Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Veltharis ap Rylix" data-source="post: 9571756" data-attributes="member: 66357">That is entirely fair.For myself, I think the choice to make them celestial (or fey/fiendish/etc., as appropriate) spirits in animal form makes sense.Particularly in the case of giant eagles, which have always felt like a pretty blatant reference to Lord of the Rings, where their entire role can be summed up as quasi-angelic saviors descending from on high to rescue the heroes in their hour of greatest need.I mean, I get it... It sounds really close to aasimar, which is a term for a conceptually similar yet distinct thing, and came out of the same era that turned devils into baatezu and demons into tanar'ri so they could tell concerned parents that "No, D&D doesn't have demons or devils in it! Please buy our books!", something WotC hasn't exactly been shy about rolling back since they took the wheel.Of course, I happen to like those names... I've always liked the idea that the terms that devils/demons/etc. use for themselves could be different from those used by ignorant mortals, and that era also gave us yugoloth as a name for daemons (which has pretty much become their default nomenclature, probably to help distinguish daemons from demons), gehreleth for demodands (which hasn't, but still pops up from time to time), and provided the basis for non-tanar'ri demons like obyriths and loumara down the road.</blockquote>