I've reversed my stance on dragonborn and tieflings

[theredrobedwizard]

Evil will always win because good is dumb

For some reason the dragonborn(especially suited up in armor) remind me of those futuristic wargame minis that used to be advertised in the pages of Dungeon or Dragon magazines. I just don't like the idea of Tieflings and Dragonborn being "core" races. I would be a lot happier if they were options in future supplements like warforged, thri-kreen etc... Now almost every pick-up game at the shop or on the new DDI will have to deal with these "evil hipster" races.

Favored children of Bahamut != evil hipsters. Is there a typological symbol for "is the antithesis of"? If so, replace the "is not equal to" sign in the previous statement with it.

-TRRW

 

[I'm A Banana]

Tieflings hang out at Denny's and drink herbal tea all night.

They did that back in 2e, too, but at least in that edition they could actually sit in a booth without breaking their spines at the tails.

 

[kennew142]

There have been a lot posts on these forums about the inclusion of dragonborn and tieflings in the D&D 4e. Some foks think they're cool, while others object to them intensely. Some posters have tried to make the argument that older gamers, or gamers with more experience dislike them, while newer or younger gamers like them. I don't think this argument holds water.

The group I play with has an average age of about 40, with a range from 19 to 50-something. Most of us have been playing since the 1980s. This makes us neither young gamers, nor newcomers to the hobby. Yet, we love the new elements we've seen for D&D 4e, including dragonborn, tieflings and warlocks.

Some posters like to imply that everyone who thinks tieflings are cool are goths, emos or whatever term is most demeaning in their minds, as an attempt to belittle everyone who disagrees with them and to invalidate their gaming tastes. This is not only uncalled for, but also makes for a weak argument.

IMO, the unlying message seems to be that anyone who plays D&D in a way tha deviates in even the slightest way from what they consider to be the One True Way, is playing the game wrong. If you don't like one of the new races or classes, don't use it. They appeal to a lot of gamers, with a variety of backgrounds.

I am happy to see D&D break out of the JRR Tolkien sized box it has been constrained in for so long. I say this with no animus towards professor Tolkien. I taught the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings in my high school mythology course for 3 years. However, the world of fantasy is larger than just one author and his imitators. It includes plenty of space for dragonfolk, demonspawn and yes even for combat maneuvers inspired by anime.

Anyone who doesn't like any of the new elements can always not use them. No one will be forced to include dragonborn and tieflings in their home games. Since a given group's right to include or not include any particular race or class is not in dispute, it would seem that the issue devolves to some players wanting to deny others the ability to include these elements in their own games.

If you want to include all that anime stuff, go play another game. Nothing that didn't appear in Lord of the Rings should be in the core rules; it should all be relegated to later supplements.

These aren't quotes, but they do seem to encapsulate some of the opinions expressed in these forums.

 

[Panamon Creel]

I don't mind the tieflings, but for some reason the uniform look and uniform backstory makes them seem more like a sci-fi race and less like a fantasy race. A little too close to this guy.

 

[kennew142]

Why couldn't the PHB have classic races (dwarf, elf, gnome, halfling, half-elf, half-orc, and human) done in as setting-neutral a way as possible?

Later PHBs could have been setting specific. A planar PHB could have assimar, tieflings and other planar races. The Eberron PHB would have changelings, warforged, etc.

The answer is that WotC wants players who want classic options to have to buy as many PHBs as possible.

Is it better for players who like more innovative character options to have to buy as many PHBs as possible? The entire thread encapsulated by the quote above boils down to: I want everything I like to be in PHB1. Everyone else should have to buy supplements to play the game the way they want.

For the record, I would like to note that it is very unlikely that I will ever play any of these new races. I (almost exclusively) play humans. It's the attitude that I don't like. We all play the same game. If there's something any of us want in our games that isn't in PHB1, we will have to house rule it or buy another book. No one group of players should expect to have everything their way.

 

[kennew142]

I don't mind the tieflings, but for some reason the uniform look and uniform backstory makes them seem more like a sci-fi race and less like a fantasy race.

