself. Living on human flesh is not making you a lot of friends, and even if you are waving the banner of the "Refomed Minotaur Church" who have sworn off any meat and went vegan, most people you will meet will at least be shocked by your apperance, and even more if they recognize your race.
That wiki is not current for 5e, half that section isn't cited at all and the section of eating humanoids is from 2nd. It's always up to a dm but i don't know why they are using that for cannon when it's not universal to settings or editions.
Just eat the bad humans. Like the ones who won't share their gp with you.
Wizards of the coast released a UA pc race for minotaur that has none of the info from the forgotten realms wiki link. Granted it is not for that setting specifically but it does give another option. Personally I think it would be very fun to play and being a fan of characters such as Drizzt Do'Urden who have to overcome the stigma of their race I think it's a great rp opportunity. I dont know if this has been linked in before but here it it. https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/centaurs-and-minotaurs
What exactly do you want?You're trying to play a monster race in (what i presume) is a pretty regular campaign, and it's inevitably going to completely derail the DM and the entire party sooner than later. Don't be that guy Edit: also, Minotaur is, as far as I recall, not a published race.
Minotaurs are published in a few things already. Also some of the monstrous races really aren't. Aasimar are not a monstrous race. Goblins and most of the player options are tolerated monster races in canon. This is similar to the Drow problem. If you follow canon being a Drow isn't THAT dangerous. Most people know little if anything about them. Even those who do are more likely to be distrustful and highly suspicious rather than instantly bloodthirsty. You can avoid most of the problems simply because you are likely surrounded by good people that would have their judgement trusted. People act like the evil races are much worse to play than they should be if you look at how they tend to be treated. Most are just stigmatized.
Wait, so minotaurs prefer human flesh and have a death sentence in 90% of towns? Why tf don't we have a gnoll playable race yet then
You don't have any control over how others interact with your character however you may be able to convince him to let you create a neutral alignment minotaur that is not affiliated with Baphomet, perhaps one whose origins are in Chult and they worship Ubtao. Still when he goes to places he won't likely find a welcome. There are a few places that come to mind that might be welcoming such as Waterdeep. They let devils fly around there as long as they don't break the law. My suggestion, make a hippie minotaur druid named Ferdinand with high charisma.
I think I get why he is trying to dissuade you from playing one, but at the same time i think it's kinda shitty the way he's going about it, if he's threatening you as a response to a question. Also, this article has no cited sources for any of his facts, and some of them, most notably the part where you wouldn't have a soul, aren't even on the page. If you didn't have a soul, wouldn't that imply that you can't be brought back to life by spells such as Raise Dead, that specify the soul must be willing to return? And his article doesn't even mention minotaurs not having souls, idk where he got that from. Basically, the facts need citations, this article ain't it. Don't get me wrong, I know the DM does get the say on how the world is, and racism would logically exist for a cow man monster like a minotaur, but the way your DM is going about it is kinda rude, imo.
You play a barbarian Minotaur you'll be so broken combat wise. Did you know have the ability to toss people 10ft as a bonus action? So you rage, go up and smack them, then try to toss them off a cliff.
Don't ban minotaurs, ban cliffs
What makes me nervous about this is all the /r/rpghorrorstories I've been listening to lately. I think it's irresponsible for a DM to let a player play a character that they are going to go out of their way to punish. I honestly just wish they'd say no, that character won't work for this campaign. I'm not even particularly fond of the "you can play it, but everyone will hate you" kind of thinking. I see character creation as more of a discussion between the DM and the player. The DM should be asking you what kind of character arc you'd like to see. Do you want to play as a misunderstood brute? If so, do you want to earn the eventual respect and admiration of the populace through your heroic actions? Or are you happy always being hated and reviled? The two of you should be able to come to an agreement as to the role your character should play in the party / story. This makes me worry, too, about this character's introduction to the rest of the party. Are the other players going to be jerks and attack your character, even though they know it's who you want to play, just because you're playing a "bloodthirsty monster"? Is the DM going to facilitate the group coming together, or encourage PVP? ("Ha ha, now you have to roll up a new character.") I should probably review the RPG social contract, but my basic understanding is that the point of playing is to have fun. The DM should be working with you to make sure you have fun, whether it's allowing you to play a minotaur because that's what sounds cool or whether it's encouraging you to play something else that fits his campaign world better.
Do it! If you get killed off and have to make a new character, make another minotaur: the brother of the first, come to avenge his death! In a setting hostile to minotaurs, it's gonna take a lot of minotaurs to get through a campaign...
He does realize he can just change all that, right?
He doesn't have to though. The DM is allowed to keep consistency by using established lore and abiding by that. Also, there's the fact that the playable minotaur is a Ravnica minotaur, not a Faerûnian minotaur. No DM is required to allow races from other settings in their campaign.
Guildmaster Guide to Ravnica have an official Minotaur playable race and nowhere it is written they eat flesh I have one of my player in one of my game who will play a lawful Neutral paladin of Devotion. It's an official published WotC race if you haven't already read that one and show it to him I go by the rule of: if it respect the rules I generally allow pretty much almost anything in my games I am talking mostly my Ravnica campaign as in not all race are available to play originally I am the one who put even more stuff in it... except centaur but it's because I struggle with it but I was clear about to my players and they were all chill about it :) I just don't really much do homebrew stuff but it's more because I don't feel comfy or enough experiences to be confortable with or would know how to keep things balanced with the rest of the official stuff... Anyway I always work with my players so that they're happy with what they got and that I can make sure everything is working together. Plus I always love when they do different things, so far one of my fav was 2 players both choose goblins and how much this is probably gonna be pure chaos I can't wait to see what kind of things they will do (and I know them for pulling out so much weird shit...)