Why all the fiendish love?

[Baby Samurai]

Devils are fallen angels, and demons are corrupted elemental. Not incarnated ideas.

Yep, and the gods now have abodes that float in the Astral Sea, and the Abyss is a stain/sore in the Elemental Tempest plane.

 

[Theldyrn]

Moral handwringing of this sort makes me want to put lots of demons, devils, tieflings, yugoloths, cambions, succubi, and a motley assortment of Things That Should Not Be in my campaign.

Moral handwringing that's inserting the catheter in disguise makes me want to, umm, do the same thing, with the addition of Eberron's daelkyr.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Well, let us in on the secret. What does define poor taste?

"In poor taste" usually means "with no other purpose than to offend sensibilities." It is profoundly different in meaning from "not to my taste."

Moreover, I think it's untenable for people to make the de gustibus... argument and then label something "in poor taste" or, for that matter, just "bad taste." Either you're arguing that something's not to your taste (in which case it's your taste, and that's that) or you're arguing that something is *objectively* problematic (in which case you're arguing its merits with an eye to confronting other opinions on its merits that may be different from yours).

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Ruleslawyer puts my case better than I might have done!

 

[Wormwood]

Because demons are ****ing METAL, that's why.

I may have less hair and more paunch than I had 20 years ago, but sometimes I just NEED to throw up the horns!

 

[Celebrim]

"In poor taste" usually means "with no other purpose than to offend sensibilities."

You mean, something like this:

"Moral handwringing of this sort makes me want to put lots of demons, devils, tieflings, yugoloths, cambions, succubi, and a motley assortment of Things That Should Not Be in my campaign."

I think alot of the value that is wrung out of having fiendish elements in D&D comes from there attraction as 'things that should not be'. You hear alot of talk of, "Yay, now I can do something mature in my campaign", and I always wonder just what 'mature' is supposed to mean in that context. I often think that its percieved as 'mature' simply because 'moral handwringers' disapprove of it.

 

[Celebrim]

Fiends and celestials in Dungeons & Dragons have never been "incarnated ideas" exactly as you describe. They have always possessed "free will", "complexity", and the "capacity for good and evil".

That goes a long ways toward explaining why I've never found them interesting. Basically, you've got super-humans in fiendish drag then. It's literary name dropping. "Hey, let's have monsters we call demons, because you know, demons are kewl."

I guess I shouldn't complain too much, because in a sense what D&D does with demons and devils is less morally objectionable precisely because they are so childishly concieved and basically just another monster. The current conception is about as un-occult as it could be and still be remotely recognizable.

If they don't, you can't have fallen angels...

Actually, this isn't true, but I don't want to spend along time discussing the metaphysics again.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I often think that its percieved as 'mature' simply because 'moral handwringers' disapprove of it.

No, not mature. Usually the word that fits there is "imperative". Moral handwringing is often associated with censorship (see 2nd edition), and raises a red flag for a lot of people. The usual response to censorship is to turn whatever was being censored up to 11, to show that you're not going to be controlled by someone else's sensibilities.

Seeing as how D&D has a history of censorship thanks to interference by busybodies, I can understand why someone would get his back up at the suggestion that more censorship is necessary.

 

[WayneLigon]

The whole point of an incarnated idea is that it isn't human. So then you put it together with a human, and what you get is a human with horns 'turned up to 11'. Humans are interesting because they are complex, have free will, and the capacity for good and evil. Incarnated ideas are interesting because they don't. You can't really have half of two absolutes. Either the thing has free will and complexity and the capacity for good and evil, or it doesn't. Either its a demon or its a mortal. The tiefling really can't do anything that one or the other couldn't do. It's just 'kewl'.

The way I normally run things (again, all that sort of stuff depends on the exact campaign), demons and devils (and other types of celestials) are incarnated ideals. The Tiefling would indeed be the classic 'angst' race because one part of them has free will but another part of them does not. Thus, if they want to be good or neutral, they have to constantly struggle against that side of them that will always be evil, Always. No matter what atonements they go through, no matter how dee they bury it. Mortal magics can't touch that core of evil they have in them.

Every little thing they do is touched by it. If they hit someone in combat, they have to consciously keep from making that extra little twist of the sword so that not only do they cut the guy, they also maim him for life. If they fall in love, they have to work extra hard not to occassionally do something cruel to that person just to see the hurt in their eyes. It's a constant balancing act for them and, frankly, one they can't help but fail at now and again no matter how strong they are. Not happy and not 'kewl'.

But most people will just play them for the demonic appearance, and the spell-like abilities, I'm sure, and ignore all that inconvenient roleplaying stuff.

Conversely, you can see how that could be an even greater roleplaying challenge to play an asimar, where part of them can't help but be good and merciful. It doesn't have the same ring to it, since a lot of their struggle with the world will be totally internal.

 

[KarinsDad]

"In poor taste" usually means "with no other purpose than to offend sensibilities." It is profoundly different in meaning from "not to my taste."

Well, if you are going to be literal about it, yours is a very specific definition of "in poor taste". There is nothing to indicate that the phrase must mean that there is no other purpose than to offend. In fact, a distasteful or in poor taste comment is often one where the person making the comment is totally unaware that s/he is being either offensive, or crude, or tactless.

I find the inclusion of Tieflings to be crude or lowlife. It does not offend me, I just find it below pedestrian, the opposite of heroic, and as Imp put it, cheesy. Something I would expect of 14 year olds looking for something cool to add, not game designers who should be upholding the traditions of DND: the things that make DND great like the core PC races.

I am not opposed to getting rid of sacred cows (like Invisibility being a second level spell) if it makes the game system more balanced.

I am opposed to changing the flavor of core DND, just to change the flavor. Removing Gnomes and adding Tieflings has nothing to do with game balance. It's total flavor and it's not core DND flavor.

To me, that's "in poor taste". YMMV and obviously does.

Moreover, I think it's untenable for people to make the de gustibus... argument and then label something "in poor taste" or, for that matter, just "bad taste." Either you're arguing that something's not to your taste (in which case it's your taste, and that's that) or you're arguing that something is *objectively* problematic (in which case you're arguing its merits with an eye to confronting other opinions on its merits that may be different from yours).

And a third possibility cannot exist in your narrow definition world?