Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SilverfireSage" data-source="post: 6394354" data-attributes="member: 6778313">I would venture a guess to say they put tieflings in there because they are popular, and they excluded Aasimar because they are not.None of the races are inherently evil. Obviously, having the heritage of a fiend/orc might make you more inclined to be evil, because it comes along with a lot of mistrust and discrimination, but the book even outright states &quot;tieflings might not have an innate tendency toward evil, but many of them end up there.&quot; Any of the races can be evil, this has been true of every game.This is probably because while being Evil is an option, it's also discouraged. Nobody wants a truly evil character in their group. The only time I've ever had that happen, the evil character tried to have all of the others killed and I outright banned that player from the game when he showed no remorse. But as with necromancy it probably comes back to popularity; necromancers are an established part of D&amp;D, whereas Death Domain Clerics are not. Where does it say you can't break your oath? There are no actual rules saying that breaking your oath has direct consequences, just a small paragraph in an optional box saying the DM might want you to pick a different class if you don't care about following one of the oaths. This got awful personal real fast. This isn't an endless book where they can put stuff in wherever they want. Everyone is going to have some things they want that are missing, but saying that the writers should have done their job better because they didn't put in something you wanted is entitlement at its worst. I hate to speak as bluntly as this, but this is pretty much the gist of it: The options that you want are likely not popular. Because of that, they excluded them from the book. If you don't like it, houserule it, simple as that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SilverfireSage, post: 6394354, member: 6778313"] I would venture a guess to say they put tieflings in there because they are popular, and they excluded Aasimar because they are not. None of the races are inherently evil. Obviously, having the heritage of a fiend/orc might make you more inclined to be evil, because it comes along with a lot of mistrust and discrimination, but the book even outright states "tieflings might not have an innate tendency toward evil, but many of them end up there." Any of the races can be evil, this has been true of every game. This is probably because while being Evil is an option, it's also discouraged. Nobody wants a truly evil character in their group. The only time I've ever had that happen, the evil character tried to have all of the others killed and I outright banned that player from the game when he showed no remorse. But as with necromancy it probably comes back to popularity; necromancers are an established part of D&D, whereas Death Domain Clerics are not. Where does it say you can't break your oath? There are no actual rules saying that breaking your oath has direct consequences, just a small paragraph in an optional box saying the DM might want you to pick a different class if you don't care about following one of the oaths. This got awful personal real fast. This isn't an endless book where they can put stuff in wherever they want. Everyone is going to have some things they want that are missing, but saying that the writers should have done their job better because they didn't put in something you wanted is entitlement at its worst. I hate to speak as bluntly as this, but this is pretty much the gist of it: The options that you want are likely not popular. Because of that, they excluded them from the book. If you don't like it, houserule it, simple as that. [/QUOTE]

Verification