Does anyone actually like Dragonborn and Tieflings?

[ThirdWizard]

I'm not sure we can take a ENWorld poll as quite scientific though. I'm sure the poll could easily be different on different sites.

I'd be very surprised if the two races weren't more popular outside of ENWorld.

 

[Desdichado]

Also, am I the only one who thinks the Elderin, Elves, and Drow are nothing more than Asian, European, and African elves?

Quite probably, because I can't think of a single reason to make that correllation.

Why; where do you get that?

 

[EATherrian]

Sounds pretty cool, huh?

No, it makes my Drizz't-sense go off, and I start getting stabby at the game table.

 

[EATherrian]

I'd be very surprised if the two races weren't more popular outside of ENWorld.

Well, there's no accounting for taste.

 

[EATherrian]

Im going to ask the people who think tieflings and dragonborn should not be core one question. Why? Why should they not be core? Just because tolkien did not have them?

For me it's because I don't see them having a broad role, and since I'm using an established game-world that included all of the 3.x core, new core races mean too much ret-conning or trashing my world and creating a new one. Some of us enjoy our worlds and enjoy having the races we've had since 1st Edition AD&D still available as core. Plus as I mentioned in another response I think that the Tieflings are just there to help out the 'angsty' vibe that started with a certain badly written dark elf.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Im going to ask the people who think tieflings and dragonborn should not be core one question. Why? Why should they not be core? Just because tolkien did not have them?

Personally, I think they should have to sit in the corner until their art and design is re-done, but I'm not sure that's the same thing as them not being core. I think the main problem Dragonborn have is that, despite being, y'know kinda a Dragons, they're actually pretty dull and unmemorable. If you gave Klingons a breath-weapon you'd have something more exciting, frankly, and when your fancy new fantasy is racer is "duller than Klingons", I don't think you should be too proud of yourself. Also tail fiasco.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Anti-hero doesn't have to mean evil, it usually just means "bad tempered or otherwise "not so good" hero that kills evil with lots of violence and other dark touches".

Tieflings and Dragonborn seem to fit this rather well, compared to say the clichee Paladin that upholds honor and good without using every means at his disposal.

Actually, dragonborn are described as being extremely honorable as a race, so the only race that is less anti-hero (by default) than they are would be dwarves, and that's even arguable.

So I fully disagree that they fit anti-hero rather well, and say that they actually don't fit anti-hero at all unless you specifically make them unlike the rest of their kind.

 

[Fenes]

They're a warlike inhuman lizard race. That alone makes them "anti hero".

 

[Rechan]

They're a warlike inhuman lizard race. That alone makes them "anti hero".

Are they more warlike than oh, DWARVES? You know, the guys whose natural inclination is for the Fighter?

Also, Inhuman? Hint: If it ain't human, it's inhuman.

Warlike and Inhuman does not mean anti-hero. If you want to stretch the definition, then by nature, adventurers are anti-heroes. They're breaking into people's homes to murder them and loot. They butcher humanoids based on their skin and race. They walk into town armed to the teeth. They defile the resting place of the dead. Etc. Etc.

 

[Nifft]

They're a warlike inhuman lizard race. That alone makes them "anti hero".

Every PC race is warlike and inhuman (except for humans, who are instead warlike and human).

Cheers, -- N