D&D 5E I'd like to know the thinking behind this....
Remathilis
Legend
Okay, of those, I've heard of "Merlin," and excepting Merlin were all created long after Dungeons & Dragons was. How exactly does that make an archetype?
Points for including Merlin tho, I'll concede that one.
In any case, it's all an argument of taste, which can't really be resolved, merely accepted or rejected.
-The Gneech
The archetypes of fantasy weren't all laid down in 1974; I'll concede demon-born aren't terribly common in ancient texts, but certainly modern (1980's and on) have advanced the archetype. Its certainly as valid as "anguished but good vampire" or "blood of dragons = magic" when discussing fantasy tropes.
As for its inclusion in the PHB; yeah, we'll agree to disagree.
Shemeska
Adventurer
I adore the randomness and wild variety inherent in 2e/3e tieflings, but I really have a hard time viewing the 4e tiefling as remotely the same creature (and by extension the 5e tiefling as well). I look at the 4e/5e tiefling and I get a very 'Ceci n'est pas une tiefling' vibe at the very best.
I wouldn't remove the 4e style tiefling from the game, but I'd present it as one option among many (which is unfortunately not a courtesy present in the 5e tiefling). It's a shame to have lost that diversity (though it remains with Pathfinder tieflings, and that split is bound to be a headache moving forward with two overlapping audiences having very different expectations for two races named the same but being very different in execution).
Nivenus
First Post
I'm actually kind of okay with the way 4e and 5e (so far) depicts tieflings, mostly because I see them as a specific subrace of tieflings: namely, those descended from devils. One of these days if I have the time I may put together a list of tiefling subraces, which swap out certain features of the default tieflings for other stuff to represent alternate heritages. I believe Pathfinder may have done something similar, but I'm not sure.
The same would go for aasimar obviously (which I do hope make a proper return).
The Shadow
Hero
Okay, of those, I've heard of "Merlin," and excepting Merlin were all created long after Dungeons & Dragons was. How exactly does that make an archetype?
Points for including Merlin tho, I'll concede that one.
Amusingly, at least to me, the idea of Merlin being the son of a fiend was a mistaken reading of the original material.
His father was a 'daemon', which in the usage of the early medieval era meant a fey-like being that lived in the upper air. (While some thought they were angels, it was pretty widely agreed that they weren't exactly fallen angels. And of course, some said the same of the fey too.)
In general, D&D tends to make "outsiders" rather more biological than I would like. Tieflings to me make more sense as offspring magically corrupted or influenced by fiends than otherwise.
(Also, just how do fire genasi get their start?!)
Nivenus
First Post
Amusingly, at least to me, the idea of Merlin being the son of a fiend was a mistaken reading of the original material.
His father was a 'daemon', which in the usage of the early medieval era meant a fey-like being that lived in the upper air. (While some thought they were angels, it was pretty widely agreed that they weren't exactly fallen angels. And of course, some said the same of the fey too.)
In general, D&D tends to make "outsiders" rather more biological than I would like. Tieflings to me make more sense as offspring magically corrupted or influenced by fiends than otherwise.
(Also, just how do fire genasi get their start?!)
As the name implies, genasi are most commonly sired by genies IIRC. They're not the offspring of pure elementals generally speaking (if ever; my genasi lore's a bit rusty).
Tieflings are also generally the offspring of half-fiends rather than directly demons or devils. The Races of Faerun sourcebook also indicates that their heritage can stay hidden for generations, so occasionally one just "pops" out of a seemingly human bloodline that a long time ago consorted with fiends. The same goes for aasimar I believe.
As for how biological fiends are in D&D, I kind of see your point but I don't really see it as any more fundamentally ridiculous than half-dragons. Shapeshifting, I believe, is generally involved in both cases.
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.
am181d
Adventurer
Because Tiefling was an out-of-the-box option in 4e, and a lot of people played Tieflings.
With the new edition, they wanted to support that race out-of-the-box again.
Aasimar are a more obscure race, because of how they were placed in earlier editions, and don't have the same sized fan base.
I'd be interested to know if the folks who are worked up over the exclusion of Aasimar from the 5e PHB are people who really liked 4e or people who didn't like 4e overall. Because this thread feels a lot like "WHY DO WE HAVE TO HAVE CARRY OVERS FROM THAT EDITION I DIDN'T LIKE?"
With the new edition, they wanted to support that race out-of-the-box again.
Aasimar are a more obscure race, because of how they were placed in earlier editions, and don't have the same sized fan base.
I'd be interested to know if the folks who are worked up over the exclusion of Aasimar from the 5e PHB are people who really liked 4e or people who didn't like 4e overall. Because this thread feels a lot like "WHY DO WE HAVE TO HAVE CARRY OVERS FROM THAT EDITION I DIDN'T LIKE?"
Didnt prevent them from removing the gnome in 4E...
aramis erak
Legend
Amusingly, at least to me, the idea of Merlin being the son of a fiend was a mistaken reading of the original material.
His father was a 'daemon', which in the usage of the early medieval era meant a fey-like being that lived in the upper air. (While some thought they were angels, it was pretty widely agreed that they weren't exactly fallen angels. And of course, some said the same of the fey too.)
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.
The Grigori, or Watchers fell due to contact with mankind, and lusting after our women, thus begetting the Nephilim.
Some traditions directly equate the Grigori and the Daoine Sidhe, making the lesser fey the nephilim. It's a rationalization of Christian and Jewish esoterica with Celtic mythology of the Sidhe.
So, in that light, Merlin can be seen as a Half-Angel, or half-Sidhe, and have no real distinction.
