D&D General The Evolution of Tieflings in D&D: Interviews with Zeb Cook and Colin McComb

MaskedGuy · Jul 10, 2019

Aaron L said:
I really liked the original Tieflings, people with some distant fiendish ancestor that gave them random deformations and dark powers... it fits with a medieval magical mentality, that being born with a deformity is a sign of having a tainted ancestry. I even love the name; from Teufel, the German word for Devil (they're Devilings.) But I cannot stand how they wrecked them in 4E, into a race of uniform devilmen (Devilmans?) with red skin and tails and ram horns and a unified culture. It's way too blatant and tacky, and it defeats the purpose of the race; an entire race of "misunderstood outsiders" is pretty ridiculous. All I can think is that Tieflings were turned into "More Drow than Drow."

That reminds me of why I like Pathfinder version of tieflings: They can be members of any 0hd race and they are basically deformed mutants with fiendish ancestry. The fiendish ancestry can be anything from devils to demons and more exotic and bizarre fiends like qlippoths.

(same applies to all pathfinder versions of planar scions, they aren't strictly human restricted.)

There is even optional d100 table for tiefling/aasimar powers and cosmetic appearances.

Reading the article, it kinda feels like Pathfinder's writers wanted to throw back to older version of tieflings

doctorbadwolf · Jul 10, 2019

Aaron L said:
But I cannot stand how they wrecked them in 4E, into a race of uniform devilmen (Devilmans?) with red skin and tails and ram horns and a unified culture. It's way too blatant and tacky, and it defeats the purpose of the race; an entire race of "misunderstood outsiders" is pretty ridiculous. All I can think is that Tieflings were turned into "More Drow than Drow."

They were improved in 4e. An entire race of "misunderstood outsiders" is one of the most realistic and grounded elements in modern DnD. IRL, it doesn't even take horns and tails to accomplish that.

A race of people whose ancestors made deals with devils, and whose physicality now bears that unmistakable mark, is quite a bit more than you're giving it credit for.

Kobold Avenger · Jul 10, 2019

MaskedGuy said:
That reminds me of why I like Pathfinder version of tieflings: They can be members of any 0hd race and they are basically deformed mutants with fiendish ancestry. The fiendish ancestry can be anything from devils to demons and more exotic and bizarre fiends like qlippoths.

(same applies to all pathfinder versions of planar scions, they aren't strictly human restricted.)

There is even optional d100 table for tiefling/aasimar powers and cosmetic appearances.

Reading the article, it kinda feels like Pathfinder's writers wanted to throw back to older version of tieflings

Well Pathfinder was essentially made in response to 4e, it was definitely "no we like things the way they were before" and as a result everything in Pathfinder was more open and freer in concepts, while 4e tried to become more restrictive in concepts and lore.

Planetouched in general are mutants (of the X-Men type) of the planes. The wide diversity of forms was essential to their identity.

Tsuga C · Jul 10, 2019

It's high time to revive Planescape. Ravnica is a poor substitute and what's been done to tieflings since 2E is an abomination. TSR got tieflings and aasimar right back then and WotC has consistently screwed up the Planes--the Great Wheel is the only model for me.

Scrivener of Doom · Jul 11, 2019

Kobold Avenger said:
(snip) It's very useful to hear from Zeb Cook and McComb about Tieflings, but I think Monte Cook's opinions also matters a lot on the subject.

Actually, I think it's Wolfgang Baur who may have played a major role in the creation of the tieflings.

TarionzCousin · Jul 11, 2019

[MENTION=6988694]ThePlanarDM[/MENTION] and others should check this out: https://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?348563-Dark-Text-on-a-Dark-Background-Tutorial

cbwjm · Jul 11, 2019

I remember having a look at tieflings over the editions and looking at how they changed with each new edition, this included stats and abilities like spells and resistances. My preference is still for the 2e version and I loved that each tiefling could have very different physical characteristics instead of the homogenised 4e appearance to the point where I ignore what tieflings appear as now and instead still use 2e for ideas on coming up with unique looking tieflings. I also don't like how it only seems to be archdevils that sire tieflings, I want a variety of fiends like pit fiends, mariliths, maybe even vrocks tainting the bloodlines of tieflings.

dwayne · Jul 11, 2019

Have to say the planescape where they came from, was the best ones as the abilities and looks were a random roll that made it fun.

Aldarc · Jul 11, 2019

Aaron L said:
But I cannot stand how they wrecked them in 4E, into a race of uniform devilmen (Devilmans?) with red skin and tails and ram horns and a unified culture. It's way too blatant and tacky, and it defeats the purpose of the race; an entire race of "misunderstood outsiders" is pretty ridiculous. All I can think is that Tieflings were turned into "More Drow than Drow."

Though I respect your preference, I nevertheless disagree. I never really cared for the 2E Planescape tieflings, which often did lean on the "misunderstood outsiders" angle pretty hard as well. Though I understand that the idea that they could be anything in terms of morphology, appearance, culture, history, etc. works in their favor for some people, it also worked against them for mine. It felt odd to me that tieflings would just be the "samey" from having fiends as their background or even from being plane-touched. After all, weren't demons and devils diametrically opposed? But a tiefling descendant of a demon could look the same as a tiefling descendant of a devil? Not to mention the yugoloths.

It wasn't until 4E that I found tieflings a compelling playable bioform. To reiterate from my earlier point, 4E gave them a connection to the world. They were not "outsiders" from the planes, but, rather, they are descendants of human nobles of Bael Turath that sought to save and expand their kingdom by making dark pacts with devils. (Which is ironically not far removed from what Cheliax in Golarion did.) That empire would nevertheless fall later in conflict with the draconic kingdom of Arkhosia, and their tiefling descendants represent the hubris of that diabolic pact. This is far less Drow and far more Faustian. This gave me a much more defined sense of tieflings and their place in the world. It gave them a mythos that amounted to more than mutants of some distant fiend but instead to pact made between devils and human mortals. While I understand that some people miss the morphological variation of tieflings from earlier editions, I have found the new direction more new player friendly to the extent that it's easier for new players to spot a tiefling in the art as opposed to a satyr or something.

Zardnaar · Jul 11, 2019

Aaron L said:
I really liked the original Tieflings, people with some distant fiendish ancestor that gave them random deformations and dark powers... it fits with a medieval magical mentality, that being born with a deformity is a sign of having a tainted ancestry. I even love the name; from Teufel, the German word for Devil (they're Devilings.) But I cannot stand how they wrecked them in 4E, into a race of uniform devilmen (Devilmans?) with red skin and tails and ram horns and a unified culture. It's way too blatant and tacky, and it defeats the purpose of the race; an entire race of "misunderstood outsiders" is pretty ridiculous. All I can think is that Tieflings were turned into "More Drow than Drow."

Yeah I like the 2E ones. That and always go with originals. Didn't mind the Bael Turoth lore so much but the artwork bleah.