# Does anyone actually like Dragonborn and Tieflings?



## Mercurius

Am I just a grognard, or are Dragonborn and, to a lesser degree, Tieflings universally despised? Both seem more "kewl" than "cool", more post-2000 World of Warcraft-esque fantasy than classic Lord of the Rings fantasy or New Wave Talislanta-esque weird fantasy.

I wish I liked them but I just don't. They both seem kind of silly to me. Of the 3.x races I would have preferred to see genasi as core than tieflings. Actually, I would have liked to see WotC retain the classic core classes in PHB I (inc. gnomes and half-orcs) and then in later PHBs, or even a Race book of its own, have other playable races like Dragonborn, Tieflings, Genasi, Drow, etc.

Ultimately I don't care all that much as I just wouldn't use them in my campaign, or at least as very rare occurences. But I guess I'm just a bit surprised they are both core; now I was out of gaming from about 2003-08, but it seems they kind of came out of nowhere in terms of centrality to the D&D ethos. Anyways, poll away...


----------



## Wormwood

Love Tieflings, neutral on Dragonborn.

Elves and Dwarves, on the other hand, bore me to tears.


----------



## Shroomy

Yeah, I got no problems with either race, I like'em fine.  I can also see why WoTC included both racial archetypes in the new core rules.


----------



## drothgery

I think it's kind of shocking that Dungeons & Dragons went 30 years without dragon-men in core, though for purposes of artwork plausibility IMC I think I'd say dragonborn are mammals (and so are dragons). On the other hand, I've never really liked giving PCs demonic flavor, so not huge tiefling fan. Though that's more of an indifferent than dislike; as long as D&D has humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings, anything else is gravy.


----------



## Psion

I don't dislike them so much as I don't want to see them as default elements.

Honestly, I'd be glad to allow either in my 3e game. _As exceptions_.


----------



## AFGNCAAP

Dislike them both.

Not to the point where I flat-out forbid them in my games, but I'm just not keen on having either race be dominant in the game.  I limit their availability as PCs (one per adventuring group), that's all.

Now, I like that all PC races (and monsters available as PC races) don't have the Level Adjustment element anymore.  Makes things somewhat easier to incorporate into a game (esp. a starting game).

But, I don't care that gnomes and half-orcs were excluded while these 2 races were included.  I can understand why, but I don't like it.


----------



## JeffB

I guess I'm a grognard- I figure Gygax and the original TSR crew wrote the best adventures ever, I learned how to play with and love the LBBs, adore  Moldvay/Cook B/X, 1E, C&C and all sorts of classic D&D flavor. But I also love Eberron (Xen'Drik=perfect D&D gaming setup)  and 4E! (hate 3.x , sorry)

With that little bit of my background laid out- I can say neither the silly jimmy durante shnoz' people ..err dragonborn... or the Tieflings will be making any appearances in my 4E campaign.


----------



## Doug McCrae

They're growing on me. I want my first few 4e games to be close to the assumptions in the core rules, which means there must be tieflings and dragonborn kicking around. Having to come up with a reason for them to exist in the campaign world means one ends up thinking about them in a positive way.

Next thing you know, they'll be part of the wonderful D&D tradition and people will cry on message boards when they're removed in 8e.


----------



## EricNoah

I like Planescape-esque tieflings fine -- you know, the ones where no two look exactly alike.  Not the 4E variety that look like a unified race. 

Not as interested in Dragonborn. 

So I voted Tiefling Yes, Dragonborn No.


----------



## Gold Roger

I like Tieflings.

I'm indifferent to dragonborn and if it was entirely about me I'd propably remove them to make room for other choices. But I've got the same feeling  about elves, half-elves and halflings.

However, I currently have a dragonborn and a half-elf in my campaign, so my players like them.


----------



## Masquerade

I love dragonborn, but I am still ambivalent toward tieflings. There is a dragonborn PC in my game, but my players haven't shown much interest in tieflings, either.

I think I would rather have seen shadar-kai in the PHB to provide the Shadowfell side of the eladrins' Feywild coin.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

I like them both. I am not sure they are necessary, but I like the elements they bring to the table.
Tieflings as creatures with a dark heritage, and the Dragonborn with their wandering Mercenary style culture. 

To be honest, Dragonborn give me a certain... Klingon vibe. I like that. They have this mix of honorable warriors and a certain violent/rage-like attitude (extra damage when being bloodied).


----------



## Andor

I've had a soft spot in my heart for tieflings ever since the DiTerlizzi planesacpe stuff.

I'm glad 4e Tieflings got their charisma bonus back, but they look pretty silly now. But I voted for 'em anyway. 

Dragonborn are... okay. I think I'd rather have T'skrang or plain old lizard men though.


----------



## Gundark

I'm okay with Dragonborn. I like Tieflings. I was kinda "meh" on Dragonborn, however the players in my group loved them....3 out of the 5 are Dragonborn. So slowly my opinion has been changing.


----------



## Gundark

Mercurius said:


> I would have liked to see WotC retain the classic core classes in PHB I (inc. gnomes and half-orcs) and then in later PHBs, or even a Race book of its own, have other playable races like Dragonborn, Tieflings, Genasi, Drow, etc.




Funny I remember lots of half orc and gnome hate threads, now that they're gone people seem to love them.


----------



## Nifft

Tieflings = *awesome*.
Dragonborn = tolerable.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## der_kluge

Gundark said:


> Funny I remember lots of half orc and gnome hate threads, now that they're gone people seem to love them.




I never ever cared for half-orcs. Orcs IMC don't sleep with humans, they kill them.

I've always loved gnomes, though. And am frankly quite perplexed as to why they were removed in favor of these "alien" races.

I'm cool with Eladrin, although I prefer the term High Elf.

And I can only conclude that those who are OK with Tieflings and Dragonborn must not have any sort of established campaign world. Because AFAIK, no campaign world supported these kinds of races before 4th edition. These two races have no place in my world.


----------



## Ourph

Like Tieflings, like Dragonborn, wish someone would finally stick a fork in the Half-Elf.


----------



## Cadfan

Gundark said:


> Funny I remember lots of half orc and gnome hate threads, now that they're gone people seem to love them.



Now that they're gone, there's no reason to hate on them.  So the haters are quiet, while the people who loved them are noisy.

In any case, put me down for loving both new races.  Far better than dwarves.  

"They're like humans, except short, fat, and heavy drinkers."
"So exactly like humans then?"
"... they have axes?"


----------



## Cadfan

Ourph said:


> Like Tieflings, like Dragonborn, wish someone would finally stick a fork in the Half-Elf.



Amen.  Least favorite D&D race EVER.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Initially I was bothered by both. But after reflection I found that there were places for both in my long running home brew. In fact, both had places that were rather central to the setting.

Well, I could only use the dragonborn with a name change and a history change . . . so pretty much extensive flavor alteration. The tieflings would only fit as a very tiny minority in a geographically limited area . . . a place that happened to be the primary dungeoneering destination.

So for my homebrew it's a win. For certain other published settings I love (Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Mystara) I'm just not sure so I'm indifferent. Greyhawk? I dunno at all. Dark Sun, dragonborn work well as Dray. Mystara, tieflings might work as diabolus with some slight changes and with an abundance of anthropomorphized animal races, dragonborn could fit as some newly discovered race in an isolated pocket on Brun or as some distant nation on Davania.


----------



## Ahglock

Indifferent as they are presented.  If the tiefling did not look so freakin lame I might move that one to like.


----------



## Rechan

Love'm both. 

But then, I'm likely your outlier. For my homebrew, I'd prefer to replace Dwarves with Warforged, Elves with Shifters, and Halflings with Kenku.


----------



## Shemeska

EricNoah said:


> I like Planescape-esque tieflings fine -- you know, the ones where no two look exactly alike.  Not the 4E variety that look like a unified race.




QFT

I adore tieflings, just not the stylistic direction that 4e has diverged off on. I don't like the gigantic horns and all tieflings having a monolithic appearance (which is at complete odds with prior portrayals).

For what sort of tiefling I like, here's one (Factol Rhys of the Ciphers) that Tony DiTerlizzi drew for his blog the other day:


----------



## williamhm

I love the new races, why because finally we have races that are not based strait out of tolkien.  About friggin time.


----------



## Shadeydm

I dislike them both especially that they have been made core PHB races. I would have them both more tolerable if they had been MM races instead.

Having said that I will be playing in my first 4E game tonight. My first 4E character; why an Unaligned Dragonboob Paladin of Kord of course. Actually since it's a he I guess the Dragonboob thing doesn't really apply unless he is horribly overweight. Who knows maybe playing one will change my feelings about them.


----------



## WhatGravitas

I really like the tieflings - but I keep thinking of the visuals of the Planescape tieflings - the new design is a bit meh.

Dragonborn are... something between dislike and indifference. I like them mechanically, I think the idea of something lizardish/dragonish isn't that bad, perhaps even interesting, but I just cannot find the 4E guys interesting.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## racoffin

Don't particularly like tieflings as written, although the take on them from Planescape was tolerable.

I extremely dislike Dragonborn however.


----------



## Alt F4

Indifferent.  Neither is the type of character I'm ever likely to play, but I don't object to them being there for the people who will enjoy playing them.


----------



## Verdande

I like them both, although I miss half-orcs. I could do without two types of elves, though. I *hate* elves, and having two of them kicking around is kick a swift kick straight to the nuts.

Dragonborn are fine, though. As somebody else posted, they have this klingon-esque honorbound warrior ethos, which is kinda cool. As long as we have options other than the incredibly boring human/elf/halfling/dwarf stereotypes, then I'm all good.


----------



## Darrin Drader

Psion said:


> I don't dislike them so much as I don't want to see them as default elements.
> 
> Honestly, I'd be glad to allow either in my 3e game. _As exceptions_.




This.


----------



## Wormwood

Cadfan said:


> Amen.  Least favorite D&D race EVER.



Preach it brother!


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Mercurius said:


> Am I just a grognard, or are Dragonborn and, to a lesser degree, Tieflings universally despised? Both seem more "kewl" than "cool", more post-2000 World of Warcraft-esque fantasy than classic Lord of the Rings fantasy or New Wave Talislanta-esque weird fantasy.





You're not just a grognard, you're a super-grognard. I've been playing RPGs since 1988 and neither of them seem any more "kewl" than 95% of the portrayals of elves in every RPG ever.

That said, I don't think either race, as implemented in 4E is particularly interesting. Dragonborn are just "Dragons + Klingons", and that's not horribly exciting or horribly lame. Tieflings in 4E are not "the real Tieflings", which were much less OTT and more varied in appearance and, er, less "emo" I believe is the current term. They're hardly horrible though, and not really very "kewl".


----------



## cignus_pfaccari

I like the dragonborn.  Should my current bugbear rogue go down, I might do a dragonborn ranger (monk).

I'm okay with tieflings, but not likely to ever play one.

Brad


----------



## SavageRobby

I _liked_ Cambions as a once-in-a-blue-moon-exception. I like the occasional Half-Orc. I even let someone play a Svirfneblin, and even once a Half-Ogre (ah, Roger Moore's Half-Ogre, good times). 

But Dragonborn and Tieflings as _core_? I'm in the "meh" category there - I dislike them as core. However, I will admit them I'm kind of old school that way, and its not a reflection on how the race plays, but purely my own preferences. (So, if you like them in your games, more power to ya.)


----------



## Evilusion

Yea I one of the few that hate them both. For me it is just not my style. I would have rather seen 2 other races than dragonmen and semi demons people.


----------



## Agamon

They're bad guys in my campaign, not really player races.  But in the game one of my players is running, I'm making a tiefling warlord.


----------



## Fifth Element

Like both of them well enough.

Despise gnomes, half-orcs and halflings.


----------



## williamhm

Im playing a tiefling fey pact lock right now, personally I like the new fluff better.  Then again Im inclined to like anything that breaks the LOTR mold.  It was a great series of books but Im sick of games even somewhat based on it.


----------



## The Green Adam

Shemeska said:


> quote=Shemeska;4339969]




I love the art of the amazing Tony Diterlizzi...but I don't like Tiefs or Dragonborn. I must admit though...if they still looked as they do above I might be more inclined to include Tiefs as at least they would retain a vaguely medieval, folkloric appearence. 

My problem with the two new species are:

A) Dungeons & Dragons has become increasing distant from its medieval fantasy origins and these creatures just seem to reinforce that. I feel the starter book should have a more basic array of creatures and said beings should be a bit more classic. After looking through the 4E Player's Handbook, a non-gamer female friend said to me, "Are there any Dragons or Dungeons in this game? This looks like another planet. Its like Star Wars."

I imagine she is one of the people that WotC/Hasbro is trying to market to...a creative and intelligent young professional who doesn't buy their product but might. She is a history buff and a fan of classic literature but sees nothing of the mass market elements she expects to see that might interest her. It doesn't look like Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. It looks weird and confusing. She's in consulting and marketing herself btw. 

On the subject, I thought fantasy RPGs did better then SF ones because they are based on a recognizable past we can all reference the same way.

Of course this choice of a change in atmosphere is directly related to...

B) The art. I just don't like it that much but specifically I'm not a big fan of the designs of these two creatures. The Dragonborn do not look like Draogn Men to me but rather evoke images of Predator and D'Argo from Farscape. The Tiefling of late is a different colored Draenai. Not interesting to me at all as I've seen it before.

Maybe the next PHB will contain more species I can get a handle on, though I'm sort of expecting Warforged, Klingons and beings made of pure magical energy. Neat yes but not what I'm looking for. 

AD


----------



## Kesh

I absolutely adore dragonborn. The entire concept works for me, and I had at least three or four ideas for dragonborn characters reading the core books.

Tieflings I'm indifferent about. They're neat, but neither the design nor the fluff give me any real inspiration.


----------



## williamhm

The Green Adam said:


> I love the art of the amazing Tony Diterlizzi...but I don't like Tiefs or Dragonborn. I must admit though...if they still looked as they do above I might be more inclined to include Tiefs as at least they would retain a vaguely medieval, folkloric appearence.
> 
> My problem with the two new species are:
> 
> A) Dungeons & Dragons has become increasing distant from its medieval fantasy origins and these creatures just seem to reinforce that. I feel the starter book should have a more basic array of creatures and said beings should be a bit more classic. After looking through the 4E Player's Handbook, a non-gamer female friend said to me, "Are there any Dragons or Dungeons in this game? This looks like another planet. Its like Star Wars."
> 
> I imagine she is one of the people that WotC/Hasbro is trying to market to...a creative and intelligent young professional who doesn't buy their product but might. She is a history buff and a fan of classic literature but sees nothing of the mass market elements she expects to see that might interest her. It doesn't look like Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. It looks weird and confusing. She's in consulting and marketing herself btw.
> 
> On the subject, I thought fantasy RPGs did better then SF ones because they are based on a recognizable past we can all reference the same way.
> 
> Of course this choice of a change in atmosphere is directly related to...
> 
> B) The art. I just don't like it that much but specifically I'm not a big fan of the designs of these two creatures. The Dragonborn do not look like Draogn Men to me but rather evoke images of Predator and D'Argo from Farscape. The Tiefling of late is a different colored Draenai. Not interesting to me at all as I've seen it before.
> 
> Maybe the next PHB will contain more species I can get a handle on, though I'm sort of expecting Warforged, Klingons and beings made of pure magical energy. Neat yes but not what I'm looking for.
> 
> AD




 heaven forfend they change the race line up at all.  Seriously these are based on myths and folklore as much as anything in dnd is.  As I said before I like to see new things included.  And frankly the fluff, and background for the two races is pretty cool.  I think each of them add something unique.  Change is good.  Blindly following tradition is bad.


