D&D 5E Monster Manual and Races

[Xodis]

Bad week for aasimars; they don't even make the 5e DMG and they got pushed out of Pathfinder Organized Play. I would say they should call their lawyer, but where are you going to find one on the Upper Planes?

This is usually where deals with the devil start and we have end of times BS happening....damn lawyers.

 

[Sigma77]

Bad week for aasimars; they don't even make the 5e DMG and they got pushed out of Pathfinder Organized Play. I would say they should call their lawyer, but where are you going to find one on the Upper Planes?

Amusingly enough, this Lawyer only plays Paladins xp

 

[GX.Sigma]

If that's true I'll be very disappointed. You would think that a game about heroes vanquishing evil that allows you to BE an evil inclined race (Tiefling) (please read: they aren't evil but they are inclined to be), they would allow the other side of the coin, the race that's inclined towards good

Elf: Chaotic Good
Dwarf: Lawful Good
Halfling: Lawful Good
Gnome: Good

Drow: Evil
Tieflings: "[do] not have an innate tendency toward evil"

you are usually playing a "good" group.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Obryn]

I don't want to go back to using the Monster Manual as a player resource.

 

[Evenglare]

Speak for yourself.

I don't think it's quite a bold statement to say that most people are playing in good or neutral campaigns. Are you really challenging that assertion? You think most people play in evil campaigns? If so, why is the only evil campaign out there Way of the Wicked. I'm not saying that published adventures are only what people play, it would seem to me though, that if people played more evil campaigns than good ones, then it should follow that there would be more evil campaigns published.

 

[Evenglare]

I don't want to go back to using the Monster Manual as a player resource.

I don't either, but right now us Aasimar supporters are basically dogs begging for scraps because the designers don't think it's "fun" to play as a good/divine celestial being.... apparently. Gotta have those edgy, dark brooding bad boy traits

 

[Evenglare]

Tieflings: "[do] not have an innate tendency toward evil"

Tieflings: "MIGHT not have an innate tendency toward evil, but many do end up there."

Fixed that for you Those few words are mighty important.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I don't think it's quite a bold statement to say that most people are playing in good or neutral campaigns. Are you really challenging that assertion? You think most people play in evil campaigns? If so, why is the only evil campaign out there Way of the Wicked. I'm not saying that published adventures are only what people play, it would seem to me though, that if people played more evil campaigns than good ones, then it should follow that there would be more evil campaigns published.

1. Way of the Wicked is not "the only evil campaign." I don't know in what context that statement makes sense. Do you mean it's the only explicitly "evil" adventure path published by a given company?
2. A lot of D&D content, especially old-school stuff, is intentionally amoral (see #3, below).
   • Why are you going to the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief? Because your king will execute you if you don't.
   • Why are you going to the the Tomb of Horrors? Because there's cool stuff there and you're a treasure hunter with a death wish.
   • Why are you going to the Caves of Chaos? Actually, good question, there's better treasure in the Keep. I backstab the castellan.
3. There is more capacity for evil PCs in old D&D than good ones (using 1e as an example here):
   • There is one base class that tends towards evil, and none that tend toward good. "All thieves are neutral or evil, although they can be neutral good (rarely)"
   • The subclasses that tend toward good have much steeper prerequisites than the subclass that is always evil.

If your statement was "Modern big-budget RPG publishers expect you to play a 'good' group," then I'd agree with you.

 

[Umbran]

... but where are you going to find one on the Upper Planes?

Anywhere from the Nine Hells, though Nirvana, to the Seven Heavens - the Lawful portion of the wheel should be *loaded* with lawyers!

 

[Kobold Stew]

a non-Aasimar-specific answer, in two parts:

1. Last year there was a survey done on one of the weekly columns that listed a series of possible humanoid races as playable characters. I don't have the actual list handy, but it included the three goblinoids, orc, gnoll, lizard folk, and kobold. I don't remember if aasimar was on the list. The way I read it, this was the list of races they were considering for inclusion in the place that corresponds to the "back of the Monster Manual" -- optional extra monster races. I would not be surprised to see them all make the cut. But I don't think the list will be much expanded. (Maybe it was one of Wyatt's Wandering Monsters? If so I can't find it now, but I do see Aasimar listed here as a "dirt-simple humanoid". Maybe it was the poll tied to this.

2. The latest announcement that they are expanding the Monster Manual made me suspect that the playable monsters was not going to be part of the DMG, in part because this would be such an obvious thing to cut and save for later. The decision to expand (without any specific mention of playable monster races) leads me to believe that if they exist, they will be in the DMG with Warforged and Kender. That's a guess, though, and i they've followed the model where PC options are listed with the race itself, then it's all moot.