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

gyor · Jul 13, 2019

Hussar said:
Well, considering in the pic you posted, the horns are almost as long as his head, I'd say they are pretty big. And the color thing, well, whatever to be honest. The tiefling in the PHB isn't that far from a dark blue.

Let's not forget, THIS was a 2e Tiefling:

Just as much as any Di Terlizzi art.

He seriously, looks more like an elf then a Tiefling.

gyor · Jul 13, 2019

Zardnaar said:
Tieflings art search.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tie...7jAhWBTX0KHaq6AO0Q7Al6BAgGEBg&biw=360&bih=518

Tieflings the new Drow but worse.

If you don't stick big horns on them I suppose they look like another elf.

I thought Shadar Kai were the new Drow?

Tsuga C · Jul 13, 2019

This pretty well sums up my attitude towards railroading players into the Asmodeus-end-all-be-all mold:

View attachment 107531

Tieflings and aasimar should be whatever the Player and DM agree upon and a choice always beats none.

Psyzhran2357 · Jul 13, 2019

Hussar said:
Well, considering in the pic you posted, the horns are almost as long as his head, I'd say they are pretty big. And the color thing, well, whatever to be honest. The tiefling in the PHB isn't that far from a dark blue.

Let's not forget, THIS was a 2e Tiefling:

Just as much as any Di Terlizzi art.

I thought the above image was just an elf picture they reused because they didn't have any Tiefling assets loaded into the game for some reason?

Hussar · Jul 13, 2019

gyor said:
He seriously, looks more like an elf then a Tiefling.

Frankly, it wasn't until years later that I realized that he was a tiefling. I missed the line in his character sheet. I just assumed he was some sort of plane hopping elf.

Shardstone · Jul 14, 2019

Crazy how you guys get so upset over being "railroaded" into some Asmodeus lore when half of you create your own settings to play in and the other half of you make up everything you do and don't play real games.

Tieflings are pretty popular right now. And I like the homogenized look. And I like that there is a homogenized look. And I like the literary value they have. By giving them actual symbols to attach too aesthetically, you create something of actual artistic value, instead of the "well lol it can look like ANYTHING hehe xd" of 2E.

Not that it matters. You guys can make them just like 2E Tieflings! No problem! I just don't get the need for ancient grognards from beyond time and space to

on something just because it is new. We people who are new to D&D with the latest edition don't need to be told every other tiefling thread how much cooler "ye old planetouched" were.

oreofox · Jul 14, 2019

dave2008 said:
Why do you think that? Most evidence i have seen lately suggest otherwise. When I see new Tiefling fan art, it usually mimics 4e/5e. But, that is just anecdotal. I have no further evidence to suggest one way or the other, do you?

Because that's the image people are exposed to when looking in official books, and with so many new people into the game, their only exposure is to the 4e/5e tiefling, so they think it must look like that. Same with Dragonborn. 4e they were plain brown with dredlocks, and had kinda beak-like faces. Now they are descended from dragons, and you see art of dragonborn characters that look like humanoid red or black dragons. The same can be shown with kobolds and other monsters. If they look a certain way in an official book, you will get art showing the same.

Choose a monster. Let's go with the displacer beast. We all know it as a 6-legged panther with squid tentacles sprouting from its shoulderblades. Change it into an 8-foot long oppossum with 8 legs and antennae sprouting from its head. Put that as the official image in the Monster Manual, and you will get new art of a party of adventurers fighting the brand new displacer beast, even though everyone for the past 45+ years knew it as the panther.

It happened with the kobold (compare 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, 5e, and even Pathfinder kobolds). It's happened with Tieflings. Aasimar can be added in the 6e PHB alongside the tiefling, and they can look exactly like the planetar, but as a playable race. You will see a flood of aasimar paladin PC art that looks like a planetar in shining plate armor, because that would be the official aasimar and it would be what people will go with.

Aldarc · Jul 14, 2019

[MENTION=6776240]oreofox[/MENTION], IMHO, but how does that argument address the thesis that "I don't think most want a Tiefling with a butt on the forehead because of the massive horns that a lot of the 4e and later art has"? This makes an argument assuming a certain degree of unpopularity with the current tiefling design. If you are arguing that this is because this is the image they are exposed to, then this essentially amounts to arguing "they don't know any better."

dave2008 · Jul 14, 2019

oreofox said:
Because that's the image people are exposed to when looking in official books, and with so many new people into the game, their only exposure is to the 4e/5e tiefling, so they think it must look like that.

I agree. I was not arguing otherwise. The post I was responding to claimed people are asking for a different type of Tiefling and was wondering where they get this opinion from. Not really sure what you are responding too.

Imaro · Jul 14, 2019

dave2008 said:
I agree. I was not arguing otherwise. The post I was responding to claimed people are asking for a different type of Tiefling and was wondering where they get this opinion from. Not really sure what you are responding too.

The fact that WotC created them in 5e to meet ( I would assume, as you are assuming fan art correlates with the origin or appearance people want to/or are actually playing when choosing tieflings in 5e) some sort of demand...