----------



## Psion

williamhm said:


> Change is good.




Not implicitly, no.



> Blindly following tradition is bad.




So, if somebody doesn't like a change it's "blindly following tradition"?


----------



## williamhm

Psion said:


> Not implicitly, no.
> 
> 
> 
> So, if somebody doesn't like a change it's "blindly following tradition"?



 It is if the only reason they say that they dont like it is that it does not follow tolkien or traditional fanatasy.


----------



## KoshPWNZYou

The Green Adam said:


> Dungeons & Dragons has become increasing distant from its medieval fantasy origins





Is Cthulhu medieval fantasy? Genies? Ogre-magi? The Sphinx? All were there at the game's Gygaxian beginnings. D&D has always incorporated as many other genres as it could. It was never meant to be LoTR the Role Playing Game.

I mean ... a floating eyeball that shoots rays at you?


----------



## DandD

Yeah, true. Dragonborn are a stand-in for the butt-ugly half-orcs, and Tieflings are the new annoying evil-curious dudes and dudettes, who kicked gnomes in their hineys. 

I wish they would get rid of Halflings, Tieflings, Half-whateverlings (go away, half-elves, half-dragons, half-ogres, half-giants, half-insects, half-catmaid, half-plant, half-freak). 

Dragonborn is okay for me, as I played Wizardry 7+8. They were awesome games, and my Draconian Fighter kicked Savant Trooper tinplates and sprayed deadly acid to pesky Ratkin assassins. 

Oh my gosh, D&D 4th edition is Wizardry... And Wizardry is a D&D-knock-off... Oh my gosh...


----------



## Dice4Hire

I really have no problems with either of them, especially as Tieflings are presented, as descendants of an evil group of nobles. I know the dragonborn are new, but they still make a lot of sense in D&D, and I'm surprised it took so long for them to appear. 

Now, I know elves and such are staples, but I would have preferred getting rid of the elves, and keeping Elderin, as the Elderin seem a more reasonable race, overall.


----------



## mhacdebhandia

Mercurius said:


> Am I just a grognard, or are Dragonborn and, to a lesser degree, Tieflings universally despised?



I can't answer the first, but you're wrong about the second, pretty clearly.



> Both seem more "kewl" than "cool", more post-2000 World of Warcraft-esque fantasy than classic Lord of the Rings fantasy or New Wave Talislanta-esque weird fantasy.



This is some weird, stupid pejorative stuff going on here. What on Earth is wrong with Wizards of the Coast publishing an edition of _Dungeons & Dragons_ informed by *modern* fantasy ideas instead of just the traditional Tolkienesque crap or the Eighties' version of "modern"? _Talislanta_ is *twenty-one years old*, dude. It predates Second Edition _AD&D_ by a few years!



> But I guess I'm just a bit surprised they are both core; now I was out of gaming from about 2003-08, but it seems they kind of came out of nowhere in terms of centrality to the D&D ethos.



"Ethos" is a meaningless term as you use it here. Did you mean "mythos"?

In any case, they didn't come out of nowhere. Wizards of the Coast has previously stated that any book they publish with "dragon" in the title sells noticeably more than other books, so obviously dragon-related things are popular with the playerbase; likewise, it's pretty clear that tieflings have been popular player races since Planescape came out in 1994, so at this point - even if they are different in Fourth Edition than they were then - they've got a reasonably long history in _D&D_.

More to the point, _D&D_ has to stay current. More and more players are coming to the hobby whose first ideas about fantasy aren't restricted to _The Lord of the Rings_, and it's a terrible idea for the game to offer them nothing other than the most staid and traditional fantasy ideas because it *won't work* to attract them. Even the highly successful films jazzed the damn story up with acrobatic action sequences inspired more by modern expectations than a desire to stay true to the tone Tolkien would have envisaged.


----------



## The_Fan

Going by the numbers so far, looks like there's a pretty close split on the Dragonborn (51% approve, 39% disapprove), while the Tieflings enjoy a slightly more comfortable 57% approval rating.

For my vote, I like them both. Tieflings slightly more than dragonborn, but both are good. These are such common archetypes among players, why NOT have them in core other than the fact that they've never been core? (argument from tradition)


----------



## mhacdebhandia

der_kluge said:


> And I can only conclude that those who are OK with Tieflings and Dragonborn must not have any sort of established campaign world. Because AFAIK, no campaign world supported these kinds of races before 4th edition. These two races have no place in my world.



Or, you know, just *maybe* some of us were designing settings with wholly non-traditional races.

In point of fact I have kicked around multiple settings where tieflings were prominent minorities in the major human settlements (in the most recent case, born to human parents because of the lingering influences of fiendish armies destroyed in the area), which often also included non-antagonistic tribes of lizardmen. So, you know, pretty easy to adjust for Fourth Edition, if I wanted to.


----------



## The Green Adam

Ah the arrogant and extremist notions of gaming fandom.

Sorry for writing a response with an opinion of any kind as it apparently promotes such responses as "heaven forfend they change the race line up at all" and "Blindly following tradition is bad". The questions was and remains "Does anyone actually like Dragonborn and Tieflings?" Now please tell me you sufficiently chastised the original poster for his use of *actually*. Y'know, just to be fair. 

Its a matter of taste. I love change and I love the unusual. If you'd read any of my "30 Years of Weird" threads you'd know that I make it a point of trying bizarre and experimental campaign ideas. 

I just feel that the two species don't really fit D&D as I think of it and I definitely don't like the way the art for them looks. There are Dragon Men in at least one of my old game worlds but they look, I guess, more like Dragons. Thinking back on it now, I don't think I've ever used a Tieflings of any kind in any campaign ever. Nor do I recall every encountering one as a player. Cat people, Dog people, Centaurs, Fauns, Talking Animals, Goblins, Sentient Golems/Warforged, Homonculi-like wizardcrafted creatures and even a Futuristic Android Solider...but never a Tiefling.

Now any and all of those aforementioned characters can be cool in a D&D game if the GM and players are into them...but I don't expect to see them in the basic, core rules. If WotC really wants to impress me then let's see a section on "Creating your own PC races and we encourage it".

AD


----------



## The Green Adam

KoshPWNZYou said:


> Is Cthulhu medieval fantasy? Genies? Ogre-magi? The Sphinx? All were there at the game's Gygaxian beginnings. D&D has always incorporated as many other genres as it could. It was never meant to be LoTR the Role Playing Game.
> 
> I mean ... a floating eyeball that shoots rays at you?




I apologize for being to specific - I should of said 'any and all things of a vaguely mythical or legendary feel from a past period of human culture of a broadly traditional fantasy nature and atmosphere'. 

This is why I like scifi.

AD


----------



## mhacdebhandia

The Green Adam said:


> Now any and all of those aforementioned characters can be cool in a D&D game if the GM and players are into them...but I don't expect to see them in the basic, core rules.



Please explain why it is *important and necessary* to restrict the core races to the Tolkienesque slate.


----------



## The Green Adam

mhacdebhandia said:


> Please explain why it is *important and necessary* to restrict the core races to the Tolkienesque slate.




Good grief! Is anyone actually reading my posts?!

Its not. *I like things that are different*. I just don't like *these two species*. I would have *prefered* they start with *more basic species both fans and new comers could be familiar* with but its ok that they put them in. Sorry again for giving an opinion and sharing.

I despise it when threads ask for your feelings on a subject and posters to said thread insist that your feelings are wrong in some way. EN Worlds getting a little inflexible for me these days.

AD


----------



## Nifft

der_kluge said:


> And I can only conclude that those who are OK with Tieflings and Dragonborn must not have any sort of established campaign world. Because AFAIK, no campaign world supported these kinds of races before 4th edition. These two races have no place in my world.



 Tieflings were already in my homebrew, as were playable Kobolds. Dragonborn = Lizardfolk, which are the same species as Kobolds IMC, but which were pretty much unplayable in 3.5e.

Nobody ever played a Gnome, despite my efforts to make them interesting. They effectively disappeared from my game before 4e.

My other main change is Halfling = Elf = Eladrin (all the same Fey race, you just get to choose a package of class features that suits you). When I have the details ironed out, I'll post the "consolidated" race.

The setting I use has Humans, Dwarves, Fey-dudes (Elf, Eladrin, Shadar-kai, Drow, Halfling, Pixie, etc.), Tieflings (and other hellishly mutated Humans like Yuan-ti & Gnolls), and Reptile-dudes (basically Kobolds & Lizardfolk-- Dragonborn).

Giants are a single race with elemental "castes" (Fire, Frost, Storm, etc.); similarly, Goblinoids are a single race.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## The Green Adam

Nifft said:


> Tieflings were already in my homebrew, as were playable Kobolds. Dragonborn = Lizardfolk, which are the same species as Kobolds IMC, but which were pretty much unplayable in 3.5e.
> 
> Nobody ever played a Gnome, despite my efforts to make them interesting. They effectively disappeared from my game before 4e.
> 
> My other main change is Halfling = Elf = Eladrin (all the same Fey race, you just get to choose a package of class features that suits you). When I have the details ironed out, I'll post the "consolidated" race.
> 
> The setting I use has Humans, Dwarves, Fey-dudes (Elf, Eladrin, Shadar-kai, Drow, Halfling, Pixie, etc.), Tieflings (and other hellishly mutated Humans like Yuan-ti & Gnolls), and Reptile-dudes (basically Kobolds & Lizardfolk-- Dragonborn).
> 
> Giants are a single race with elemental "castes" (Fire, Frost, Storm, etc.); similarly, Goblinoids are a single race.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Very cool ideas. My Elves are descended from a Faerie people who were essentially marooned on my world. They eventually evolved into different groups (High/Mithral, Grey/Arcane, Sylvan/Wood, Drow/Dark, etc.) over exposure to the elements of our reality.

AD


----------



## mhacdebhandia

The Green Adam said:


> Its not. *I like things that are different*. I just don't like *these two species*. I would have *prefered* they start with *more basic species both fans and new comers could be familiar* with but its ok that they put them in. Sorry again for giving an opinion and sharing.



I'm confused by the disconnect between "I like things that are different, but not these two particular races" and "they should use only basic traditional races".

I don't understand why you think you're unusual among _D&D_ players (current and potential) in personally liking more variety than the Tolkienesque default. I don't understand why you think the only workable or appropriate core races are the traditional ones. I understand that you dislike *these* "exotic" choices, but I don't understand why you jump to the conclusion that *any* "exotic" race is a bad idea.

I especially don't understand that in the light of modern fantasy games like _World of Warcraft_ where people love to play undead, minotaurs, trolls, orcs, and blue space demons. Even if particular people don't enjoy _WoW_, it's pretty clear to me that modern fantasy fans are open to more than just the Tolkienesque traditions - I didn't hear anyone wailing and gnashing their teeth over the ugly, diminutive elves in _Harry Potter_ because they're not Tolkien's elves.


----------



## jensun

Mercurius said:


> Am I just a grognard, or are Dragonborn and, to a lesser degree, Tieflings universally despised? Both seem more "kewl" than "cool", more post-2000 World of Warcraft-esque fantasy than classic Lord of the Rings fantasy or New Wave Talislanta-esque weird fantasy.




I have been playing since BECMI.  I dont see either races being universally despised.  Post 2000 WoW is a bit of a misnomer since its only been around since 2005. 

Tieflings have been around since at least 2nd edition.  

Dragonborn were effectively first seen in Dragonlance.  

I like the inclusion of both races and am happy to use both.  Both races are appearing as key races in my first game and I will be using some of their background fiction.


----------



## Ruslanchik

Tieflings are pretty cool.  I like the idea of demonic blood because it brings in so much backstory and RP potential.  They should have brought Aasimar into the PHB too, to balance the scales a bit.  I don't like the direction they are going by offering what has always been an evil-leaning race to players in the PHB, especially if they do not offer a good-leaning race to balance it.

I am typically an opponent of genocide, but would support it in the case of the dragonborn.  I really bad idea that just taints 4E for me.


----------



## theredrobedwizard

Mercurius said:


> ... more post-2000 World of Warcraft-esque fantasy than classic Lord of the Rings fantasy or New Wave Talislanta-esque weird fantasy...




This is precisely why I like them.  I'm honestly tired of humanocentric Tolkeinesque fantasy.  I like that they have a place in the world.  I like them in general.

-TRRW


----------



## The Green Adam

mhacdebhandia said:


> I'm confused by the disconnect between "I like things that are different, but not these two particular races" and "they should use only basic traditional races".




Please quote my post where I say the line "they should use only basic traditional races". Please.



mhacdebhandia said:


> I understand that you dislike *these* "exotic" choices, but I don't understand why you jump to the conclusion that *any* "exotic" race is a bad idea.




Again. Shown me that exact wording.



mhacdebhandia said:


> I especially don't understand that in the light of modern fantasy games like _World of Warcraft_ where people love to play undead, minotaurs, trolls, orcs, and blue space demons. Even if particular people don't enjoy _WoW_, it's pretty clear to me that modern fantasy fans are open to more than just the Tolkienesque traditions - I didn't hear anyone wailing and gnashing their teeth over the ugly, diminutive elves in _Harry Potter_ because they're not Tolkien's elves.




Er...no, why would they. The elves of Harry Potter fit into the Harry Potter world and they're more like the traditional folklore version of elves.

Undead would've been cool, trolls too. Its what I would prefer. Its also easier for non-gamers to get a hang of...

Gamer: "You could be an elf."

Non-gamer: "Like my character in WoW (or Everquest, or Vanguard, etc.) or Orlando Bloom in Lord of the Rings?"

Gamer: "Pretty much, yeah."

Instead of...

Gamer: "You could be a Tiefling."

Non-gamer: "A what?"

The big difference is I say how I feel. You seem to say that I'm telling you how it MUST BE! Also you seem to indicate its not ok for me to feel this way. 

AD


----------



## jensun

The Green Adam said:


> I just feel that the two species don't really fit D&D as I think of it and I definitely don't like the way the art for them looks.......I don't think I've ever used a Tieflings of any kind in any campaign ever. Nor do I recall every encountering one as a player. Cat people, Dog people, Centaurs, Fauns, Talking Animals, Goblins, Sentient Golems/Warforged, Homonculi-like wizardcrafted creatures and even a Futuristic Android Solider...but never a Tiefling.



