Scribe
Legend
No I'm not, I understand that it applies to PCs.You are acting as if the description that applies to player characters applies to 100% of the species. That ignores the verbiage used for 5e
I also understand that it lacks all nuance.
No I'm not, I understand that it applies to PCs.You are acting as if the description that applies to player characters applies to 100% of the species. That ignores the verbiage used for 5e
Actually, you're human. I think a more apt version would be if you were a merman - half human, half fish. YMMVokay, I don't follow Wizards and D&D much, but I gather that half races (or ancestries or whatever they are calling it now) is going away?
ummm, why?
I'm half asian, half white. I don't see any issue.
i agree with most of this description but i think i would replace the bolded section with:Heh.
I would say something like ...
The Human species is unusual within the Material Plane, evolving naturally from Beasts while gaining the capacity of speech and sapience. They value learning and forming social communities where they transmit knowledge to future generations. Humans are curious and ambitious − and highly aggressive, the most violent and dangerous of all natural creatures. Yet they also tend to balance compassion and justice, community obligations and individual freedoms.
It has become quite the nuisance.I've seen the word 'nuance' typed so much now that the word has started to look weird.
Wait, what? Per your prior posts in this thread, you believe the mere existence of three lineages within the elf species is inherently racist, but you have no problem calling out one and only one playable species as "the most violent and dangerous of all natural creatures" in your proposed species write-up? If WotC characterized orcs as "the most violent and dangerous of all natural creatures," would you be okay with that? What if WotC characterized drow elves as "the most violent and dangerous of all natural creatures," but made no such statement about high elves?Humans are curious and ambitious − and highly aggressive, the most violent and dangerous of all natural creatures.
Wait, what? Per your prior posts in this thread, you believe the mere existence of three lineages within the elf species is inherently racist, but you have no problem calling out one and only one playable species as "the most violent and dangerous of all natural creatures" in your proposed species write-up? If WotC characterized orcs as "the most violent and dangerous of all natural creatures," would you be okay with that? What if WotC characterized drow elves as "the most violent and dangerous of all natural creatures," but made no such statement about high elves?
Is there any 5E tiefling lore other than what's provided for player characters?You are acting as if the description that applies to player characters applies to 100% of the species. That ignores the verbiage used for 5e
There's several NPCs outlined, and they're quite evil, which people in this thread have insisted is impossibleIs there any 5E tiefling lore other than what's provided for player characters?