Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
They’re testing for the 2024 core rulebooks, so that.So, is the Ardling suppose to be a new core race or for a upcoming source book?
They’re testing for the 2024 core rulebooks, so that.So, is the Ardling suppose to be a new core race or for a upcoming source book?
Why?I think it's important to make the baseline divine,
Ties them to a lot of good existing ideas and myths and art and makes the planes more diverse. Even has interesting implications with the devas and rakshasa.Why?
Totally fair if that is how you like your world. I find heaps of different races that are basically human-but-animal to be boring and lazy (Yes I'm looking at you PF2) but that is totally just my preference for my made up worlds.I disagree on this one strongly. You'd lose a lot of the neat individual stuff that these groups have by themselves. Plus, well, those races have a history. They're not related and don't have anything feywild to 'em. Certainly more viable to have seperate beast-people race than 7 different types of elves
I think you will find way more animal people in fey myths and art from around the world than divine but hey. The lines between the two blur a lotTies them to a lot of good existing ideas and myths and art and makes the planes more diverse. Even has interesting implications with the devas and rakshasa.
The line is very blurred yes, mostly because we're used to using the terms Fey, Demon, and Devil for any deity that isn't a well-known named god from Semitic, Greco-Roman, Norse, Celtic, Indo-Aryan, Chinese, Japanese, Aztec, Mayan, or Incan stories. Any other culture, any lesser divinity that isn't clearly an Angel variant, and we call them a Fairy or a Demon or something, because we don't know what else to refer to them as and we've only JUST begun to reclaim those listed traditions above from demonization and religious persecution…I think you will find way more animal people in fey myths and art from around the world than divine but hey. The lines between the two blur a lot
Ugh. Let's just make Egyptian gods from real life a playable species. No thank you. Leave the real world religions alone please.I like the distinction of Ardlings as humanoid with full-on animal heads and a few vague animal features like vestigial wings, versus Aarakocra, Lizardfolk, and Tabaxi with full on animal forms that are vaguely humanoid as well.
Ardling vs Shifter is a distinction primarily of facial form and origin; Shifters are Weretouched and look like Sabertooth from the X-Men - something in-between human and animal but much more on the human form than the beast form - and Ardlings are Egyptian Gods that look like these attachments. Note the differences from how Aarakocra/Owlin, Lizardfolk/Dragonborn, and Shifter/Werewolf/Jackalwere/Gnolls look:
Depends on the definitions you use and what you read. The fey is pretty tied to a specific region of the world. Lots of other mythic systems chock full of animal headed people.I think you will find way more animal people in fey myths and art from around the world than divine but hey. The lines between the two blur a lot
I mean, we're talking D&D which had Mystara as a setting. Its downright historic this is how D&D be. Heck, folks still wanting LupinTotally fair if that is how you like your world. I find heaps of different races that are basically human-but-animal to be boring and lazy (Yes I'm looking at you PF2) but that is totally just my preference for my made up worlds.
Egyptian gods didn't actually have animal heads, it was just a visual depiction of them to represesnt they are beyond man and instead part man, part something else. Their divinity.Ugh. Let's just make Egyptian gods from real life a playable species. No thank you. Leave the real world religions alone please.
So you are saying "Egyptian gods didnt have animal heads they were just always shown to have animal heads because they were Egyptian gods"?Egyptian gods didn't actually have animal heads, it was just a visual depiction of them to represesnt they are beyond man and instead part man, part something else. Their divinity.
That's just one of their visual aspects, they were shown in other forms all the timeSo you are saying "Egyptian gods didnt have animal heads they were just always shown to have animal heads because they were Egyptian gods"?
That does feel like you are splitting your haregons there![]()
No but it is owned by a lot of real world religions and cultures. Notably not Western culture. So we should think a lot about it before we just go do it.Yeah, this is more a reference to that art. Literal animal heads are used on deities, but it's a global thing that applies to all kinds of figures and not something owned by any one culture.
Western culture has them too, they just get interpreted in certain directions because of historical events.No but it is owned by a lot of real world religions and cultures. Notably not Western culture. So we should think a lot about it before we just go do it.
But hey, I'm willing to give WotC a shot at it considering their new process with cultural consultants. We'll see how it turns out.
Oh? I did not know that. Like what?Western culture has them too, they just get interpreted in certain directions because of historical events.
Like the Minotaur, or some versions of St. Christopher.Oh? I did not know that. Like what?
Most Greek/Roman gods turn into animals at some point or another or at least have "favored" animals (peacocks and cows for Hera, bulls and eagles for Zeus, owls for Athena, horses for Poseidon, leopards for Dionysus, etc). It's not the same as being drawn with animal heads, but it's pretty close.Oh? I did not know that. Like what?
The minotaur is very specifically both a monster and a curse (on the king his father) so that very much doesn't count in this respect.Like the Minotaur, or some versions of St. Christopher.
The term for it is "Theriocephaly".