FR has had something similar to the tieflings around for a while, the Fey'ri which are pretty equivalent.

Also, if you dont bat your eyes at cat people, dog people or fauns I am not sure why someone touched by infernal/demonic/cthullian/fae powers issuch a leap.  

Dragonborn are somewhat similar to half dragons from 3e and dear god we saw a lot of them so its hardly surpising they become a core race.


----------



## The Green Adam

jensun said:


> FR has had something similar to the tieflings around for a while, the Fey'ri which are pretty equivalent.
> 
> Also, if you dont bat your eyes at cat people, dog people or fauns I am not sure why someone touched by infernal/demonic/cthullian/fae powers issuch a leap.
> 
> Dragonborn are somewhat similar to half dragons from 3e and dear god we saw a lot of them so its hardly surpising they become a core race.




You have a point on that take on the Dragonborn. I still don't like the visuals though. Also, I tried to keep Half-Dragons special, like such a thing only occured once in a Blue Moon.

I'm not sure what it is about the Tiefling I don't like. I think I just look at them and go, "Why isn't that a Faun or a Lamia or something." Does anoyone know where the term 'Tief' originated or is it just made up?

AD


----------



## jensun

According to wikipedia* Tieflings first turned up in Planescape, possibly around 1994.  They also seem to have been in The Planeswalkers Handbook in 1996, written by none other than Monte Cook. 

The art is quite different than in previous versions but the basic idea remains mostly the same.  Personally I like their backstory but will be toning down their appearance, removing the big bulky tails and reducing the size of the horns.  




*Yes, I know Wikipedia is a terrible resource and as an academic I am required to oppose its use in all forms but its handy for this sort of stuff.


----------



## lutecius

Tieflings would make an ok player race if they didn't look so ugly/stupid (and no, it's not a trivial issue when i can't open the phb without seeing a red elephant-man face or alligator tail)

Dragonborn looks dorky too. Tail-less *and* dreadlocked? (it took me a while to realize they had the Predator hairdo, maybe i was just trying not to look at them). Seriously, how could anyone possibly think those looks were a good idea?
But even if they looked better, dragon people as pc simply don't fit the kind of campaigns i like.

I do agree that dnd should depart from the tolkien races, though.
A good start would be to axe the halfling, or merge it with gnome and dwarf. I've never felt the need for several short pc races. 
Halflings often look like young gnomes, and gnomes like old halflings.
And I like the idea of dwarves as bulky "mine gnomes" or "booze gnomes".
Dnd also lacks a big non-furry/scaley pc race. If possible a toned down ogre rather than a half-whatever.


----------



## Jackelope King

I've always sort of liked tieflings. Dragonborn I'm relatively indifferent on. I'm still glad to see something other than the typical fantasy races, though (loved most of the critters from the 3.5 XPH, for instance).


----------



## The Human Target

Tieflings I used to like, but I'm not a big fan of their mechanics, or their new status as a true breeding race. Now I'm kind of meh on em.

Dragonborn I didn't think I would like, but I ended up doing so.


----------



## Byronic

Dragonborn and Tieflings just don't do anything for me. It's not because they're not archetypical, but they just don't do anything for me.

I find the idea of Tieflings too Catholic in many ways. Not the amusing way as done in Hellblazer but simply boring. I don't like the "oh we're bad because of something someone 10.000 years ago did" thought. I'm not that much fan of the tail, the horns and I especially don't like the general writing about them. They just flatout bore me. I might have liked them if I read their planescape material but I haven't.

I'm replacing them with Melniboneans. They're close enough in fiction to Tieflings, they had a pact with otherworldly powers. They had an evil empire that was either destroyed or declined. They both are intelligent races. One of the beautiful differences is the psychology of the creature. While Tieflings are written as people trying to conqure a dark side that I just don't see in them (at least not more then any othe creature) Melniboneans are as a people rather devoid of the softer emotions. In fact it is very rare for one to actually fall in love (some have become famous for such an act) Would be rare for someone to play one like Elric, one of the few of his kind with actual emotions. 

I just have to decide whether they have +2 in Wisdom or Charisma... and if Wis if I should let them use Wisdom instead of Charisma with pacts. And how to describe their psychology in such a way that wouldn't result in silly PCs

I'm somewhere between indifferent to dislike when it comes to the Dragonborn. Their sole redeeming feature is that having them in the party means PCs possibly living longer and being better against Minions. As a race they do me nothing. Perhaps if they wrote something as to the difference between Dragonborn and Dragons? Strangely enough I like Lizardmen (although copied from warhammer) but Dragonborn? Nothing, blank, totally uninspiring. It's nice that 4ed sales have gone up because people apparently like the thought of them but they do me nothing. 

I'll keep them in if any of the players want to play them. Otherwise they're rare. So rare they might never ever see one.


----------



## Kesh

Byronic said:


> I find the idea of Tieflings too Catholic in many ways. Not the amusing way as done in Hellblazer but simply boring. I don't like the "oh we're bad because of something someone 10.000 years ago did" thought.




Oh god, you finally gave me a reason to play a tiefling. I want to play an orthodox-religious tiefling of a lawful good god. He's not "making up for his ancestor's deeds" or wallowing in self-loathing. He just thinks his path is the right one, and is somewhat annoyed when people make the evil eye sign at him. "Really, as if that would protect you if I _were_ demonspawn…"


----------



## Philotomy Jurament

I like humans as PCs.  I'm not hot on non-human PCs.


----------



## Rechan

You know. Maybe people are just scarred from the Drizzt days, because I don't see anything "emo" about the tief. In all honest, they look more "I'm so *awesome* because I'm the devil" rather than "Woe, I am not awesome, for I am devil tainted". 

They make me think of the villain from Highlander. Bad, with no excuses, no apologies. 

I get a Hell's Angels vibe, not a weepy vampire one.


----------



## Tarek

I don't have a problem with the *idea* of either as a race. What I have problems with are the specific background fluff elements that Wizards put in for the races.

"Paragons of honor" for Dragonborn? You're talking about sapient reptiles who are closely related to DRAGONS. "Paragons of self-centeredness" would have been far more appropriate, given the way the old vestiges of the reptile-brain influence mammalian behavior, much less those of a race that's entirely reptile.

Tieflings aren't a "race" in my opinion, they're individuals who have demon-tainted blood. We're talking supernatural evil here. The purest example of the tiefling, the proper examples, are the Alu-demon and Cambion from 1st edition.


----------



## Ahglock

Rechan said:


> You know. Maybe people are just scarred from the Drizzt days, because I don't see anything "emo" about the tief. In all honest, they look more "I'm so *awesome* because I'm the devil" rather than "Woe, I am not awesome, for I am devil tainted".
> 
> They make me think of the villain from Highlander. Bad, with no excuses, no apologies.
> 
> I get a Hell's Angels vibe, not a weepy vampire one.




Emo is probably one of the most misused new words out there.  Any time someone has some kind of negative event in there history and its brought up they are emo.  It doesn't matter if they tough up and work through it, it doesn't matter if its just a momentary woe is me moment they are emo.  Someone is dark and goth like yo its emo.  

For a while I really wasn't sure what it meant, sure i had a guess since its like have of emotion, but with it being applied to basically everything someone doesn't like it was hard to tell.  

I got nothing against there back story I just I think they look devil lame  like in Tom Cruise fantasy movie devil lame way, what was that movie called Legend or something.


----------



## mhacdebhandia

lutecius said:


> Dnd also lacks a big non-furry/scaley pc race. If possible a toned down ogre rather than a half-whatever.



The goliath looks like it's making a return in _Player's Handbook 2_, so if you can handle a big race with mottled skin and a few stone-like patches of hardened flesh, you only have to wait until March.



Tarek said:


> "Paragons of honor" for Dragonborn? You're talking about sapient reptiles who are closely related to DRAGONS. "Paragons of self-centeredness" would have been far more appropriate, given the way the old vestiges of the reptile-brain influence mammalian behavior, much less those of a race that's entirely reptile.



Well, maybe, but a) trying to use science to draw conclusions about _D&D_ is pretty silly, and b) dragonborn are supposed to be associated closely with Bahamut, who *is* the god of honour and justice.

Besides, dragonborn are clearly scaly monotremes, not reptiles!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I love the Dragonborn- sans boobies- but much preferred the 3Ed take on Tieflings.

I just don't like them outside of the context of otherplanar bastardbabies- gimmie my Aasimars, Genasi, Fey'ri and all those guys!


----------



## Shemeska

jensun said:


> FR has had something similar to the tieflings around for a while, the Fey'ri which are pretty equivalent.




The Fey'ri were a specific group of elven tieflings that bred true and had a specific, common origin/bloodline. FR also had normal tieflings as well, of all sorts of origins in terms of their mortal stock and what particular sort of fiendish blood they had.

That said, 4e in my opinion has, to an extent, hamstrung themselves by presenting a single origin for 4e tieflings that rather precludes having the racial ambiguity of the confused, sullied bloodlines of 2e/3e tieflings. Now you've got a specific race rather than individuals whose fiendish blood might be a single generation old, or the result of a tryst eons ago that manifested in them out of nowhere.

They look the same now too, which is a far cry from the fiendish grab-bag of traits they've had previously. For instance, I loved the table of tiefling variant traits in the 2e Planewalkers Handbook, and WotC would do well to look back at that book and introduce that level of diversity for 4e tieflings (otherwise a different name for the 4e race would have been better, given the strict origin definition in 4e).


----------



## The Green Adam

Shemeska said:


> That said, 4e in my opinion has, to an extent, hamstrung themselves by presenting a single origin for 4e tieflings that rather precludes having the racial ambiguity of the confused, sullied bloodlines of 2e/3e tieflings. Now you've got a specific race rather than individuals whose fiendish blood might be a single generation old, or the result of a tryst eons ago that manifested in them out of nowhere.
> 
> They look the same now too, which is a far cry from the fiendish grab-bag of traits they've had previously. For instance, I loved the table of tiefling variant traits in the 2e Planewalkers Handbook, and WotC would do well to look back at that book and introduce that level of diversity for 4e tieflings (otherwise a different name for the 4e race would have been better, given the strict origin definition in 4e).




Now _that_ sounds considerably more interesting. I missed a lot of the 2E stuff as my group wasn't playing much if any D&D around that time. I'll go look it up. Maybe I can create a version of the Tiefling that I can really get into. 

AD


----------



## Nifft

Shemeska said:


> That said, 4e in my opinion has, to an extent, hamstrung themselves by presenting a single origin for 4e tieflings that rather precludes having the racial ambiguity of the confused, sullied bloodlines of 2e/3e tieflings. Now you've got a specific race rather than individuals whose fiendish blood might be a single generation old, or the result of a tryst eons ago that manifested in them out of nowhere.



 I expect each setting will give its own particular origin story. My homebrew certainly will.

I also expect to see a pile of feats & racial options to allow significant customization in some upcoming product. Certainly not random, though. Randomness in character generation isn't nearly as acceptable as it was back in 1e/2e.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Byronic

Kesh said:


> Oh god, you finally gave me a reason to play a tiefling. I want to play an orthodox-religious tiefling of a lawful good god. He's not "making up for his ancestor's deeds" or wallowing in self-loathing. He just thinks his path is the right one, and is somewhat annoyed when people make the evil eye sign at him. "Really, as if that would protect you if I _were_ demonspawn…"




Glad to be of service


----------



## MerricB

In my two groups, we have three tieflings and one dragonborn. The one player playing a Dragonborn really, really loves them - he used to play a Dragon Disciple back during 3e.

For my groups, Wizards made the right call. (Number of half-orcs and gnomes in 8 years of two 3e campaigns? None).

Cheers!


----------



## Ahnehnois

I like somewhat the increased focus in dragons that emerged in late 3.5e. I like dragonborn in some ways better than half-orcs. Tieflings I like less. They're fine monsters, but having them as standard PC races sends two messages I don't want sent to my players:
1...Let's everyone play a conflicted e-evil character
2...Fiends and mortals reproduce so often they've created a standard character race. [note I don't know the official origin story, nor would it apply to most people's homebrews]


----------



## Nifft

Ahnehnois said:


> Tieflings I like less. They're fine monsters, but having them as standard PC races sends two messages I don't want sent to my players:
> 1...Let's everyone play a conflicted e-evil character



 But hopefully they already saw the rules on alignment in the previous chapter, which explicitly state the opposite.



Ahnehnois said:


> 2...Fiends and mortals reproduce so often they've created a standard character race.



 Well, there's always been at least one specific type of fiend expressly designed to mate with mortals, so fiends must have decided mating with mortal dudes was a pretty high priority.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Old Gumphrey

I'm going in a different direction with this. I'm so bored and fed up with elves in D&D, but they went ahead and added a third elf option to the core. So now, given random chance, fully 3 out of every 8 players in my game will be some type of elf. Yuck, to say the least. Bring on the new races.


----------



## The Green Adam

MerricB said:


> In my two groups, we have three tieflings and one dragonborn. The one player playing a Dragonborn really, really loves them - he used to play a Dragon Disciple back during 3e.
> 
> For my groups, Wizards made the right call. (Number of half-orcs and gnomes in 8 years of two 3e campaigns? None).
> 
> Cheers!




I guess that's really what it boils down to for most people. If not enough people played a species, perhaps a new species is in order.

For myself, in the 30+ years I've been slinging dice I've seen at least 5 half-orcs and at least 7 gnomes (one of those half-orces and three of the gnomes were mine). I've seen two half-dragons (both story based and 1 was back in first edition) and nothing quite like a Tiefling. 

AD


----------



## Mark

I don't like adding too many new things all at once to my game so I am combining these races and just adding Draglings.


----------



## DandD

Meh, Tieflings, Half-Elves, Half-Dragons and all that stuff is just the proof that D&D is all about sex, and the many impossible ways how dragons, demons and devils can have babies with weakling humans, halflings, elves, ugly trolls, beardy dwarves, dumb ogres and even insects, or elementals. 

That comic below symbolizes all mixed freak-races of D&D perfectly.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Old Gumphrey said:


> I'm so bored and fed up with elves in D&D, but they went ahead and added a third elf option to the core.



You know what, I am very sympathetic to this.


----------



## ki11erDM

I did not like the dragonborn.  But then I found a cool way of fitting them into my new 4e world and now I have to say I really liked them now.  The tieflings I thought I was going to like... but the art is SO bad it just kills me.


----------



## Brennin Magalus

Dragon-people with boobs: Do not want.

Tieflings (Can't stand the name) with exaggerated horns: Do not want.