The uniform look and backstory make sense if you are trying to make them into a race, instead of a collection of individuals. It has been hinted that devils will have a tighter concept in 4e. Since tieflings are the result of ancient pacts between humans and devils, I would expect a more uniform appearance.

 

[MisterWhodat]

How can I open a Tiefling brothel in 4E when it is so hard for them to lay on their backs with that fat tail? Why is the tail so big? Was there research done on tail sizes?

Ok for real I am taking a wait and see attitude after the Races book, my group plays in the Realms so I have to wait and see how the incorporation is going to work over there before I pass too much judgment.

 

[theredrobedwizard]

How can I open a Tiefling brothel in 4E when it is so hard for them to lay on their backs with that fat tail? Why is the tail so big? Was there research done on tail sizes?

Ok for real I am taking a wait and see attitude after the Races book, my group plays in the Realms so I have to wait and see how the incorporation is going to work over there before I pass too much judgment.

Who said anything about prostitieflings being submissive? I'm pretty sure they fit the dominant role a lot better, as such, they'll most likely be in a less "on their backs" kind of position.

This post was originally much more detailed and lengthy, but I figured that Eric's Grandma wouldn't be too cool with it.

-TRRW

 

[Mercule]

Some posters like to imply that everyone who thinks tieflings are cool are goths, emos or whatever term is most demeaning in their minds, as an attempt to belittle everyone who disagrees with them and to invalidate their gaming tastes. This is not only uncalled for, but also makes for a weak argument.

Not so much. I, for one, had rather come to accept tieflings in 4E prior to reading the R&C book. I wouldn't say I was excited by them, but I had gotten over most of my misgivings to the point I didn't really have an issue with them in the PHB. Like you say, different strokes.

I was extremely disappointed by what I read in R&C, though. It pretty well reduced the tieflings to silly caricatures of emo-goths. Don't get me wrong... I rather enjoy the moralist, contemplative struggle against inner darkness. I played V:tM for 7-8 years and left it mainly because 3E came out. I've even played half-fiendish characters and had a blast.

I've never had a problem with tieflings (in the 2E/3E sense) in D&D, I was just a bit unsure about putting them in the PHB. I thought it was a matter of what was appropriate to the genre, but eventually warmed to it. The basic idea of a race descended from infernalists actually isn't that bad, when you look at Moorcock or some others.

On reading the R&C book, though, I was struck by the poor implementation of the concept. Granted, I could probably come up with worse, but the version presented is pretty bland. There were a couple of things I felt like I could hang a hook on, but those were usually twisted later in the essay into something I wouldn't use.

It's not a bad idea. It's a reasonable idea that was botched -- assuming there isn't a rewrite of the tiefling backstory between R&C and PHB.

As always, art is subjective. I prefer my tainted humans to look like tainted humans, not full-bore infernal beasts. The over-the-top horns and saurian tail are horrible, IMO. The text says tieflings are charismatic and could pass for human at a distance. The pictures say tieflings are disturbingly alien and could pass for demons, trolls, or circus freaks at a distance.

If D&D wasn't D&D (the big name) and I didn't already play, the picture on R&C would probably cause me to ignore the game and look for something else. Vestigial horns would be a huge improvement and a tail-job wouldn't hurt, either.

 

[Lackhand]

... much more detailed and lengthy, but I figured that Eric's Grandma wouldn't be too cool with it.
-TRRW

ACK detailed and lengthy ow ow ow.
That is all.

Edit: Not quite all, might as well add some content. As I understand it, the Tiefling backstory is
Step One: There is a human empire with greedy noble houses
Step Two: The greedy noble houses say "We want phenomenal cosmic power"
Step Two A: The greedy noble houses subcontract the phenomenal cosmic power to the Nine Hells. Oops.
Step Three: Slaughtering those who oppose them, they perform multiple terrifying devil summonings
Step Four: They're twisted and marked unto the last generation to mark the covenant
Step Five: Kill everyone who isn't them, but fail, ultimately destroying the nation and scattering the survivors.

That's pretty cool, I think. What's wrong with that?