D&D (2024) Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral touched species.

[Scott Christian]

In my experience, the alignment is more general and allows for a greater swath of roleplaying opportunity. BIFTs are too specific and end up making caricatures instead of characters, IME. Also, nobody at the table ever remembers them, also IME. A problem for players, but not an issue for a GM especially if NPC is only going to be around for a scene or two. However, creating or even randomly rolling a BIFT for every NPC would be a chore. The entire species thing I haven't heard in decades and players have never subscribed to it. Seems like a complaint to give heft to preference.

I have seen players not pay attention to the background traits. I have also seen players use them to great extent. If your experience is that players don't use them or even remember them, how can you come to the conclusion that they provide caricatures and alignment produces a "greater swath" for roleplaying? I mean, if you haven't seen it in use, like truly attempted to be used, then how could you know?

In my experience, players that make an effort to use these actually play their characters, not themselves. We have all seen the player(s) that make a character, it has a unique backstory, and then, three sessions in, they are just playing the same character they played last time. This helps prevent that. Also, players having a greater swath may seem logical, but it's not. PCs encounter all types of experiences in the world they explore. They make judgements based on experience and the personality, ideals, bonds, and flaws. This is a much more complex look than - "I am lawful good, so I stop the thief from stealing the fruit. Then I turn them into the authorities" Instead, my hermit example might show sympathy towards the thief, and instead lecture them about their philosophy and how one needs to contribute to society rather than steal from it.

 

[payn]

I have seen players not pay attention to the background traits. I have also seen players use them to great extent. If your experience is that players don't use them or even remember them, how can you come to the conclusion that they provide caricatures and alignment produces a "greater swath" for roleplaying? I mean, if you haven't seen it in use, like truly attempted to be used, then how could you know?

In my experience, players that make an effort to use these actually play their characters, not themselves. We have all seen the player(s) that make a character, it has a unique backstory, and then, three sessions in, they are just playing the same character they played last time. This helps prevent that. Also, players having a greater swath may seem logical, but it's not. PCs encounter all types of experiences in the world they explore. They make judgements based on experience and the personality, ideals, bonds, and flaws. This is a much more complex look than - "I am lawful good, so I stop the thief from stealing the fruit. Then I turn them into the authorities" Instead, my hermit example might show sympathy towards the thief, and instead lecture them about their philosophy and how one needs to contribute to society rather than steal from it.

Since the value is low, and the experience was that of caricature, BIFTs were abandoned in the games I played.

 

[CreamCloud0]

No. I am saying the exact opposite. I feel like the tools they give players in backgrounds specifically allows your tiefling, that is connected to devilish or fiendish forces, to express his personality, despite the connection. It works perfectly for your type of table. However, for a table that is "all orcs are evil," it also allows them to express that evil through individual characteristics.

To me, this is the only way it works for both tables. It even allows players from different mindsets to play at the same table.

sorry i was unclear, rather than any aspect of their personality, when i said 'you are connected to those forces' i meant in the sense of them providing powers thematically associated with the relevant plane, how aasimar get healing hands powers and tieflings infernal legacy spells(although i've already spoken upthread how i don't feel those especially fit the connection to 'Evil')

 

[Scott Christian]

sorry i was unclear, rather than any aspect of their personality, when i said 'you are connected to those forces' i meant in the sense of them providing powers thematically associated with the relevant plane, how aasimar get healing hands powers and tieflings infernal legacy spells(although i've already spoken upthread how i don't feel those especially fit the connection to 'Evil')

Oh, my bad. Sorry.

I completely agree that those legacy powers should connect thematically.

 

[Tonguez]

In my experience, the alignment is more general and allows for a greater swath of roleplaying opportunity. BIFTs are too specific and end up making caricatures instead of characters, IME. Also, nobody at the table ever remembers them, also IME. A problem for players, but not an issue for a GM especially if NPC is only going to be around for a scene or two. However, creating or even randomly rolling a BIFT for every NPC would be a chore. The entire species thing I haven't heard in decades and players have never subscribed to it. Seems like a complaint to give heft to preference.

Thats more because of how the current BIFTs are presented than an inherent flaw. As I play a lot of FATE I tend to think of the BIFTS as similar to character Aspects (and awarding Inspiration points for using the BIFTS in play). In this way the BIFTS become meaningful choices for player personality not just vague good-evil, lawful-chaotic tendencies. Even better those who want to play alignments can still pick one up as an ideal.

As to BIFTs applied to Planar races I could see something like "Vulcan Logic - my rational mind suppresses emotional response" being appropriate for a lawful race

 

[Marandahir]

I liked the 4e take on the Tiefling as it streamlined their looks. Back then I found myself expecting a similar origin for the Aasimar. Instead 4e gave us the Devas. And all because someone at WoTC saw the word ass in Aasimar.

To be fair, I still can't say the species name Aasimar without snickering.

In my game, I've renamed them Azuras (an allusion to Asuras / Ahura of Vedic/Persian veneration), but also to the Azure sky.

 

[Minigiant]

Back from vacation and whew did the poll change.

 

[Hriston]

Along with aasimar and tieflings, there should be modron-touched, slaad-touched, and, most importantly, fey-touched.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I liked the 4e take on the Tiefling as it streamlined their looks. Back then I found myself expecting a similar origin for the Aasimar. Instead 4e gave us the Devas. And all because someone at WoTC saw the word ass in Aasimar.

I find it interesting how WotC has tried to replace Aasimar as the 'divine version of tiefling' twice now. First with Devas in 4e, and now with Aardlings in 1DnD.

Seems really odd that they've tried replacing it multiple times.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Along with aasimar and tieflings, there should be modron-touched, slaad-touched, and, most importantly, fey-touched.

I've got to say I hate slaad in 5e. They're far more evil than chaotic, and don't embody their plane well at all.

Also if a fey planetouched became a thing, you'd need a shadow planetouched to go along with it. As the feywild and shadowfell are mirrors of each other. Though you could argue that eldarin and shadar-kai fill those roles.