----------



## Brennin Magalus

mark said:


> i don't like adding too many new things all at once to my game so i am combining these races and just adding draglings.




lol


----------



## The Green Adam

Mark said:


> I don't like adding too many new things all at once to my game so I am combining these races and just adding Draglings.




I have GOT to draw one of these. lol


----------



## Mark

The Green Adam said:


> I have GOT to draw one of these. lol





You draw it and I'll publish it!


----------



## Brennin Magalus

Mark said:


> You draw it and I'll publish it!




Then send them off in spelljamming ships 'cuz the only thing better than draglings is _draglings in space_!


----------



## Mark

Brennin Magalus said:


> Then send them off in spelljamming ships 'cuz the only thing better than draglings is _draglings in space_!





They been stinkin' up the space lanes for over a millenium!


----------



## Invisible Stalker

Dragonborn look likely to join humans, half-elves and elves as the races I'm most likely to play.

Tieflings will join half-orcs as a race I'll never play.


----------



## The Green Adam

Mark said:


> You draw it and I'll publish it!




Your on bud! My only fear is that what was essentially a joke may end up accidentally really cool looking. LOL

AD


----------



## Mark

The Green Adam said:


> Your on bud! My only fear is that what was essentially a joke may end up accidentally really cool looking. LOL
> 
> AD





All our fears should hold such promise.


----------



## Jack of Shadows

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I like them both. I am not sure they are necessary, but I like the elements they bring to the table.
> Tieflings as creatures with a dark heritage, and the Dragonborn with their wandering Mercenary style culture.
> 
> To be honest, Dragonborn give me a certain... Klingon vibe. I like that. They have this mix of honorable warriors and a certain violent/rage-like attitude (extra damage when being bloodied).




I have to agree with Mustrum here, Dragonborn really do add an interesting element to the game. I think for me it's because I've always liked the idea of Lizardfolk as a PC race (ever since that fellow in Rogues Gallery way back in 1st Ed.) and the Dragonborn capture that feel for me.

The Tieflings were a group I just didn't like at all in the previous edition because they seemed too Forgotten Realms (a setting I've never really cared for) for me. With their new Points of Light background they add a nice flavour of ancient glory and hidden darkness. I don't know if I'd ever play one but I know if I did I wouldn't have a problem coming up with a concept.

Needless to say I voted that I like them both.

JoS


----------



## Mr. Wilson

Love Tieflings, would have much rather kept the gnome and killed the one of the two elf races in the PHB.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Love Tieflings, would have much rather kept the gnome and killed the one of the two elf races in the PHB.




Definitely agreeing 100% with the last part of that sentence.


----------



## jackston2

Look at Final Fantasy Tactics concept art, it will make you like them both.

Bangaa dragoons and templars for Dragonborn, and Grie raptors for the Tiefling.


----------



## The Green Adam

*Enter...The Dragling!*

I never make idle threats about art...

http://barkingalien.deviantart.com/art/The-Dragling-90208155

So Mark, whattaya think?

AD


----------



## frankthedm

Tieflings are fine in my book, I kind of think of them as a hybrid of Melnibonéans and Men of Leng. As such they should be persecuted in all but the most cosmopolitan cities.

Dragonborn just need to steal the Dragonlance Draconian's art.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Definitely agreeing 100% with the last part of that sentence.




For what it's worth, Half-Elves I could have gone without.  The Eladrin/Elf split made a lot of sense to me, but I don't really need 3 elven races in the core rules. But I don't think I would have put in the Gnome or Half-Orc in it. I'd probably had added another Epic Destiny instead.


----------



## Korgoth

Commit them then to the flames.

I don't think that D&D should have to be "pure Tolkien". I just think these guys are lame. Tieflings have some potential to be done as Men from Leng... but that makes them NPCs not PCs. And rather different from their current writeup.

But then, for some reason they decided to split woodsy elves from froo-froo woodsy elves. What's next... bourgeois elves? How about cookie elves? There should just be elves. Then you can say if yours is an aristo elf, a hippie elf, a morlock elf, or whatever.


----------



## Orius

Nifft said:


> Well, there's always been at least one specific type of fiend expressly designed to mate with mortals,




Dude, don't beat around the bush here, everyone knows she's called a 

*SUCCUBUS*.


Anyway, I'm with the group that dislikes dragonboobs and prefers Planescape tieflings.


----------



## rounser

I like them both, just not in the core implied setting.  Neither should be a default race, and both of them are.  

If they _had_ to be in the core, then aasimar and lizardfolk should be there for balance (to get a theme going of scalies and planars).  Out of context, they make no sense.  Or scrap dragonborn and give people proper dragons to play.


----------



## Tervin

Before the 4E announcement my strongest dislike in D&D was against how races were handled. They all felt bland and pointless, like humans from different cultures rather than distinct and different. People roleplayed stereotypes, because if you didn't do the stereotype there was no way to know which race your character was.

I started writing my own campaign world then, throwing out all the usual PH races as they didn't add anything to the game. Instead added in races that were shapeshifters, insectoids, undead and faeries. 

Before I got very far with the new world, the new edition was announced. And what I loved the most from the early promises was how they said they wanted race to matter more. Not everything has turned out the way I had hoped. (Need lots more racial feats and paragon paths!) Still I can't really complain when the improvement is this huge. Tieflings and Dragonborn might not fit your old setting - but they are exotic and distinct from the other races. And by making the races more distinct from scratch, it becomes easier to make individuals out of them, rather than fall into racial stereotypes.

That is why I love Dragonborn and Tieflings. And the rest of the PH races after the overhaul, except the Half-Elves which still seem random and bland. Well I love Tieflings even more, because I found a way to use them in my campaign that makes me smile every time I think of them.

Oh and Eladrin is perhaps my favourite race these days. I don't think of them as elves though. I think of them as fey, the race that has been most clearly missing from every old version of D&D (with the possible exception of 1E Oriental Adventures Fey Folk ).


----------



## Fenes

I like Tieflings - but I mean the Planescape ones, not the "all look the same, and have the same backstory" 4E ones.

I consider Dragonborn Lizardfolk, and I find them about as interesting and cool as those, i.e. not at all.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Korgoth said:


> Commit them then to the flames.
> 
> I don't think that D&D should have to be "pure Tolkien". I just think these guys are lame. Tieflings have some potential to be done as Men from Leng... but that makes them NPCs not PCs. And rather different from their current writeup.
> 
> But then, for some reason they decided to split woodsy elves from froo-froo woodsy elves. What's next... bourgeois elves? How about cookie elves? There should just be elves. Then you can say if yours is an aristo elf, a hippie elf, a morlock elf, or whatever.




Not really on topic, but at least 3E started the trend with multiple Elf subraces including different statistics for each subrace. There was typically always the split between "woodsy elf" and "wizardy elf" (and it existed in the sub-races, too - Wood, Wild etc. elves for woodsy, High and Sun Elves for wizardy), and I am glad they finally "solved" this by splitting the race in two distinct, but related races.


----------



## pukunui

I like both the tiefling and the dragonborn. My only beefs with them are art-related only ... I hate the tieflings' massive horns and ridiculous crocodile tails, and I'm not sure about dragonborn boobs, but other than, they're cool. No issues.


----------



## wedgeski

They're an interesting new ingredient in the D&D stew and I'm right behind them, much to the surprise of the OP, or so it sounds. I'm also a big supporter of the decision to dump half-orcs, although I really don't understand why the half-elf wasn't excised at the same time.

Edit: Oops my avatar seems to cause the new boards a bit of pain.


----------



## GnomeWorks

I find dragonborn to be really awkward and not very fitting with the rest of the core races.

I don't like the new direction for tieflings. I liked the 3.x presentation much more.


----------



## Weekend Wizard

While flipping through the 4th Edition books in a Border's Comfy Chair, I almost dropped them in horror after seeing the Dragonborn being presented as a "core" race. 

This was almost a "deal-breaker" for me in even looking at 4th Edition D&D, but I have struggled past it somehow in a good-faith attempt to judge if playing this new level of "kiddie RPGing" is even possible for someone like me who is so far outside their target market.

*My problem with these new "standard" player races is that I won't be able to keep a straight face during a gaming session with any "dragonfurry" character in it b/c I will be thinking of this the whole time:*
Your typical 4th Edition D&D adventuring party:





Pufnstuf the Dragonborn Warlord, Jimmy the halfling?/ugly human? Rogue, and Witchiepoo the Tiefling? Warlock

Oh, here's the link if you were too young to have had this inflicted on you (or were too chemically-altered back then to remember it clearly)
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-yLYz6ejqw[/ame]
I just can't adventure while maintaining any significant sense of "suspension of disbelief" with this kind of cheese in my roleplaying game, sorry.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Strange, I feel as if have seen this before... Is it a psychlogical deja-vu, or was this posted before?


----------



## Jan van Leyden

I like both of them but will reserve my final judgment 'til I've had more experience.

In the new 6-player-game we just started, we have two Dragonborn and one Tiefling (dwarf, half-elf and halfling making up the rest). I - as DM - ususally prefer more humanocentric games, but have decided to let the players try out the new options to their hearts' delight. Let's see how long they are satisifed with the new races.

I, for one, am not missing the gnome and the half-orc. Gnomes have never been attractive and the two half-orcs I experienced in 3.x were very clichéd.

And for the record: I started playing and mostly DMing 25 years ago; all of my players but one have at least 12 years experience as well.

Huldvoll

Jan van Leyden


----------



## GnomeWorks

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Strange, I feel as if have seen this before... Is it a psychlogical deja-vu, or was this posted before?




Nevermind.


----------



## AtomicPope

Cadfan said:


> Now that [gnomes and half-orcs] are gone, there's no reason to hate on them. So the haters are quiet, while the people who loved them are noisy.



True.  I've played D&D for decades and Gnomes and Half Orcs are rarely played.  In fact, the stress on Strength as "teh best stat evar" for 3e made pure Orcs more popular that either combined for that edition.

In my current game there are several Humans, one Orc, one Dwarf, one Dragonborn and one Tiefling.  The extra At Will is a selling point for Humans.

I love both Dragonborns and Tieflings.  The only races I've never been crazy about are the "half" races - elf and orc alike.  I prefer the separate origins approach.  There's no miscegenation between species.  Minotaurs didn't come about from bull fancy so why half orcs?


----------



## Jack99

I love both with a fiery passion... Although I do prefer the planescape tiefling from 2e/3.x (look-wise) and will probably change that for my second campaign. The first one goes pretty much by the book.

On a side-note, I have to wonder how many of those that responded with a negative answer to both races actually play 4e.


----------



## Tervin

pukunui said:


> I like both the tiefling and the dragonborn. My only beefs with them are art-related only ... I hate the tieflings' massive horns and ridiculous crocodile tails, and I'm not sure about dragonborn boobs, but other than, they're cool. No issues.




I don't like those features either. On the other hand art is easy to ignore. My inner visions of the races are somehow always a lot cooler to me.


----------



## Lurks-no-More

I like both dragonborn and tieflings; they're mechanically solid races that also open up interesting character backgrounds and themes. It's about time we get some non-Tolkien races in the PHB!


----------



## Shadeydm

Weekend Wizard said:


> While flipping through the 4th Edition books in a Border's Comfy Chair, I almost dropped them in horror after seeing the Dragonborn being presented as a "core" race.
> 
> This was almost a "deal-breaker" for me in even looking at 4th Edition D&D, but I have struggled past it somehow in a good-faith attempt to judge if playing this new level of "kiddie RPGing" is even possible for someone like me who is so far outside their target market.
> 
> *My problem with these new "standard" player races is that I won't be able to keep a straight face during a gaming session with any "dragonfurry" character in it b/c I will be thinking of this the whole time:*
> Your typical 4th Edition D&D adventuring party:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pufnstuf the Dragonborn Warlord, Jimmy the halfling?/ugly human? Rogue, and Witchiepoo the Tiefling? Warlock
> 
> Oh, here's the link if you were too young to have had this inflicted on you (or were too chemically-altered back then to remember it clearly)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-yLYz6ejqw
> I just can't adventure while maintaining any significant sense of "suspension of disbelief" with this kind of cheese in my roleplaying game, sorry.




Wow, clearly you win this thread if such a thing is actually possible.


----------



## GnomeWorks

Jack99 said:


> On a side-note, I have to wonder how many of those that responded with a negative answer to both races actually play 4e.




...because that clearly has so much relevance. 

And yes, I am currently playing 4e.


----------



## Khairn

I'm indifferent to both of them.  Mostly because there is no real context for them in any setting I have run.

The existence of any kind of "special" race is not really a problem for me.  Their place within the setting I'm using is what drives my like or dislike of them.  I've used tieflings sparingly in my FR games.  And the Dracha from Arcana Evolved (Diamond Throne ) is the only "dragon-ish" PC race I've felt comfortable using because it fit so well with the setting.

The idea's for both races in the new FR **cough-hatchetjob-cough** don't excite me in the least.  I'm hoping that the new Eberron will come up with a creative and well written way of making a home for them in Khorvaire, so that I would want to include them.


----------



## DandD

GnomeWorks said:


> ...because that clearly has so much relevance.
> 
> And yes, I am currently playing 4e.



So D&D 4th edition managed to lure even GnomeWorks. The Dark Side is strong in D&D 4th edition.


----------



## GnomeWorks

DandD said:


> So D&D 4th edition managed to lure even GnomeWorks. The Dark Side is strong in D&D 4th edition.




Ha!

As I've been saying all along, I am playing it to be fair to the system, and because I have heard that it plays better than it reads.

I *sincerely* doubt that I will be sticking with it, past this one summer game.


----------



## DandD

If you need one summer to decide if the game really is for you, then the game is better than what you really think. Other people would only need 1 minute at most after reading the basic rules to decide if they want to play that system or not. 

In any case, I wish you fun with your campaign. And if you dislike the system after an entire summer, then good for you too. I just hope that you will have become wiser and not continue complaining about a system that you don't play anymore, like other posters, who waste their time and their energy telling us everybody how much they hate 4th edition. 

Hmmm, perhaps I should tell on the Dumpshock forums how much I dislike SR 3rd edition, and how The Dark Eye 4.1 sucks compared to TDE 3. 

Nah, that would make me look like an imbecile.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

I like them both.


----------



## GnomeWorks

DandD said:


> If you need one summer to decide if the game really is for you, then the game is better than what you really think. Other people would only need 1 minute at most after reading the basic rules to decide if they want to play that system or not.




...I don't think you've been following me as closely as I think you have been.

I have said - several times, now - that 4e is a wonderfully-constructed mechanical combat engine. It is well-designed, and it performs its purpose well. Anything beyond that, and I think it fails miserably, but for combat, it most certainly sings.

I know - by giving it a good once-over - that it does not serve my purposes. That does not mean that I have no interest in putting it through its paces. After all, in designing my own system, I need to know what works, what doesn't, and why. How am I supposed to gain that experience without playing and experiencing multiple systems?



