OneDnD All about Ardlings

How animalistic are ardlings?


You realize that goes both ways? The aasimar could simply be ardlings when the "animal" is a humanoid? Then we don't need aasimar at all.

But thank you, the guardinals were probably the outsiders I was thinking of above.



Except the warforged are hardly new.

The Aasimar has history and lore on it's side, the Ardlng does not.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
In previous editions an Aasimar could be descended from any kind of celestial, Guardinals, Archons, Eldaelrin, Angels, Good Gods, etc... So Ardlings are just functionally a cosmetic choice for Aasimars.

There is no reason this cosmetic chouce shouldn't be an option for Tieflings and Genasi as well, their are animal headed fiends like Arcanoloths, Ice Devils, Yeeghunee, etc... And Elementals like Salamaders and the Thunder Serpent (I forget his name).

And why stop at animal heads, why not a Dragon headed Abashai themed Tiefling, or even a five headed descendant from Tiamat.

I encourage you all to encouraged WotC in your feedback to make Ardlings a cosmetic feature for all Planetouched races.
Absolutely this, just make one “Planetouched Lineage” that covers everying from Aasimar to Tiefling to Guardinal-spawn

and yeah when I first saw the name Ardling my first thought was something small and cute not winged animal-headed outsider
 

The Aasimar has history and lore on it's side, the Ardlng does not.
To be fair, Aasimar lore is incredibly thin and uninteresting. They're not like the Daevas or something, who had actual lore, an actual reason to exist and peculiar characterstics. Aasimar are just a weaksauce opposite number to Tieflings, who have nothing to say, and no particular style, with none of the mythological punch of Tieflings. Really Aasimar should have been inspired by tales of Nephilim and Demi-Gods and so on. Instead they're just opposite-day Tieflings, with no real connection to the Upper Planar beings (in every edition after 2E, anyway). Tieflings do have some actual lore, by contrast, even if it's varied a bit.

So all Aasimar really have going for them is "tradition". Though I admit they dodged a bullet because Aardling is just as bad a name as Aasimar, if Aardlings had a significantly better name I feel like Aasimar would almost be on the cutting room floor already lol.
Absolutely this, just make one “Planetouched Lineage” that covers everying from Aasimar to Tiefling to Guardinal-spawn
Except no-one wants that and it would be a huge mess.
 


Personal preference: kemonomimi (anime style) but I also think 5e tieflings are too devilish.

Writer’s intention? I would guess they look just like guardinials, so full animal head.

As a dm? As much or as little as the player wants.
 

To be fair, Aasimar lore is incredibly thin and uninteresting. They're not like the Daevas or something, who had actual lore, an actual reason to exist and peculiar characterstics. Aasimar are just a weaksauce opposite number to Tieflings, who have nothing to say, and no particular style, with none of the mythological punch of Tieflings. Really Aasimar should have been inspired by tales of Nephilim and Demi-Gods and so on. Instead they're just opposite-day Tieflings, with no real connection to the Upper Planar beings (in every edition after 2E, anyway). Tieflings do have some actual lore, by contrast, even if it's varied a bit.

So all Aasimar really have going for them is "tradition". Though I admit they dodged a bullet because Aardling is just as bad a name as Aasimar, if Aardlings had a significantly better name I feel like Aasimar would almost be on the cutting room floor already lol.

Except no-one wants that and it would be a huge mess.

The Aasimar do have lore, it's not that thin at all. Is it as much as the Tiefling? No, but it's not a PHB, rank has it's priveldges.

And Devas and Aasimar ARE the same race as far as FR lore goes, most Aasimar have ties to Mulan Gods, although Planescape style Aasimar exist in FR as well.

You also have a city of FR Aasimar that is the last surviving ancient Netherese city to survive.

