D&D 5E I'd like to know the thinking behind this....

Skyscraper

Explorer
About the OP: talk about working yourself into a fit over a design choice that probably simply follows what fans have asked for. Man. Take.. a.. deep.. breath.

Better now?

If tieflings annoy you, simply rule them out of your game and be done with it. They provide options, you pick which ones you want to use. They didn't provide a book of infinite options because infinity is kinda expensive. Otherwise, they put in what most people wanted. This is how 5E went about doing their thing. Tiefling in? Voted in. Aasimar out? Voted out. You dislike this method? You wouldn't be the only one, but it's as valid a method as I can think.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Nivenus

First Post
Half-dragons were either highly uncommon or rare, tieflings now a days are not. While they aren't common, they are around. It's like they have few numbers when compared to the other standard races, but actually seeing one is rather common. Tieflings and Dragonborn are the two poster children of 4th edition and moving them to some supplement would be an admission that they weren't as popular as Wizards wanted them to be. They should have had Tiefling/Aasimar in the DMG with the whole devil pact being one example of many variants of the race. They should have left ot up to the people to decide how they wanted to deal with the race. I know you can leave out whatever you like, but sometimes I like a bit of official cannon.

Half-fiends and half-celestials are also rare. And I don't think you can really say tieflings are more common than draconic sorcerers, who are all descended from half-dragons.

As for tieflings or dragonborn being unpopular, I don't think there's a lot of evidence to suggest they are. Indeed, I'd say they were possibly two of 4e's most popular features (and tieflings preceded 4e anyway).

Didnt prevent them from removing the gnome in 4E...

No it didn't. But the 4e PHB wasn't made with the same goals as the 5e PHB. Its aim was to create a new brand for D&D and a new set of mechanics. The 5e PHB was explicitly designed as an attempt to appease fans of every edition (though admittedly 2e and 3e fans got the better end of the deal)
 
Last edited:

It makes much more sense when one realizes that some of the Jewish tradition made it out along with Christianity... creating a wonky cosmology where those angels who fought against God were cast into the pit of hell, those angels who fought for God remained in the heavenly host, and those angels who refused to fight were cast out of heaven but not into the pit; cast down to earth.

Really? I make no claim to expertise in this area, but my understanding was that it had at least as much to do with neo-Platonism. (Of course, there certainly were prominent Jewish neo-Platonists, so I suppose some overlap may have occurred.) Daemons or daimons as lesser divinities dwelling in the sublunar air were definitely a Thing in that system, or so I had understood.
 

My only real gripe against Tieflings is their blatantly devilish appearance, the changes to the race (the appearance and the lore) introduced in 4E are unnecessary and ridiculous. I liked the 2/3/3.5 version that just had something...off about them. The occasional whiff of sulfur, maybe vestigial nubs of horns, the odd Tiefling might have a tail, but it was purely cosmetic. I once played a Tiefling cleric who looked normal except for the fact that he cast no shadow. We went from subtly non-human to obviously devilish...and it's not as if I can't just revert Tieflings to old style, but the need to be "Moar Dark!" is annoying. And to the OP, I, too, would like to know why the Aasimar were not included!
 

pemerton

Legend
I dislike the inclusion of tieflings as a core race in 5E for the same reason I did in 4E, it's not a classic archetype (even by D&D standards) but a world-specific one
By "classic archetype," I'm referring to the archetypes of centuries of fantasy fiction, myth, legend, and faerie stories
As others have said, I think the trope or archetype of fiendish or sinister heritage is reasonably classic. Likewise the 4e implementation of this, that Faustian bargains can corrupt a bloodline.

I think it's pretty simple. Part demon/devil/vampire/evil-spirit-thingie is a popular trope is a lot of fantasy fiction, folklore, and video games, ie in culture.

<snip>

Also, Elric.
In other words, this.