> In any case, I wish you fun with your campaign. And if you dislike the system after an entire summer, then good for you too. I just hope that you will have become wiser and not continue complaining about a system that you don't play anymore, like other posters, who waste their time and their energy telling us everybody how much they hate 4th edition.




... *sigh*

There is a difference between complaining about a system and arguing/discussing its finer points.



> Hmmm, perhaps I should tell on the Dumpshock forums how much I dislike SR 3rd edition, and how The Dark Eye 4.1 sucks compared to TDE 3.
> 
> Nah, that would make me look like an imbecile.






I'm sure the parts of the community that you are so thinly stabbing at appreciate that quite a bit.


----------



## jdrakeh

I don't particularly care for Tieflings, though I don't hate them. Dragonborn appear to be PC lizardmen, so I don't bear them a grudge, either (they aren't as outre as many people make them out to be). As a whole, though, I think that they're good additions to the PHB as they make D&D stand out amongst a growing number of rather plain D&D clones by offering some choices that those clones and the past editions of D&D that they're based on do not.


----------



## DandD

GnomeWorks said:


> ...I don't think you've been following me as closely as I think you have been.



And I shouldn't. Normally, most people who start to get repetitive about their dislikes on this message board tend to land on my ignore list. I'm pretty sure that I do too on theirs, so all is fine and dandy then. 


> I have said - several times, now - that 4e is a wonderfully-constructed mechanical combat engine. It is well-designed, and it performs its purpose well. Anything beyond that, and I think it fails miserably, but for combat, it most certainly sings.



All I remember is that you were one of those who voiced their complaints time and time again back then. You might have changed now, which I don't know. 


> I know - by giving it a good once-over - that it does not serve my purposes. That does not mean that I have no interest in putting it through its paces. After all, in designing my own system, I need to know what works, what doesn't, and why. How am I supposed to gain that experience without playing and experiencing multiple systems?



Well, if you're a "simulationist", looking for what works in a game that people rather place in the "gamist" section (whatever this categorization is worth for) rather strikes me as time-inefficient. 


> ... *sigh*
> 
> There is a difference between complaining about a system and arguing/discussing its finer points.



Yes. Unfortunately, most of the notorious complainers of 4th edition on this very message board don't discuss, but just vent their "nerd-rage". But then again, that's what the ignore feature is for. 


> I'm sure the parts of the community that you are so thinly stabbing at appreciate that quite a bit.



But you would agree that I would look like an imbecile if I went to these other message boards and complained all the time about the "suckyness" of the particular edition now, wouldn't you?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

DandD said:


> If you need one summer to decide if the game really is for you, then the game is better than what you really think. Other people would only need 1 minute at most after reading the basic rules to decide if they want to play that system or not.
> 
> In any case, I wish you fun with your campaign. And if you dislike the system after an entire summer, then good for you too. I just hope that you will have become wiser and not continue complaining about a system that you don't play anymore, like other posters, who waste their time and their energy telling us everybody how much they hate 4th edition.
> 
> Hmmm, perhaps I should tell on the Dumpshock forums how much I dislike SR 3rd edition, and how The Dark Eye 4.1 sucks compared to TDE 3.
> 
> Nah, that would make me look like an imbecile.



Wouldn't you have to complain about Shadowrun 4E?


----------



## GnomeWorks

DandD said:


> And I shouldn't. Normally, most people who start to get repetitive about their dislikes on this message board tend to land on my ignore list. I'm pretty sure that I do too on theirs, so all is fine and dandy then.




Fair enough.



> All I remember is that you were one of those who voiced their complaints time and time again back then. You might have changed now, which I don't know.




Because it was relevant, at the time. The past few months - weeks, even, perhaps - have seen my views on gaming and D&D in general change dramatically.



> Well, if you're a "simulationist", looking for what works in a game that people rather place in the "gamist" section (whatever this categorization is worth for) rather strikes me as time-inefficient.




...no, not really.

Yes, D&D 4e is gamist. Doesn't mean that it doesn't have useful bits that can be cannibalized, or gaming concepts that don't deserve to be discussed. Just because we can throw labels around doesn't mean we should totally ignore things that don't fall under our preferred labels.



> Yes. Unfortunately, most of the notorious complainers of 4th edition on this very message board don't discuss, but just vent their "nerd-rage". But then again, that's what the ignore feature is for.




That term is getting rather tired.



> But you would agree that I would look like an imbecile if I went to these other message boards and complained all the time about the "suckyness" of the particular edition now, wouldn't you?




Some folk have more of an emotional attachment to their game of choice than others. There is nothing wrong with being upset when that game changes radically.

D&D seems to hold a very strange place in the world of gaming. It is what most people start with, and it is - I think - the easiest game to find a group for. As such, I imagine a good deal of people who are irked by 4e are irked because they may not have examined other gaming options, or are irked because - if they do decide to go to something else - their options for finding gaming groups will be radically reduced.


----------



## DandD

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Wouldn't you have to complain about Shadowrun 4E?



Nah, I accepted it. It's better in most cases than 3rd (4th still has its glaring mistakes). I'm wondering if D20 Modern with 4th edition rules might supersede the Shadowrun rules. 

Perhaps then I would complain about SR all the time, because New D20 Modern would make a better Shadowrun game than Shadowrun could ever do. 

Oh well, time will tell if I become a well-known imbecile or not.


----------



## AllisterH

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Not really on topic, but at least 3E started the trend with multiple Elf subraces including different statistics for each subrace. There was typically always the split between "woodsy elf" and "wizardy elf" (and it existed in the sub-races, too - Wood, Wild etc. elves for woodsy, High and Sun Elves for wizardy), and I am glad they finally "solved" this by splitting the race in two distinct, but related races.




Er, isn't this a 2E development.

I;m pretty sure that the Dragonlance and the FR campaign boxed sets AND Complete Book of Elves is where the split first came from.


----------



## Tervin

The "elven split" problem is a lot older than D&D. You can blame Tolkien if you want to. Compare the Eladrin in the LotR trilogy to the Elves in the Hobbit... (Or just read the Silmarillion for the same thing with more explanation as to why.) 

I would trace it even further back, to the word "elf" being used for very different peoples of fey origin. The Eladrin solution is the best I have seen in any game that tried to handle it.


----------



## Ginnel

I love Dragonborn and Tieflings, more races more cool stuff, the only thing I'll say is that is I ever run D&D again is that I'll have the current tiefling illustration be one of several houses of tieflings during the empire, each with different looks to them e.g goat legs and tiny horns, pointed tail and red skin, etc. (but then again I love the planescape setting feel)

More races the better especially when they're so different, especially after the human, the short human, the short stocky human, the 3 humans with pointy ears, the more distinct characteristics of dragonmen and devil humans are somewhat overdue imo, and can lead to interesting bias.

Our current 4th ed party consists of 2 dragonborn 2 tieflings a dwarf and a half elf.

The planescape 3rd ed game I ran had a troll, thri-kreen, human, succubus, and an undead, but that was a deliberately no holds barred game.

and our current Wednesday game, a norse themed one is 4 humans maybe 5 if you count the (hag/lycanthrope/human) and a gnome.

I get the impression from the players that they like to try new things out all the time and won't stick to stereotypes the edition helps with both the races and the classes, this is a good thing tm.


----------



## Rel

DandD said:


> Oh well, time will tell if I become a well-known imbecile or not.




You keep using that word.  If you're implying that those who have complaints about 4e are "imbeciles" for doing so then knock it off.  Anybody who can express such complaints in a civil manner is welcome here.  Anybody who wants to call them names for doing so is not.


----------



## Mercurius

OK, after five pages of replies I might be inclined to change my original vote from "dislike" to "indifferent" because I see a lot of creative takes on the two races. I do agree with the sentiment that the canonical version of tieflings is not quite as interesting as the old school Planescape one, which offered all sorts of fun customization options (including the potential for Hoof-and-Mouth Disease!). In some sense it would be interesting to do the same with Dragonborn and make them more customizable, even with a semi-shapechange capacity that develops over time--starting with very young dragon form at early levels all the way up to ancient at higher levels.


----------



## Jack99

GnomeWorks said:


> ...because that clearly has so much relevance.
> 
> And yes, I am currently playing 4e.




Just because it has no relevance for you, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have a relevance for me. And my musing was in no way, shape or form related to specifically you, just to be clear.


----------



## EATherrian

Tervin said:


> The "elven split" problem is a lot older than D&D. You can blame Tolkien if you want to. Compare the Eladrin in the LotR trilogy to the Elves in the Hobbit... (Or just read the Silmarillion for the same thing with more explanation as to why.)
> 
> I would trace it even further back, to the word "elf" being used for very different peoples of fey origin. The Eladrin solution is the best I have seen in any game that tried to handle it.




But why do you need two separate races of elf for this split.  It could just be a fluff difference.  One group likes to pretend they are high and mighty, the other likes to live close to nature; but they are both still elves.  I could handle that.  Why do they have to create a new race for things that are better handled just with story?


----------



## Mercule

racoffin said:


> Don't particularly like tieflings as written, although the take on them from Planescape was tolerable.
> 
> I extremely dislike Dragonborn however.



While I've never been a Planescape fan, this is pretty much my feeling.

I doubt I'll have to ban dragonborn, since I don't see my players being accepting of them.  Well, there _is_ one guy, but he'll get censured by the other players.

Tieflings aren't horrible, in concept, but the implementation was botched, IMO.  Fortunately, none of the mechanics actually require the mega-horns or lizard tail, so the fluff is easy enough to change to make them palatable.


----------



## EATherrian

To answer the original question, I dislike both races.  I don't hate them, I can see where with intensive re-writing of their backgrounds they could be decent; but as with most of the core with this edition as written they leave me wanting.  In truth, I like the Tolkeinesque races, with a nice mix of other mythology thrown in for spice.  I also strongly discourage the playing of races that are considered "evil" in the setting.  If the whole world thinks you're evil they aren't going to wait and see if you are or not.  If someone wants a real role-playing difficulty added, it can be fun; unfortunately I usually get the Drizzt-lover who doesn't understand why the town-guard won't let him in and keep firing bolts at him.  The back-story of the Tieflings make me think they should be treated about the same way.  I still don't know what to do with Dragonborn, they are utterly alien to my modes of fantasy.


----------



## Ottergame

I really like Dragonborn, but never have been a fan of tieflings.  I prefer Aasimar.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

AllisterH said:


> Er, isn't this a 2E development.
> 
> I;m pretty sure that the Dragonlance and the FR campaign boxed sets AND Complete Book of Elves is where the split first came from.




Don't know when it start. At least in 3E, probably earlier. I am not a D&D expert, at least not before 3E.


----------



## Zinovia

EATherrian said:


> But why do you need two separate races of elf for this split.  It could just be a fluff difference.  One group likes to pretend they are high and mighty, the other likes to live close to nature; but they are both still elves.  I could handle that.  Why do they have to create a new race for things that are better handled just with story?



For the different racial stats and abilities.  In my campaign, all elves are the same species, but the elves live in the real world and are tree-hugger types (wood elves), the eladrin are more closely tied to the feywild, cities, and magic (high elves).  In order to reflect the differences in background and the affinity with their environment, the two types of elves in the PH work for me, but they aren't different species; they just were raised in different environments.    

The dark elves are also true elves that live in the underdark and are scary and creepy, but I'm ditching a lot of the Forgotten Realms drow feel, including the skin color.  People who live underground have pale skin.  Furthermore, no race portrayed the way the drow have been could possibly survive unless they littered like cats and had dozens of children over the course of their lifetimes.  Not only do they perform evil rites and sacrifice their own offspring (a huge taboo which reinforces how *evil* they are), they also compete in internecine warfare and murder each other off pretty frequently.  Add to that the fact that they are targeted for genocide by every adventuring party that wanders into the Underdark.  So why aren't they all extinct yet?  

Ahem.  To wander back on topic, I think the dragonborn and tieflings fill a good role and I think I like them pretty well as races for the PH.  What I dislike the most about both of them is the artwork.  It's not that the art is bad, but rather than I don't care for the way they have chosen to portray both races.  

Dragonborn have a lot of problems with their usual look in the core books.  Their eyes are too small; it's hard to even see them in some of the paintings.  Their lower legs are much too short.  Their arms are longer than their legs in a lot of the art.  That looks silly to me.  They should have tails.  They should not look like porcupines.  They should not have boobs.  I think they should have more color variation, if not the usual brilliant spectrum of evil dragon colors.  So in my game world dragonborn have tails, no boobs, bigger eyes, and fewer spiky bits all over their heads.  I like the dragonborn portrayed at the start of the chapter on ritual magic, but that's one of the few that I really like.  Many of them, including the one on the front cover are very ugly.  Beady little eyes aren't attractive.  

I'm not sure that the appearance of tieflings needed to be locked down so much.  I thought one of the characteristics of tieflings in past editions was that they had a variable appearance.  Some had horns, some had tails, some had goat legs.  I'm not sure where I want to go with that for my game.  I do feel that tieflings should not have giant alligator tails that are 5' long.  They should have shorter tails that are a bit more slender, or in some cases no tail at all.  Their horns are too large, although I like some of the portrayals in the books more than others.  I don't like the chin spikes and such on the guys. That's too freaky.  Make them look more human with demonic traits, not like something that would be slain as a demon the instant it walked into a town.   They started off as human after all.  

In 25 years of gaming, I think I've seen someone play a gnome two or three times.  We nixed them from our last D&D campaign in favor of a small lizard-like race that specialized in psionics (before the books added psionic races).  Half-orcs were allowed, but no one ever liked to play them in our games, so I won't miss them.  I don't think orcs and humans could cross-breed anyway.  

Half-elves we came up with a special explanation for.  The elves and the humans had been warring for centuries.  The elves were upset at the prolific humans taking over all the land and cutting down forests.  The humans just wanted to spread out and use the land that the elves weren't "doing anything" with.  It kept going on until the gods intervened, and forcibly put a stop to it.  They told the leaders of each nation that their children would marry, and the offspring of that marriage would become the rulers of the entire area.  Elves and humans had not been able to have offspring at all prior to this.  So the first half-elves arose out of this direct intervention by the gods.  Half-elves are fertile with either humans or elves, and the half-elven trait always breeds true.  There are no quarter-elves, or 1/8th elves, etc.  So now the half-elven are the race of the nobility over a fairly wide area.  None of the other races much liked the solution, but the gods have ways of enforcing their decisions.


----------



## Mallus

I like both new races. For the first time I find myself using/incorporating some of the RAW fluff in my new collaborative homebrew, which is a post-apocalyptic setting that resulted from the Dragonborn/Tiefling war.

Heck, my PC for that campaign is going to be a poison-spitting, Don Quixote-emulating Dragonborn paladin.