You have Aasimar in various novels too.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
To be fair, Aasimar lore is incredibly thin and uninteresting. They're not like the Daevas or something, who had actual lore, an actual reason to exist and peculiar characterstics. Aasimar are just a weaksauce opposite number to Tieflings, who have nothing to say, and no particular style, with none of the mythological punch of Tieflings. Really Aasimar should have been inspired by tales of Nephilim and Demi-Gods and so on. Instead they're just opposite-day Tieflings, with no real connection to the Upper Planar beings (in every edition after 2E, anyway). Tieflings do have some actual lore, by contrast, even if it's varied a bit.

So all Aasimar really have going for them is "tradition". Though I admit they dodged a bullet because Aardling is just as bad a name as Aasimar, if Aardlings had a significantly better name I feel like Aasimar would almost be on the cutting room floor already lol.

Except no-one wants that and it would be a huge mess.
Well, the Aasmair are in OneD&D already on their own, at any rate, in Monsters of the Multiverse. I thinknthe Egyptian Wingfic furry version is likely to make it through UA to the PHB, though, maybe with a name change.
 

There is nothing in the mechanics that suggests Ardlings are different from Aasimar flavour wise, the heads have no mechanical heft.

Honestly I like the flavour too, I just see no reason to make it unique to one type of Planetouched when it can fit others. And honest given how they do mix race creatures now you cam basically have Fey'ri, just mix Tieflings with Elves.
There's no more reason that the heads themselves need to have mechanics attached to them than there is for a dwarf's beard. They aren't a beast race. And what I'm suggesting is that there should be a difference between aasimar and ardling flavor-wise. Pretty much the entire point of my post is that I feel they should vary mechanically from aasimar. Otherwise they just aren't very interesting, which ostensibly is the justification for their existence: people thought aasimar weren't interesting.
 

The Aasimar do have lore, it's not that thin at all. Is it as much as the Tiefling? No, but it's not a PHB, rank has it's priveldges.

And Devas and Aasimar ARE the same race as far as FR lore goes, most Aasimar have ties to Mulan Gods, although Planescape style Aasimar exist in FR as well.

You also have a city of FR Aasimar that is the last surviving ancient Netherese city to survive.

You have Aasimar in various novels too.
Imho, that's not lore that matters or has much value.

That's FR-specific silly business. All of it pretty recent and forgettable and only existing because the FR is the gelatinous cube of settings. It's definitely fair to say that generally speaking, Aasimar lore is extremely thin and inconsistent. They don't reflect part-angels from mythology/fantasy literature (who are approximately a million times spicier than Aasimar) the way Tieflings do reflect part-demons from mythology/fantasy literature, for example.

By Mulan gods are we meaning Mulhorandi? Took me a while to unpick that one.

Honestly I blame 3E. It utterly ruined Aasimar and Tieflings, and only Tieflings really recovered. 4E having Daevas which were so much more interesting than Aasimar doesn't help (and the idea that they're "the same thing" as Aasimar is terrible and whoever thought of that should stop writing lore forever). I believe 4E much later added Aasimar and they were milquetoast as usual.
 


Corinnguard

Adventurer
Imho, that's not lore that matters or has much value.

That's FR-specific silly business. All of it pretty recent and forgettable and only existing because the FR is the gelatinous cube of settings. It's definitely fair to say that generally speaking, Aasimar lore is extremely thin and inconsistent. They don't reflect part-angels from mythology/fantasy literature (who are approximately a million times spicier than Aasimar) the way Tieflings do reflect part-demons from mythology/fantasy literature, for example.

By Mulan gods are we meaning Mulhorandi? Took me a while to unpick that one.

Honestly I blame 3E. It utterly ruined Aasimar and Tieflings, and only Tieflings really recovered. 4E having Daevas which were so much more interesting than Aasimar doesn't help (and the idea that they're "the same thing" as Aasimar is terrible and whoever thought of that should stop writing lore forever). I believe 4E much later added Aasimar and they were milquetoast as usual.
Have you ever checked out the Aasimar and Tieflings from Pathfinder 1st edition? Both of these planetouched races in PF1 were given their own lore books in that RPG. Blood of Angels and Blood of Fiends. Sometimes a RPG does a great job portraying a race, and sometimes it doesn't. If it doesn't, homebrew it till you like it.