Itieflings were certainly more popular than aasimar in the run up to 4e, and while I can't speak to what "everyone" liked about them, what I liked about them was their status as outcasts, heroes who fought against (or played within) society's negative expectation of them, exploring concepts like racism, classism, physical and mental handicaps, and otherization. Which isn't exactly comfortably compatible with 4e's vision of them as an internally consistent people with one true origin.
From the 4e PHB, pp 48-49:

Heirs to an ancient, infernal bloodline, tieflings have no realms of their own but instead live within human kingdoms and cities. They are descended from human nobles who bargained with dark powers, and long ago their empire subjugated half the world. But the empire was cast down into ruin, and tieflings were left to make their own way in a world that often fears and resents them. . . .

Centuries of other races’ distrust and outright hatred have made tieflings self-reliant and often too willing to live up to the stereotypes imposed on them. As a race without a homeland, tieflings know that they have to make their own way in the world . . .

[M]ost tieflings . . . grow up in the roughest quarters of human cities and towns. These tieflings often become swindlers, thieves, or crime lords, who carve out a niche for themselves amid the squalor of their surroundings. . . .

Some young tieflings, striving to find a place in the world, choose a name that signifies a concept and then try to embody the concept. For some, the chosen name is a noble quest. For others, it’s a grim destiny.​

I'm not seeing how this is at odds with an interest in the status of tieflings as outcasts, who define themselves in relation to (human) society's negative expectations of them; nor how it would get in the way of using a tiefling character to explore concepts of racism, classism, and otherization. In fact, it seems to speak exactly to all of those things.
 


Henrix

Explorer
I'm not seeing how this is at odds with an interest in the status of tieflings as outcasts, who define themselves in relation to (human) society's negative expectations of them; nor how it would get in the way of using a tiefling character to explore concepts of racism, classism, and otherization. In fact, it seems to speak exactly to all of those things.

what I liked about them was their status as outcasts, heroes who fought against (or played within) society's negative expectation of them, exploring concepts like racism, classism, physical and mental handicaps, and otherization. Which isn't exactly comfortably compatible with 4e's vision of them as an internally consistent people with one true origin.

Pemerton, I think you are missing the bits about pre-4e tieflings being singular. unique beings cast out from all society, as they had no such of their own.
No common inheritance, they were all weird bastard hybrids of assorted fiends and humans. Not, as such, a race.
They all looked different - some beautiful, some horrid, some with horns, sharp teeth or cloven feet, some freakishly fat.
They were all different - some bright, some dull, some saw in the dark, could charm people, could only be harmed by silver weapons, or had vampiric touch.

Many were just plain weird in the head, or stirgeshit insane.

Compared to that the 4e tieflings are more like half-orcs on a bender (but with a culture of their own, and a heritage they can be proud of (possibly)).
 

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
[sblock]
Heirs to an ancient, infernal bloodline,

We're off to a bad start.

If you're one of the "orphans of the planes," you can't be "heir" to much of anything. A heritage is something the wealthy and powerful give their children, not something your bastard offspring can easily proclaim. Your bloodline might be ancient, or it might be recent, but as a proper tiefling, you have no real way of knowing for sure. And anyway, the chronology of your bloodline shouldn't matter -- being a tiefling is about REJECTING those that would define you by your bloodline.

tieflings have no realms of their own but instead live within human kingdoms and cities. They are descended from human nobles who bargained with dark powers, and long ago their empire subjugated half the world. But the empire was cast down into ruin, and tieflings were left to make their own way in a world that often fears and resents them.

Nobles? There is nothing noble about the rejected Other, that inverts the "classism" angle explicitly. Bargains? There is no equity here, just complicated shame. Your ancestors might have been victims or breedthralls or sacrifices. Or just people in the wrong place at the wrong time. Subjugating empires? There's never been any claim to tiefling glory except what each individual wrings out of a reluctant society.

One True History? For a race whose history shouldn't have ever been a question worth answering because even asking the question is failing to understand the race?