----------



## GreatLemur

4e hasn't really won me over--not to the point of replacing 3.5 and all its third-party derivatives, anyway--but I'd sooner play a dragonborn or tiefling than an elf or dwarf or any of that Tolkieny stuff.  That said, I liked Planescape's widely-varied tieflings a lot better.  And I'd actually rather just play a lizard guy than a dragon guy.  My perception of dragons has been tainted by so many things, over the years...


----------



## JediSoth

I like the races, but I don't think they should be part of the core D&D experience. I think D&D is more accessible to newbies if the races presented in the basic information are all fantasy tropes. Standard fantasy races seem to be easier to roleplay since they have something in common with people (dwarves = greedy miner, elf = environmentally conscious outdoorsy person, etc.). Someone with demonic blood or a reptilian, I would think, would be more difficult to get in the mindset of for a newbie.

I recall disliking the dragonborn when I first saw them in Races of the Dragon, but since I don't have that book, I can't remember how much they've changed to their current 4E version. I like the 4E version's fluff. I agree with other posters on the tieflings: they were better when their appearance varied. Now they're just cookie-cutter guys (or gals) with horns...and none of them have that cute Sheena Easton accent.

JediSoth


----------



## Jhaelen

I'm indifferent to both races. They are not that bad really. There's been lots of goofier races in the past. However, I don't particularly care about the art:

Dragonborn are to bulky for my taste (and no, I won't write anything about boobs...oops!).

Tiefling horns and tails are ridiculously overdone. If they were really that pronounced they should have some in-game effect (headbutt & tailslap anyone?)

Finally, to really make the races playable (as in role'playing'), they need a lot more depth and cultural background. Otherwise, they're just going to be played like funny looking humans.
Maybe we'll got some decent supplement about races at some point.

I'm a big fan of the Earthdawn non-humans, btw. That setting really shines in its portrayal of the Obsidimen, Windlings, Tskrang and Trolls. They even managed to have an interesting take on staple fantasy races like the Dwarves, Elves, Orcs.
Even the humans are more interesting than elsewhere, since they're not the dominant race.


----------



## Mallus

JediSoth said:


> I think D&D is more accessible to newbies if the races presented in the basic information are all fantasy tropes.



But I've noticed that the only people who consider those tropes 'basic' are the people who have been fantasy fans for decades, ie, not newbies. People come to fantasy different ways now, and probably have different notions of what constitutes the baseline.



> Standard fantasy races seem to be easier to roleplay since they have something in common with people...



'Standard' to who? Someone who read LotR in the 70's and 80's, or someone who grew up on fantasy themed entertainment that ranged from the LotR films to Naruto and Wow?


----------



## Felon

Dragonborn would be more pallatable to my group if they actually looked cooler. Theyare usually depicted with those beady eyes on smooth, stumpy heads. They wind up looking like molemen from the front (q.v. page of the PHB). Then again, the dragonborn on the cover looks nothing like the rest depicted anywhere else, and still looks like crap.

As for tieflings, they're only there because WotC thought they had too many elven races to include the drow. I have no beef with them, and don't expect them to see much play simply because none of their racial benefits are very appealing.


----------



## Negflar2099

Love 'em both. Dragonmen are a staple of fantasy that I've wished were part of D&D since I played Wizardy: Crusaders of the Dark Savant when I was a kid. As for Tieflings they were an incredibly popular race in my groups in 3.x and now they are just as popular. Love 'em.


----------



## Desdichado

You're kidding with the thread-title, right?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Mallus said:


> But I've noticed that the only people who consider those tropes 'basic' are the people who have been fantasy fans for decades, ie, not newbies. People come to fantasy different ways now, and probably have different notions of what constitutes the baseline.
> 
> 'Standard' to who? Someone who read LotR in the 70's and 80's, or someone who grew up on fantasy themed entertainment that ranged from the LotR films to Naruto and Wow?




You're quite right here, but I think the problem with these two races is illustrated by the next post.



Felon said:


> Dragonborn would be more pallatable to my group if they actually looked cooler. Theyare usually depicted with those beady eyes on smooth, stumpy heads. They wind up looking like molemen from the front (q.v. page of the PHB). Then again, the dragonborn on the cover looks nothing like the rest depicted anywhere else, and still looks like crap.




I think this is the biggest failing with 4E's races, frankly. They, surprisingly, manage to make Dwarves look cool (which can be hard to do), keep Elves looking decent, and do an ok job with Humans (I guess they don't need much help), but the other races don't really have particularly awesome appearances, I mean:

Eladrin - Baubles for eyes, and they dress like rejects from Labyrinth or something. I don't think there's much instant appeal in the art with them. The MM does a better job than of the PHB art involving them. Though the DMG has the most hilariously atrocious Eladrin picture, on pg. 193, apparently proving that bauble-eyes destroy fashion sense but humans dudes who want to get with Eladrin chicks are totally willing to go along with it.

Dragonborn - D'argo-born more like, amirite? Anyway, Felon hits on the head pretty squarely. They're portrayed as squat chunky lumps, without the elegance or power of their namesake (er, Dragons, not D'argo, but even he's more elegant and cool-looking that these sub-Predator fatdragons).

Tieflings - I'm not sure who thought "Omgawd, Tieflings would be like, so much cooler if they were all identical, had giant ugly horns with zero aesthetic appeal and a huge useless tail to drag along the floor! And let's make them hold really ugly weapons even though their empire is dead for thousands of years and they're a minority group who live in other cultures!", but I'm pretty sure they were on their twentieth cup of coffee of the day. "Oh and let's add baubles for eyes again!", yeah, to really complete the facepalm-inducing picture. Whilst pissing all over how Tieflings used to be. The mechanics are fine, the background's fine, much of the art makes the best of a bad lot, but oy vey.

Halflings - Uh, um, still confused about what to do with these guys. "Oh let's give them all braided hair or curly hair!". "Let's immediately undermine tiny bit of identity that in the PHB itself by making one of the two we see be "mini-Fabio"!". Really, what, guys, WotC, dudes, just y'know either take a dump or get off the top. Mini-me only-not-so mini isn't a good concept to start with and making them look like short humans ISN'T HELPING. Introduce some proper faerie people with WINGS for god's sake, even if they're quite large and don't actually fly. At least then you'd have half the the girlfriends and wives in the gaming world delighted (and some of the guys, too!).

Some other race. I dunno. Whatever they were they were dull.


----------



## Particle_Man

I like em both.  Now we can have the Strong Guy without any rapist implications.

We can also have the "brooding loner" guy, also without any rapist implications.


----------



## Fifth Element

The Green Adam said:


> After looking through the 4E Player's Handbook, a non-gamer female friend said to me, "Are there any Dragons or Dungeons in this game? This looks like another planet. Its like Star Wars."



Wait, we have a dragon-like core race now and there's supposedly *less* dragons in the PHB?


----------



## Shadeydm

I have to agree about the Dragonborn on the PHB cover it looks tuurrible, even the its weapon and armor...yikes. I like the guy on page 6 better its not great but compared to the cover...


----------



## Jdvn1

I like them both--they add a little color, but are rare enough to not change much. My players can play them as much as they like--they're exceptional characters anyways.


----------



## Fifth Element

Well, the OP seems to have his answer by now. OP's perception of the situation appears to have been _way_ off. Only 7% of respondents indicate they hate both dragonborn and tieflings. I think this falls far short of "universally despised".


----------



## mlund

Almost everything I hate about Tieflings and Dragonborn stem from the awful decisions made with their art. 

Egg-laying reptiles don't get breasts. I'm sorry if the art department is insisting on having clear gender-specific traits that human players are familiar with but it is really cutting into my acceptence of the race.

Meanwhile, Tieflings have the most awful PC race art I've ever seen. First of all, those horns and tails are ridiculous birthing hazards. Secondly, if a human village has one of those ... _things_ ... born there it would be drowned shortly thereafter and the mother burned for consorting with demons. Other versions of the Tiefling seemed much more viable, but they were likely deemed "too close to elves" or whatnot. So the end result are a bunch of repugnant-looking devil-spawn raised and normalized around humans while looking and acting less human than several breeds of devil.

They don't even have useful stat bumps or background fluff, in my opinion.

At least the Dragonborn have that Klingon thing as a starting point. They've got the "Proud Warrior Race Guy," trope down to a T. The Tieflings have that "Ugly Tainted Emo Kid," niche that really just rubs me the wrong way.

- Marty Lund


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Dragonborn are pants on head retarded, new tieflings are jaw-droppingly lame.  Ditch the scalies and make tieflings back to how they were in 2e and we'll talk.

Addendum: I don't see the argument of "Well, they're different in my setting" as a valid one.  That tells me _you dislike the two races just as much_, but you're willing to look past your dislike to alter them into something you do like.  You still dislike the two races.  You've just taken them and made them something more palpable to you.


----------



## Doug McCrae

mlund said:


> those horns and tails are ridiculous birthing hazards.



Good point. That's why no real life animals have horns.


----------



## Brennin Magalus

Negflar2099 said:


> Love 'em both. Dragonmen are a staple of fantasy that I've wished were part of D&D since I played Wizardy: Crusaders of the Dark Savant when I was a kid. As for Tieflings they were an incredibly popular race in my groups in 3.x and now they are just as popular. Love 'em.




Dragonmen are a "staple" of fantasy? That's news to me.


----------



## Lord Mhoram

I like 'em both. 

Playing a Dragonborn now, and plan to have a Tiefling Paladin for my next character.


----------



## The Little Raven

mlund said:


> Egg-laying reptiles don't get breasts.




Good thing they're not reptiles, then.


----------



## mhacdebhandia

Honestly, I am genuinely surprised that even the oldest grognard believes that new players are going to come to the table looking for a wholly Tolkienesque world, or being upset when they learn that there might be dragonborn or tieflings in the game.


----------



## Ander00

I don't care much either way. I just wish their presentation wasn't quite so 'meh'.

That said, I kind of like my dragonborn warlord.


cheers


----------



## Eric Tolle

I wonder what it is about younger gamers that makes them so conservative, reactionary even.

I mean, back in the day, Dragonborn and Tieflings would be nothing; we were plundering Arduin Grimore for Phraints and Deodanths, not to mention Sauregs; we had demons, Wolfriders, Vulcans with light sabers, and I think one guy even played a minature Godzilla.  

But not Gnomes.  Nobody played Gnomes.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

mhacdebhandia said:


> Honestly, I am genuinely surprised that even the oldest grognard believes that new players are going to come to the table looking for a wholly Tolkienesque world, or being upset when they learn that there might be dragonborn or tieflings in the game.




Equally, I'm surprised people think adding those in will in of themselves be a draw for more people to start playing the game 

Edit: That smiley looks FAR more obnoxious then I intended.  Sorry for that.


----------



## Barastrondo

ProfessorCirno said:


> Addendum: I don't see the argument of "Well, they're different in my setting" as a valid one.  That tells me _you dislike the two races just as much_, but you're willing to look past your dislike to alter them into something you do like.  You still dislike the two races.  You've just taken them and made them something more palpable to you.




By that logic, some of us out there don't like _any_ of the races, up to and including humans. Do you honestly think that anybody who ever customized an elf to make it fit his personal campaign hates elves?


----------



## Fifth Element

ProfessorCirno said:


> Equally, I'm surprised people think adding those in will in of themselves be a draw for more people to start playing the game



I don't know what they were thinking; the only change they made between 3E and 4E was the addition of dragonborn and tieflings as core races. They put all their eggs in that basket, for sure.


----------



## Mallus

Eric Tolle said:


> I mean, back in the day, Dragonborn and Tieflings would be nothing; we were plundering Arduin Grimore for Phraints and Deodanths, not to mention Sauregs; we had demons, Wolfriders, Vulcans with light sabers, and I think one guy even played a minature Godzilla.



I was thinking the same thing.  

Everything breeds an orthodoxy, even --or perhaps especially-- unorthodox hobbies.


----------



## The Green Adam

Fifth Element said:


> Wait, we have a dragon-like core race now and there's supposedly *less* dragons in the PHB?




Um...yep. Read the last four or five posts to see examples. Dragonborn don't look very much like dragons. Rather, they more closely resemble some kind of bulky, scaley, squat, rounded off aliens. At best they look a bit like Ogres who mated with Lizardmen or something.

At least to me.

AD


----------



## Ahglock

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Wouldn't you have to complain about Shadowrun 4E?




I know I do.  Its a pile of suck fluff on a suck mechanic sandwich.  The basic idea of losing dice instead of adding subtracting to the TN is fine, virtually everything else around that and both major subsystems magic and decking(yes decking not hacking) really suck hard.  But I usually leave that to Shadowrun boards and not this one.


----------



## Brennin Magalus

Mourn said:


> Good thing they're not reptiles, then.




Pedantry does not change the bottom line that green & scaly and boobs do not mix.


----------



## drothgery

Brennin Magalus said:


> Pedantry does not change the bottom line that green & scaly and boobs do not mix.




Since only one picture in the PH or MM that might have depicted a dragonborn was green and scaly (red or a gold-ish color being by far the most common), I'm not sure what your point is.


----------



## Mercurius

Hobo said:


> You're kidding with the thread-title, right?




Being over-dramatic is more like it


----------



## WayneLigon

I like teiflings a bit more than dragonborn, because the campaign backstory that is currently percolating in my hindbrain would have tieflings but probably not dragonborn (except as villains; the setting probably will not have any Good dragons). I'm sure that at some point, I'll work on a setting that will be the other way around, then my tastes will adjust.


----------



## Mercurius

So with 666 votes tallied so far (good place to pause!), let's look at some numbers. 

About BOTH Dragonborn and Tieflings...
43.8% are positive
26.4% are negative
20.7% are mixed or neutral


About Dragonborn...
53% are positive
37.8% are negative
9% are neutral

About Tieflings...
55.3% are positive
35.7% are negative


----------



## Mark

The Green Adam said:


> Your on bud! My only fear is that what was essentially a joke may end up accidentally really cool looking. LOL
> 
> AD





I'm having trouble with the link you sent to me.  I tried to email you back but I am not sure it arrived.


----------



## lutecius

Ew  I don't know if this anonymous poll is reliable, but i am appalled at the thought that so many people on these boards may actually like dragonborn. 

Tiefling, i could see (with a different look, fluff and name) but dragonborn?
Even if wotc hadn't gone out of their way to make them look so dorky, they'd still be akin to furry. 

Maybe i'm just too old (34)


----------



## mhacdebhandia

lutecius said:


> Ew  I don't know if this anonymous poll is reliable, but i am appalled at the thought that so many people on these boards actually like dragonborn.
> 
> Tiefling, i could see (with a different look, fluff and name) but dragonborn?
> Even if wotc hadn't gone out of their way to make them look so dorky, they'd still be akin to furry.
> 
> Maybe i'm just too old (34)



Or maybe you could just get over having a problem with the idea that other people like things you don't.

Some of us manage that before we're thirty-four years old.