As for the Devas, if they were so much more interesting than the Aasimar, why didn't WoTC bring them forward into 5e?
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

100% that gnome
As for the Devas, if they were so much more interesting than the Aasimar, why didn't WoTC bring them forward into 5e?
Because 4E was largely radioactive with the folks who bounced off it and away to other systems and WotC is only now open to bringing in obvious innovations (arcane, divine and primal power sources is straight out of 4E). Instead, with 5E, they over-corrected, tossing out even many non-controversial elements of 4E.
 
Last edited:

my complaints are they have dull mechanics not bad just dull.
and I find furry races in general kinda lazy you just get stereotypes of the animal in most cases or a human in a lazy costume better to craft something out of lots of sources to get something truly great but otherwise I do not care never liked any PHB races anyway.
tempted by the jaffa idea.
Have you ever checked out the Aasimar and Tieflings from Pathfinder 1st edition? Both of these planetouched races in PF1 were given their own lore books in that RPG. Blood of Angels and Blood of Fiends. Sometimes a RPG does a great job portraying a race, and sometimes it doesn't. If it doesn't, homebrew it till you like it.

As for the Devas, if they were so much more interesting than the Aasimar, why didn't WoTC bring them forward into 5e?
this was the apology for 4e edition remember lots of cool stuff got killed to try to get more pathfinder players back.
 

As for the Devas, if they were so much more interesting than the Aasimar, why didn't WoTC bring them forward into 5e?
Because 5E is an "apology edition", and they didn't really "bring forwards" much that was new or cool from 4E unless it was insanely good (Feywild for example), and indeed, even where 4E had done a great job, and where the D&D Next playtest had cool ideas, at the very last minute, without a playtest, WotC reverted tons of stuff to be basically 3E-like, including entire classes, like Sorcerer.

Bringing forwards Daeva would have certainly not pleased very people WotC was seeking to "apologise" to. Indeed it's notable that 5E Aasimar revert to the terrible 3E-style lore for Aasimar, not the better 2E lore.

Also 5E or more specifically Volo's just made a lot of bad lore decisions relating to the planes and planar beings early on, not least that Angels only serve Good-aligned gods (so much for making alignment optional!), which, hilariously, left Neutral and Evil gods with zero servants, as Volo's also clarified that converse, demons/devils were NOT the servants of Evil gods, and Neutral gods just had nothing too. Sorry I know that's an off-shoot but Volo's, which reintroduced Aasimar was just a total mess. It also reintroduced horrific racist implications with the Orcs for example, by virtually quoting 1940s racist textbooks in describing Orcs.
 

Corinnguard

Adventurer
Because 4E was largely radioactive with the folks who bounced off it and away to other systems and WotC is only now open to bringing in obvious innovations (arcane, divine, primal power source is straight out of 4E). Instead, with 5E, they over-corrected, tossing out even many non-controversial elements of 4E.
I know. I was one of the folk who bounced off of 4e and straight to Pathfinder 1st edition. ;)
 

TheSword

Legend
Quote from the playtest: "An ardling has a head resembling that of an animal, typically one with virtuous associations. Depending on the animal, the ardling might also have soft fur, downy feathers, or supple bare skin."

How do you interpret this? A mostly human head with animal ears on top like an Anime catgirl? or a fully animal head from the neck up like an Egyptian god?

Would having a different mouth shape cause trouble when drinking from a cup, or give them an odd lisp when speaking?

Do we even need ardlings? or are they redundant when we already have Aasimar and Shifters?

View attachment 258590
Thundercats are GO!!!

423F0FB8-9B64-43DE-8615-31ACD558346C.jpeg
 





An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top