D&D General What Would Happen if Fiends Came to Fill the "Low CR Monsters" Niche?

[Scribe]

And we already have tieflings in the game already.

Exactly. It's just the nect step to apply morality to a Devil/Demon.

 

[Oofta]

...teiflings?

I find it odd how few people are willing to just say "these goblins are evil, and you can tell because they wear evil overlord badges" and call it a day. It implies the existence of non-evil goblins but also makes it clear that these ones are kill-on-sight.

If people are fighting goblins there's a reason for it in my games. I just have little use for goblins that are not evil, I have a few as a result of a long ago campaign choice. Same way that if fiends are not born of evil I would never include them in my game.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If people are fighting goblins there's a reason for it in my games. I just have little use for goblins that are not evil, I have a few as a result of a long ago campaign choice. Same way that if fiends are not born of evil I would never include them in my game.

The vast majority of imaginary people in your imaginary world do not appear in the game. And that doesn't matter, the point is to break the link between race and morality. It doesn't matter if your good goblin is Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Adventure, so long as they exist somewhere in the world.

 

[Krachek]

Orc in LoTR can be tag as fiend.
I guess that it could be fine in some official setting too.
For now fiend are tag as beyond redemption, but that may change,
Is it enough to shut down any possible complaint? I guess not.

 

[Remathilis]

The game already has that: they are called gnolls and they absolutely fill the low CR demon role in all but creature type (and I assume that is due to how certain spells and abilities interact with fiends).

People have pretty solidly rejected that. Using a different fiend isn't going to change that.

 

[Cadence]

The game already has that: they are called gnolls and they absolutely fill the low CR demon role in all but creature type (and I assume that is due to how certain spells and abilities interact with fiends).

People have pretty solidly rejected that. Using a different fiend isn't going to change that.

Weren't gnolls originally not fiends? Were they mortals turned into fiends then or mortals brainwashed to work for fiends or actual fiends? Are there still some non-evil ones?

 

[bennet]

I've been thinking for a while that D&D, if it wanted to, could just shift a lot of the negative traits ascribed to goblins and orcs and whatever to certain low CR demons and make them more common as low-level enemies.

Thoughts?

Neutering the word demon or devil is a terrible idea.

Clearly you only need to use cishet white men to represent evil.

 

[Remathilis]

Weren't gnolls originally not fiends? Were they mortals turned into fiends then or mortals brainwashed to work for fiends or actual fiends? Are there still some non-evil ones?

5e lore says they are born of normal hyenas that were corrupted by demon ichor. New gnolls are created when hyenas (and sometimes other creatures) eat dead gnoll meat and transform into "adult" gnolls. They barely work with any other races, create no tools or living spaces, only communicate in the simplest terms, and have no families or young.


This is very different than previous edition lore, and some exceptions (such as Eberron) exist. They were set up to be basically unnatural engines of terror and destruction that orcs could only dream of being, and it's been soundly rejected by people who just want a hyena-headed PC race.

I don't imagine a 'gnoll 2.0" will fair much better.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

5e lore says they are born of normal hyenas that were corrupted by demon ichor. New gnolls are created when hyenas (and sometimes other creatures) eat dead gnoll meat and transform into "adult" gnolls. They barely work with any other races, create no tools or living spaces, only communicate in the simplest terms, and have no families or young.


This is very different than previous edition lore, and some exceptions (such as Eberron) exist. They were set up to be basically unnatural engines of terror and destruction that orcs could only dream of being, and it's been soundly rejected by people who just want a hyena-headed PC race.

I don't imagine a 'gnoll 2.0" will fair much better.

The new Tal'Dorei setting book actually establishes that the origin of gnolls is the same as default 5E, but then has a group of gnolls that, despite being created by an evil ritual to go slaughter a village, decided they didn't want to hurt the villagers and killed their creator instead.

Presumably the gnolls of that setting can reproduce in other ways, but it's interesting that they incorporated the official 5E lore on gnoll creation while also saying that the demon ichor used to create them has no impact on if they're good or evil.

 

[Cadence]

5e lore says they are born of normal hyenas that were corrupted by demon ichor. New gnolls are born when hyenas (and sometimes other creatures) eat dead gnoll meat. This is very different than previous edition lore, and some exceptions (such as Eberron) exist.

They are set up to be basically unnatural engines of terror and destruction that orcs could only dream of being, and it's been soundly rejected by people who just want a hyena-headed PC race.

I don't imagine a 'gnoll 2.0" will fair much better.

I was thinking back to the B/X, 1e, 2e, 3/3.5/PF versions. Was it 4 where they changed from just being humanoids? (I had completely forgotten the B/X rumor of their orgin).