----------



## Rechan

Mercurius said:


> So with 666 votes tallied so far (good place to pause!), let's look at some numbers.
> 
> About BOTH Dragonborn and Tieflings...
> 43.8% are positive
> 26.4% are negative
> 20.7% are mixed or neutral
> 
> 
> About Dragonborn...
> 53% are positive
> 37.8% are negative
> 9% are neutral
> 
> About Tieflings...
> 55.3% are positive
> 35.7% are negative



I hope that answers your question.


----------



## The Green Adam

Mark said:


> I'm having trouble with the link you sent to me. I tried to email you back but I am not sure it arrived.




I'll try again...

http://barkingalien.deviantart.com/art/The-Dragling-90208155

The image linking function of the site doesn't seem to work well for me.

AD


----------



## lutecius

mhacdebhandia said:


> Or maybe you could just get over having a problem with the idea that other people like things you don't.
> 
> Some of us manage that before we're thirty-four years old.



I don't know. I'm actually open-minded about *many* things. 
"Tail-less, dreadlocked, boobed dragon people" is just beyond me.
But whatever floats your boat, i guess


----------



## Particle_Man

Brennin Magalus said:


> Pedantry does not change the bottom line that green & scaly and boobs do not mix.




How about orange and scaly and external male genitals?  

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0568.html


----------



## Brennin Magalus

lutecius said:


> "Tail-less, dreadlocked, boobed dragon people" is just beyond me.




What he wrote.


----------



## Maggan

lutecius said:


> Maybe i'm just too old (34)




Nah, I'm 39 and I think Dragonborn are ok. So I don't think age has much to do with it.

/M


----------



## Fenes

Fifth Element said:


> Wait, we have a dragon-like core race now and there's supposedly *less* dragons in the PHB?




We have a dragon-like core race? Where? All I see is some humanoid lizard that's really, really ugly, and doesn't invoke anything related to dragons in me. Just because WotC writes some background in doesn't make them look any closer to dragons.

Humanoids with scaly skins are not dragon-like. They'd need at least wings, a tail, and a much longer neck to be dragon-like.


----------



## Tervin

lutecius said:


> Ew  I don't know if this anonymous poll is reliable, but i am appalled at the thought that so many people on these boards may actually like dragonborn.
> 
> Tiefling, i could see (with a different look, fluff and name) but dragonborn?
> Even if wotc hadn't gone out of their way to make them look so dorky, they'd still be akin to furry.
> 
> Maybe i'm just too old (34)




Back when I was 34 I might not have liked them. At 43 I feel that they are a breath (weapon) of fresh air. Of course it might be that I love the idea of fantasy races that don't feel like they could just as well be a human culture. The art of the dragonborn and the tiefling is only one (regrettably bad) image of what they can look like.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert

I like them both. Dragonborn allowed me to have the fantasy equivalent of Zionists in my setting (OK, I could have used another race for that, but they just fit so well...). And tieflings fit in perfectly with all those Gothic tales about (a) bad seeds in a family, and (b) cautionary stories about not falling in love with "handsome but mysterious strangers"...


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Fifth Element said:


> I don't know what they were thinking; the only change they made between 3E and 4E was the addition of dragonborn and tieflings as core races. They put all their eggs in that basket, for sure.




I don't recall saying that was the only change, nor have I found me saying that here.  If you find it, let me know, eh?

What I DO remember saying was a comment on how odd I found it that people thought that, amongst other things (And I remember saying THAT bit almost word for word) that the dragonborn and new tieflings would drive new sales.


----------



## Steely Dan

Dig Tieflings, detest Dragonborn.


----------



## Aus_Snow

I don't like that either of them is a core race. I also don't like either of them anyway, but that's pretty much secondary. For instance, I like Tieflings of an earlier era. 'Dragonborn' however. . . well, a simple 'no' will suffice here.

Just two of so many things that I've found to be unappealing, when it comes to 4e.


----------



## Trickstergod

I like tieflings and detest dragonborn, but with a caveat:

I really, really hate the 4th edition approach to tieflings. They all have horns, they all have tails, they all look like a bunch of demonic dudes?

Umm, no, no sir. Don't like it. I liked it when they could very well fit in with humanity - when they had a range from "Holy crap, it's a demon!" to "There's something strange looking about that fellow." 

Since the appearance is a very superficial, easy to change thing, it's not that big of a deal, but every time I see "tiefling" artwork, I groan a little. 

Meanwhile, I just don't like dragonborn at all, at least as a core rulebook race. I like a good, solid humanocentric base - the more bizarre, alien races are better served as later additions, rather than staples to the game.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

I like them both, though my view of races in D&D may be somewhat different then most. I view races as a stepping off point for what races will be like in my world.

For example, in a couple of my to-be/current 4e settings Tieflings are either: 


Planescape style.
Humans twisted in the womb by the effects of reality-deviations.
When a mother is cursed with nightmares and dread during her pregnancy.
A natural born race, very similar to the 4e one. But are rulers of the Roman Empire on a alternative Earth.
Dragonborn are:


Simply another race formed during the chaos near the beginning ages of creation and simply another race you see walking amongst all the other odd races in Sigil.
A race formed out of the distant and instinctual fears of Humans taken flesh, and even more crafted by the worries of armies and soldiers that people in such dark and violent times harbour, such violence simply falls hand-in-hand with Dragons, thus their form.
A natural born race, similar to 4e one. But are the rulers of the Egyptian Empire on a alternative Earth.
The main races I almost never use and if I do, I alter to a extreme degree are Dwarves, Halflings, and pre-4e Elves (I adore Eladrin (Fey Folk for the win) and I am glad to see the schizophrenic Elf dissappear). As for extreme alteration, one example is when I change Halflings into Gremlins.


----------



## Old Gumphrey

You (admittedly, very few) folks who keep comparing dragonborn to "furries" are putting some pretty awkward sexual connotations toward those of us that do like dragonborn; whether it's toward our characters or us personally is irrelevant. Said connotations hardly seem appropriate to this board, much less a game that accepts players as young as 7 years old.

So maybe you could just knock that crap off?


----------



## Steely Dan

Old Gumphrey said:


> You (admittedly, very few) folks who keep comparing dragonborn to "furries"





I went to one of their conventions in Vegas, wild – dog-pile!


----------



## Particle_Man

Fenes said:


> We have a dragon-like core race? Where? All I see is some humanoid lizard that's really, really ugly, and doesn't invoke anything related to dragons in me. Just because WotC writes some background in doesn't make them look any closer to dragons.
> 
> Humanoids with scaly skins are not dragon-like. They'd need at least wings, a tail, and a much longer neck to be dragon-like.




They got a breath-weapon, unlike the other core races.  I notice you forgot to mention that.  

They also speak the language that dragons speak.

Flying got nerfed all around, so there won't be a flying core race.  Ugly is subjective (I for instance think they look just fine), as does "invoking anything related to dragons".


----------



## lutecius

Old Gumphrey said:


> You (admittedly, very few) folks who keep comparing dragonborn to "furries" are putting some pretty awkward sexual connotations toward those of us that do like dragonborn; whether it's toward our characters or us personally is irrelevant. Said connotations hardly seem appropriate to this board, much less a game that accepts players as young as 7 years old.
> 
> So maybe you could just knock that crap off?



tut tut, language. There may be 7 yos around.
You're seeing sexual connotations when there are none . "furry" doesn't imply anything sexual, unless you want it to.


----------



## Fenes

Particle_Man said:


> They got a breath-weapon, unlike the other core races.  I notice you forgot to mention that.
> 
> They also speak the language that dragons speak.
> 
> Flying got nerfed all around, so there won't be a flying core race.  Ugly is subjective (I for instance think they look just fine), as does "invoking anything related to dragons".




Anyone can speak the draconic. And a breath weapon is not really that special in a world with dozens of spells.

Sorry, I see reptilian humanoids, not dragons. No wings, no tail, no elongated neck equals "not dragon-like" for me.


----------



## Mercurius

Fallen Seraph said:


> I like them both, though my view of races in D&D may be somewhat different then most. *I view races as a stepping off point for what races will be like in my world.*




That's the ticket (and my approach, as well). And I like what you've done with the place  (your examples).


----------



## The Little Raven

Brennin Magalus said:


> Pedantry does not change the bottom line that green & scaly and boobs do not mix.




I'm sorry, I thought this was a fantasy game that had strange things like the ridiculous owlbear or treasure chests that are actually carnivorous monsters. Dragonchicks with boobs is light in comparison.



Fenes said:


> No wings, no tail, no elongated neck equals "not dragon-like" for me.




Maybe that's because your definition of dragon is way more narrow than the actual, standard definition of dragon, since the Chinese and Germans have had wingless dragons for centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindworm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_dragon


----------



## Steely Dan

Mourn said:


> Maybe that's because your definition of dragon is way more narrow than the actual, standard definition of dragon, since the Chinese and Germans have had wingless dragons for centuries.
> http://





Yeah, the original 1st Ed Gold Dragon (Draco Orientalis) was a wingless bad-ass.


----------



## Calico_Jack73

I like Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved and there was always at least one Draconic PC race so I think that helped me warm up to the Dragonborn.

Tieflings have been around as a PC race since 2e AD&D so that never was an issue for me.


----------



## Eric Tolle

lutecius said:


> "Tail-less, dreadlocked, boobed dragon people" is just beyond me. But whatever floats your boat, i guess




You kinda got a point there- we also need some insect people with external genetilia as well.  I mean, chitinous boobs, what more can one want?

Well, anime-style catgirls for one thing.  I can't believe that 4E left out the anime-style catgirls.  That would have drove sales to an entirely new level.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Old Gumphrey said:


> You (admittedly, very few) folks who keep comparing dragonborn to "furries" are putting some pretty awkward sexual connotations toward those of us that do like dragonborn; whether it's toward our characters or us personally is irrelevant. Said connotations hardly seem appropriate to this board, much less a game that accepts players as young as 7 years old.
> 
> So maybe you could just knock that crap off?




Hey, WE weren't the ones that decided to give them .


----------



## Dragonbait

I like both, but the "You might want to play a dragonborn" section is laughable. I remember them saying nothing about the dragonborn culture or personality in the "..play dragonborn" section, unlike all other races.
It went something like..

Dragonborn: You want to look like a dragon, you want to breath fire, you want to be a good Warlord, blah blah blah

I remember using the same attitude when trying to advertise the other races:
Dwarf: You want to have a huge beard, you want to resist poison, you want to be a good fighter,blah blah blah.
Elf: You want to have pointed ears and be hawt, you want to hit creatures more than any other race, you want to be a good ranger, blah blah blah blah

Anyways...
I just learned that nature is telling the people that insist that dragaonborn can NOT be mammals are wrong. Green, scales, and boobs CAN mix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangolin


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Brennin Magalus said:


> What he wrote.




Wait, Dragonborn don't have tails and Tieflings do? I didn't realize that. That is pretty retarded. Still okay with them but jeez, learn to be _cool_, WotC.

*Mourn* - What confuses me is that the Dragonborn in the DMG does have wings and can fly (iirc), which seems like a natural enough Paragon-tier feat or something, improving in the Epic tier, and indeed was hinted at by WotC a while

I do think, from a purely personal, entirely aesthetic point-of-view, the choices WotC made with the Dragonborn weren't ideal. They really seem like very stocky humanoids who have inexplicable "D&D-style" dragon-heads (D&D seems to have popularized the "wide-headed" or "wedge-headed" dragon, as opposed to the long-snouted dragons which used to be more generally popular) and scales. I didn't realize that they lacked a tail - I had simply assumed they did! That seems like a silly choice, really.

JMHO, but then then pretty much everything anyone posts here is.



Dragonbait said:


> I just learned that nature is telling the people that insist that dragaonborn can NOT be mammals are wrong. Green, scales, and boobs CAN mix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangolin




Pangolins have teats, though, not "boobs". It's that they have human-style boobs that makes it kind of ludicrous, though for it's just the LAZINESS on the part of the art-team that that implies that really gets up my nose. I've seen sexual differentiation in quasi-mammals done a hell of a lot better before, and given the life-cycle of Dragonborn (hatch from an egg at the size of a three-year-old, are fully developed by a young age, etc.) it seems like mammary glands would be utterly un-needed. It's just like "Dude, how do we make the dragon-chicks look like chicks?" "BEWBS MAN BEWBS!" - Le sigh.


----------



## mlund

Doug McCrae said:


> Good point. That's why no real life animals have horns.




No, that's why no real life *humans* give birth to goats and giraffes. Tieflings, on the other hand, are typically born to human mothers who are not designed to give birth to spawn with horns and tails. Also, the Tiefling's skull structure (that awful neanderthal brow-ridge) seems to indicate to me that they are born with horns intact. I can't see how growing the horns post-facto would allow for the skull to develop that way.



Mourn said:


> Good thing they're not reptiles, then.




By definition, they are not mammals because they do not give birth to live young. You could make them vaguely Avian with none of the necessary traits or make up some new Draconic category, but they still don't give birth to live young or nurse their young - ergo breasts are simply there to facilitate bad art.



Eric Tolle said:


> Well, anime-style catgirls for one thing.  I can't believe that 4E left out the anime-style catgirls.  That would have drove sales to an entirely new level.




Well, there are PC stats for the Shifters in the Monster Manual, and they are actually pretty solid - just keep them away from the Yiff-Yiff crowd.

- Marty Lund


----------



## Dragonbait

mlund said:


> By definition, they are not mammals because they do not give birth to live young. You could make them vaguely Avian with none of the necessary traits or make up some new Draconic category, but they still don't give birth to live young or nurse their young - ergo breasts are simply there to facilitate bad art.



 Well go tell the Echidna and Platypus that they are reptiles or birds then. Those little bastards have been lying to the media, telling people that they are mammals for all these years..
*Monotremes* (from the Greek _monos_ 'single' + _trema_ 'hole', referring to the cloaca) are mammals that lay eggs (Prototheria) instead of giving birth to live young like marsupials (Metatheria) and placental mammals (Eutheria).


----------



## Lurks-no-More

mlund said:


> No, that's why no real life *humans* give birth to goats and giraffes. Tieflings, on the other hand, are typically born to human mothers who are not designed to give birth to spawn with horns and tails. Also, the Tiefling's skull structure (that awful neanderthal brow-ridge) seems to indicate to me that they are born with horns intact. I can't see how growing the horns post-facto would allow for the skull to develop that way.



Sorry to borrow Hong's shtick, but you are thinking _way_ too much about fantasy.



> By definition, they are not mammals because they do not give birth to live young.



Ahem. The definition of "mammal" is that they nurse their young with milk, as the name implies. Monotremes, which lay eggs, are a subcategory of mammals.



> You could make them vaguely Avian with none of the necessary traits or make up some new Draconic category, but they still don't give birth to live young or nurse their young - ergo breasts are simply there to facilitate bad art.



