D&D (2024) Greyhawk Confirmed. Tell Me Why.

[Azzy]

I have a feeling that Greyhawk isn't going to be contained to one chapter... but entwined in all of the rules examples. From world-building to random encounter tables to major NPCs to artifacts, etc.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Tiefling origins are completely obvious from a lore standpoint (plus, they can come from the Great Kingdom as well), but even when presented with this logical, lore-friendly explanation, some of the most hardline Greyhawk grognards simply refuse to accept it. Once, long ago, when a "tieflings in Greyhawk" conversation came up here, I got one to admit that yes, creatures with the exact same origins and descriptions as tieflings no doubt exist, and probably in large numbers, in Greyhawk, but those creatures couldn't be tieflings since tieflings don't exist in the setting. It's just weird how the name sticks in their craw.

In my experience, this is one of a number of examples of the synecdoche argument.

We see it all the time. People will argue about some specific issue, but it's not really about that issue. It's really about a constellation of issues that the single thing represents.

This? It's not about Tieflings. It's about change, and how the game should be played like it used to be.
Similarly, you'll see interminable debates about some specific issue, which are really debates about we should be playing 4e.
Or you'll see other people discussing how awesome bards are, which is really a cry for help.

But yes, having a tiefling in Greyhawk is simple (and if you're old fashioned, call them cambions or whatever). I do think that people can ask about the ways in which Greyhawk is more explicitly humano-centric than most other settings, but there isn't any problem with the addition of the core races.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

In my experience, this is one of a number of examples of the synecdoche argument.

We see it all the time. People will argue about some specific issue, but it's not really about that issue. It's really about a constellation of issues that the single thing represents.

This? It's not about Tieflings. It's about change, and how the game should be played like it used to be.
Similarly, you'll see interminable debates about some specific issue, which are really debates about we should be playing 4e.
Or you'll see other people discussing how awesome bards are, which is really a cry for help.

But yes, having a tiefling in Greyhawk is simple (and if you're old fashioned, call them cambions or whatever). I do think that people can ask about the ways in which Greyhawk is more explicitly humano-centric than most other settings, but there isn't any problem with the addition of the core races.

I immediately thought of creepy application to the lands of Iuz and did not even hesitate or think it broke anything.

We fought cambions in 1e and I thought they were particularly interesting. But it would not do anything destructive to the setting to add tieflings particularly if demonic vs. diabolic in nature.

Or just have the standard ones?

But by Pelor people like to be mad!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But by Pelor people like to be mad!

Anger and outrage are the engine of the internet.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Anger and outrage are the engine of the internet.

Well back in high school/college we did not like 2e much. We were mad about the exclusion of “demon/devil” and half orcs/assassins…but…

Our main DM bought the monstrous compendium and loved it. We used some 2e products and simply…played. A few of us got the 2e phb.

I am not sure what would happen if people took that approach now. Just play what you like, period. Use the materials you like…skip the ones you don’t.

But trying to shoot down what others like seems to be prime internet. Whatever.

As far as that goes, I will probably buy some of the new books but may (gasp) keep using some regular 5e books for crunch and fluff.

If you will excuse me I need to go into a 4e thread and explain to its fans why they are wrong have been duped and kick puppies every time they ‘mark’ a target…

 

[Maxperson]

Tiefling origins are completely obvious from a lore standpoint (plus, they can come from the Great Kingdom as well), but even when presented with this logical, lore-friendly explanation, some of the most hardline Greyhawk grognards simply refuse to accept it. Once, long ago, when a "tieflings in Greyhawk" conversation came up here, I got one to admit that yes, creatures with the exact same origins and descriptions as tieflings no doubt exist, and probably in large numbers, in Greyhawk, but those creatures couldn't be tieflings since tieflings don't exist in the setting. It's just weird how the name sticks in their craw.

As I mentioned I think upthread(hard to remember which Greyhawk thread it was), Greyhawk was a kitchen sink setting. If Gygax had Tieflings, Dragonborn and Tortles as races at the time Greyhawk was being played, they'd have been in the setting with lore to explain how. People seem to overlook how many truly weird and oddball things Gygax liked to use in his games.

 

[Maxperson]

I recommend Burning Wheel. Also Torchbearer!

I was thinking of you when I wrote that! See also Rolemaster or any other fantasy capable game system.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

People seem to overlook how many truly weird and oddball things Gygax liked to use in his games.

Greyhawk, per Gygax, had (among other things)-

1. A crashed spaceship, complete with laser guns.
2. A pocket plane that put you in Alice in Wonderland.
3. Multiple ways to get to other prime material planes, including but not limited to apocalyptic and western settings.
4. Mechanical devices, robots, and ancient computers.
5. Had villains (in his home game) that included Dr. Who and Colonel Sanders.
6. Created the Odd Alley and Weird Way in the City of Greyhawk (look it up).


I could keep going, but the 70s ... they were different.

 

[Maxperson]

I immediately thought of creepy application to the lands of Iuz and did not even hesitate or think it broke anything.

We fought cambions in 1e and I thought they were particularly interesting. But it would not do anything destructive to the setting to add tieflings particularly if demonic vs. diabolic in nature.

Or just have the standard ones?

But by Pelor people like to be mad!

The original tieflings were just folks who had lower planar blood in their veins. Could be a demon, devil or some other evil lower planar creature in their past. 3e continued that lore. 5e's limitation to devils is really the non-standard version.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The original tieflings were just folks who had lower planar blood in their veins. Could be a demon, devil or some other evil lower planar creature in their past. 3e continued that lore. 5e's limitation to devils is really the non-standard version.

Yeah, and that would require absolutely minimal re-skinning, if that.