Centuries of other races’ distrust and outright hatred have made tieflings self-reliant and often too willing to live up to the stereotypes imposed on them. As a race without a homeland, tieflings know that they have to make their own way in the world . . .

[M]ost tieflings . . . grow up in the roughest quarters of human cities and towns. These tieflings often become swindlers, thieves, or crime lords, who carve out a niche for themselves amid the squalor of their surroundings. . . .

Some young tieflings, striving to find a place in the world, choose a name that signifies a concept and then try to embody the concept. For some, the chosen name is a noble quest. For others, it’s a grim destiny.

Hey, that doesn't invalidate PS Tieflings!
[/sblock]


I'm not seeing how this is at odds with an interest in the status of tieflings as outcasts, who define themselves in relation to (human) society's negative expectations of them; nor how it would get in the way of using a tiefling character to explore concepts of racism, classism, and otherization. In fact, it seems to speak exactly to all of those things.

Having a decadent noble heritage that fell due to their own hubris reads more like tieflings as a cautionary tale: there is some specific sin that if only it were corrected or atoned for, your people wouldn't be so "flawed."

PS tieflings, as orphans and castoffs, have no such noble history, no aspirational former glory, no justification for their current misery. If you are part of a marginalized group in Real World society, it is not due to some corruption on your part, or some flaw in your ancestors, it is visited upon you at birth through no blame or fault of anyone. It is the cruelty of a capricious universe. There is no excuse for handicaps and deformities and simply being born "different," there is no possible redemption because there is no sin to be redeemed from, you have done nothing wrong, but you are still the target of hatred and ire and suspicion. It is the fundamental injustice of biological inequality, of a world that isn't perfect and can't be perfect.That narrative is about overcoming society, the prejudice and the injustice of a world that doesn't treat you as normal.

Which makes it perfect for Planescape -- the idea of the universe being flawed and in need of your characters' actions to make just is part of what makes belief such a powerful force in that setting.

Giving tieflings a decadent noble past nukes a lot of that possibility. It has blame, and it pins it somewhere specific, and allows for a "cure." It is like if Shrek ended with Fiona turning into a beautiful woman instead of a hideous ogre. It is exactly the wrong message for the kind of story that I found really compelling in tieflings before.

Which isn't to say that it's a bad story. It's just not what was interesting about tieflings. It didn't capture the fun of playing one for me. If they wanted a dark and brooding satan-spawn of a race to play the Grey Guys in their setting, they probably should've kept the whole thing the same and just changed the name to something else and we wouldn't even be having this convo.
 
Last edited:

Mallus

Legend
Giving tieflings a decadent noble past nukes a lot of that possibility.
On the other hand, it makes them more Elric. Which is always a good thing.

I admit, "cosmic fantasy stateless displaced peoples" is also cool, but, personally, I find it a bit less traditional and resonant. But here's the question: if you like an older Tiefling concept, why not just use it? It's not like there's a dearth of old Planescape material --or whatever you're using as a reference-- out there (is there?).
 

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
On the other hand, it makes them more Elric. Which is always a good thing.

Debatably. ;) It's a good thing if I'm going for that vibe, certainly.

I admit, "cosmic fantasy stateless displaced peoples" is also cool, but, personally, I find it a bit less traditional and resonant. But here's the question: if you like an older Tiefling concept, why not just use it? It's not like there's a dearth of old Planescape material --or whatever you're using as a reference-- out there (is there?).

Sure, and I do. My objection in this particular thread was to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 's assertion that the 4e tiefling contained pretty much what I liked about the pre-4e tiefling. And while there are certainly overlapping elements, they are quite different critters. Y'know, as different as, say, the Hunchback of Notre Dame, and, well, Elric. :) The 4e tiefling's story is fine, it's just not the story I'm interested in when I play a tiefling. Which means the 5e tiefling (which is the same thing) kind of shares that fate -- not what I want to play when I play a tiefling.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top