Or you might accept that they're fantasy humanoids that do not, and who do not _have to_ fit into the real-world taxonomic classifications. I have absolutely no problem with dragonborn laying eggs, then nursing their young; it it was good enough for John Carter of Mars, it sure as heck is good for me.


----------



## The Little Raven

Ruin Explorer said:


> *Mourn* - What confuses me is that the Dragonborn in the DMG does have wings and can fly (iirc), which seems like a natural enough Paragon-tier feat or something, improving in the Epic tier, and indeed was hinted at by WotC a while




Indeed, that was a disappointment to see a lack of "I've got wings" racial feats. I was hoping for them, myself.



> I didn't realize that they lacked a tail - I had simply assumed they did! That seems like a silly choice, really.




I agree. The big thick tail on the tiefling wasn't the best decision to me.



> Pangolins have teats, though, not "boobs".




It's also not a humanoid. That's a key difference, since mimicking the human form means things are arranged in a particular manner. And a teat is just a nipple. Humans have teats, attached to breasts.



mlund said:


> No, that's why no real life *humans* give birth to goats and giraffes. Tieflings, on the other hand, are typically born to human mothers who are not designed to give birth to spawn with horns and tails. Also, the Tiefling's skull structure (that awful neanderthal brow-ridge) seems to indicate to me that they are born with horns intact. I can't see how growing the horns post-facto would allow for the skull to develop that way.




1. Animals with horns and such do not have them at birth (they've got nubs at the most). They develop them later. Suggesting that tieflings pop out of the womb with big, sharp horns is kinda silly. The fact that they have heavy bone ridges on their foreheads doesn't mean they're born with those ridges.

2. Tieflings are not all born to humans. Most are born to tieflings, whose bodies are designed to process tiefling children. They just automatically breed true with humans (as well as tieflings).

3. If you can't see how a creature can go from being hornless to having massive horns, that's a failure of research, not the fault of the designers.



> By definition, they are not mammals because they do not give birth to live young. You could make them vaguely Avian with none of the necessary traits or make up some new Draconic category, but they still don't give birth to live young or nurse their young - ergo breasts are simply there to facilitate bad art.




The platypus would like a word with you about monotremes.


----------



## Holy Bovine

Love Dragonborn, like Tieflings.  


There I said it


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Mourn said:


> It's also not a humanoid. That's a key difference, since mimicking the human form means things are arranged in a particular manner. And a teat is just a nipple. Humans have teats, attached to breasts.




Yes, I know this but they still don't make any sense given the written life-cycle of the Dragonborn, who "walk hours after hatching" and are "the size of a 10-year old human child by the age of 3". Humans need (ideally) to breastfeed for six months and it can be good to go on for another 18 or so (whilst the child is first unable to walk and then bad at it/slow - a problem for nomadic creatures), but the way it sounds with Dragonborn is that they're pretty much entirely skipping that whole "baby" stage of development and jumping immediately to "toddler", and almost immediately from there to quite a large child.

Humans have breasts in their particular place and of that shape because they're upright creatures who are going to be carrying small, incapable, children who will be feeding from them.

Dragonborn children do not seem to have non-walking stage, and so rapidly reach a size where they could keep up with adults that it seems that the boobs, they just don't make sense.

It's artist laziness, it really is. Maybe, actually, it's market research too, but I find that hard to believe, given how popular female Iksar were with actual females in EQ/EQ2. Unless, haha, market research shows that there's a lot of GUYS out there who are keen to played boobed dragonwomen. Which I can TOTALLY believe, because, y'know, the internet, shows pretty clear that such people exist in some numbers.

So maybe I finally worked it out? I hope not!

Edit - Jesus I'm such a nerd.


----------



## Maggan

Ruin Explorer said:


> It's artist laziness, it really is. Maybe, actually, it's market research too




I'd put it down not to "laziness", but to "art direction". And said "art direction" is probably the result of "target group tests" and "market analysis".

So yeah, I'd chalk it up to market research and focus group testing. Which can still get things wrong, but which is a far cry from "artist laziness".

/M


----------



## Brennin Magalus

Dragonbait said:


> Anyways...
> I just learned that nature is telling the people that insist that dragaonborn can NOT be mammals are wrong. Green, scales, and boobs CAN mix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangolin




If WOTC wants to create ant-eater people with nipples then I won't object. They can join the Griff and other such lame-arse races.


----------



## blargney the second

They're both fine and could see myself playing either one in certain circumstances.
-blarg


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Maggan said:


> I'd put it down not to "laziness", but to "art direction". And said "art direction" is probably the result of "target group tests" and "market analysis".
> 
> So yeah, I'd chalk it up to market research and focus group testing. Which can still get things wrong, but which is a far cry from "artist laziness".
> 
> /M




To be honest, as an artist, I don't think it's a _particularly_ far cry. However I do think it's unfair to blame the artists, you're right, it's the art direction if anything. What I hope is that they found that they needed a way to differentiate female and male Dragonborn, and then, unwilling/unable to do it any other way, just went "Bah, boobs I guess!". What I'm scared of is that they found a lot of their potential market were dudes who were totally into being dragons with boobs. Because I'm not sure I could look at my fellow D&D players the same way again, if that's the case!


----------



## Maggan

Ruin Explorer said:


> What I hope is that they found that they needed a way to differentiate female and male Dragonborn




I think they should have gone more for colour schemes (more colourful males) than for humanoid anatomical clues. 

/M


----------



## Dragonbait

Brennin Magalus said:


> If WOTC wants to create ant-eater people with nipples then I won't object. They can join the Griff and other such lame-arse races.




According to the poll, neither the dragonborn or the tiefling would be in this so-called "Lame-arse races" list when people them, roughly 2:1 at the time of this post.

Besides, what did the ant-eater people ever do to you? Pickin' on the ant-eater people like that.. of all the mean things..


----------



## Wyrmshadows

Honestly, the whole dragonboob thing...whether or not dragonborn are monotremes and all that nonsense, that dragons aren't actually reptilian, "don't think too hard about fantasy, "blah, blah, blah, are nothing more than folks attemtping to come up with reasons for something that would not have existed if...drumroll please

(drumroll)

...Marketing studies didn't show that boys between the ages of 10-13 like boobs. There, I said it. Dragonborn having dragonboobs aren't due to their fantastic biology, it is because market research indicated that the core demographic would prefer boobs on them.

Well if that isn't a surprise? Young boys would like boobs on a ham sandwich...that doesn't mean that ham sandwiches should have boobs.

I wish folks wouldn't try to hard to defend decisions that were made to help WoTC make a buck and not for any other more interesting thematic reason. Doing mental gymnastics to defend what the art directors of WoTC merely handwaved for the sake of teens and tweens is ridiculous on its face.


Wyrmshadows


----------



## Brennin Magalus

Dragonbait said:


> According to the poll, neither the dragonborn or the tiefling would be in this so-called "Lame-arse races" list when people them, roughly 2:1 at the time of this post.
> 
> Besides, what did the ant-eater people ever do to you? Pickin' on the ant-eater people like that.. of all the mean things..




_De gustibus non est disputandum_.

IMO, if you want to see dragon people done right, then you should check out the noble draconians in the Bestiary of Krynn.


----------



## mlund

Mourn said:


> 1. Animals with horns and such do not have them at birth (they've got nubs at the most). They develop them later.




Giraffes and some goats are technically defined as being born with horns. They are not adult horns, certainly.



> Suggesting that tieflings pop out of the womb with big, sharp horns is kinda silly.



Tieflings popping out of the womb, period, is kinda silly.



> The fact that they have heavy bone ridges on their foreheads doesn't mean they're born with those ridges.



True enough. Brow ridges in neanderthals are thought to have significantly more than 5 years to develop. However, I can't see how horns going from nubs to ridiculous spikes or ram-features would be compatible with developing a skull shaped like that of a Tiefling. The weight distribution alone would alter the neck and skull shape. I can't see any rhyme or reason for exactly when those would show up anyway. In animals with horns they develop according to their evolutionary purpose. In the case of Tieflings, the horns are simply a skull deformity.

If the horns were developed in utero with the skull, brow, and spine and had persistent proportions it wouldn't be as much of a stretch for me - but then they'd be a major birthing hazard. The Tiefling models with much smaller horns shown make a lot more sense to me.

Frankly, 4th Edition Tieflings look more likely to have popped out of an egg than the Dragonborn to me - but that's probably too many episodes of Gargoyles talking there.



> 2. Tieflings are not all born to humans. Most are born to tieflings, whose bodies are designed to process tiefling children. They just automatically breed true with humans (as well as tieflings).




Hm, I was under the impression that the original humans that made the pacts were not themselves transformed, but rather their offspring bore the marks of the pact in their bloodline. I'm probably just getting my fluff confused between editions.

That appearance makes it much harder for me to export the Tiefling concept to world builds that didn't Giant Evil Tiefling Empire to explain away why they've been so widely integrated into the world as opposed to being exterminated on sight - whereas an earlier, more subdued design of Tieflings seem more widely viable.



> 3. If you can't see how a creature can go from being hornless to having massive horns, that's a failure of research, not the fault of the designers.



I can see how Quadrupeds with elongated skulls and very small brains can grow large horns from nubs over their development. I don't see how a humanoid skull and spine could support the same kind of development. Small-horn Tieflings I can accept far better than these exaggerated models in 4th Edition. They seem poorly modeled just to make the Tieflings seem more artificially scary and emotive.

I'd be more satisfied with a Tiefling that could actually wear a hat or a helm without needing extensive customization, buy a pair of pants, or sleep in a bed with a headboard like any other PC race. If any PC race made sense to put a tail on it was the Dragonborn, not the Tieflings.



> The platypus would like a word with you about monotremes.



Yes, yes, the platypus and echidna - the extremely small and isolate exceptions to the genera rule about mammals - small, bird-looking critters.

Frankly, I'd think Dragonborn would have a lot more in common with, say, Dragons than the platypus but that's just me. Frankly, a lot of my impulses towards Dragonborn probably come from being introduced to the concept of Draconic Humanoids through Lizardmen, Yuan-Ti, and Draconians - all of which were described as "reptilian."

I guess I'd be OK with Dragonborn-as-mammals if the following are true:

1.) Dragonborn females nurse their young.

2.) Dragons are mammals that nurse their young.

Without both of those things in place Dragonborn seem too stretched from being Draconic on the one hand or Mammalian for me to be comfortable with their appearance and name.

- Marty Lund


----------



## Lurks-no-More

Dragonbait said:


> According to the poll, neither the dragonborn or the tiefling would be in this so-called "Lame-arse races" list when people them, roughly 2:1 at the time of this post.



The obvious explanation is that people have wrong opinions, such as liking DBs or tieflings.


----------



## Barastrondo

Lurks-no-More said:


> The obvious explanation is that people have wrong opinions, such as liking DBs or tieflings.




"Does anyone actually like Dragonborn and Tieflings?"

"Um, yes. A whole lot of people, since you ask."

"...oh. (pause) Well, they're wrong!"


----------



## Wyrmshadows

mlund said:


> Frankly, a lot of my impulses towards Dragonborn probably come from being introduced to the concept of Draconic Humanoids through Lizardmen, Yuan-Ti, and Draconians - all of which were described as "reptilian."
> 
> I guess I'd be OK with Dragonborn-as-mammals if the following are true:
> 
> 1.) Dragonborn females nurse their young.
> 
> 2.) Dragons are mammals that nurse their young.
> 
> Without both of those things in place Dragonborn seem too stretched from being Draconic on the one hand or Mammalian for me to be comfortable with their appearance and name.




I agree.

I would be far, far more ok with the appearance of dragonborn if I, even once, saw a nice set of breasts on a dragon in any piece of art anywhere. 

I'm having the shivers thinking of the furry (scaley) fantasies dragonboobs free of their obligatory dragonbras would inspire....creepy.

<deleted humor so as not to offend>


Wyrmshadows


----------



## Brennin Magalus

Lurks-no-More said:


> The obvious explanation is that people have wrong opinions, such as liking DBs or tieflings.




Well, as long as it's someone else saying it, yes.


----------



## Lurks-no-More

Brennin Magalus said:


> Well, as long as it's someone else saying it, yes.




If you're serious about this (I really, really weren't), I'm speechless.


----------



## Brennin Magalus

Lurks-no-More said:


> If you're serious about this (I really, really weren't), I'm speechless.




I know you weren't.


----------



## Dragonbait

mlund said:


> Yes, yes, the platypus and echidna - the extremely small and isolate exceptions to the genera rule about mammals - small, bird-looking critters.
> 
> Frankly, I'd think Dragonborn would have a lot more in common with, say, Dragons than the platypus but that's just me. Frankly, a lot of my impulses towards Dragonborn probably come from being introduced to the concept of Draconic Humanoids through Lizardmen, Yuan-Ti, and Draconians - all of which were described as "reptilian."
> 
> I guess I'd be OK with Dragonborn-as-mammals if the following are true:
> 
> 1.) Dragonborn females nurse their young.
> 
> 2.) Dragons are mammals that nurse their young.




I was originally pointing out that mammals can have scales and lay eggs AND nurse their young (in a tongue and cheek way, mind you). The echidna and platypus lay eggs AND nurse their young. Yes, they are fringe and the only two real-world animals to do this. I was pointing things out to show that dragonborn -could-have breasts and be mammals. #1 can still hold true, using some of the real-world biology that people use to debate the reality of Dragonborn.

#2 is obviously not supported by D&D cannon. While some sources say dragons are not reptiles in D&D books, 4E gives them the reptilian keyword. I don't recal if this means that they definately -are- reptiles, but I think it does. 

My originally comments were ment to show the fact that mammals can have scales, breast feet, lay eggs..
Oh, and going back to the Pangolin, shoot out acid.


----------



## Nifft

Dragonbait said:


> My originally comments were ment to show the fact that mammals can have scales, breast feet, lay eggs..
> Oh, and going back to the Pangolin, shoot out acid.



 Wow, pangolin are awesome!

Thanks, -- N


----------



## Dragonbait

Nifft said:


> Wow, pangolin are awesome!
> 
> Thanks, -- N


----------



## Wombat

I would never use either of them in my base games ... but, then again, I would probably never use half-orcs and a variety of other races, either.

I prefer keeping to fewer races, each with a very specific place and interface with the world, rather than the "kitchen sink" approach.


----------



## mlund

Dragonbait said:


> I was originally pointing out that mammals can have scales and lay eggs AND nurse their young (in a tongue and cheek way, mind you). The echidna and platypus lay eggs AND nurse their young. Yes, they are fringe and the only two real-world animals to do this. I was pointing things out to show that dragonborn -could-have breasts and be mammals. #1 can still hold true, using some of the real-world biology that people use to debate the reality of Dragonborn.
> 
> #2 is obviously not supported by D&D cannon. While some sources say dragons are not reptiles in D&D books, 4E gives them the reptilian keyword. I don't recal if this means that they definately -are- reptiles, but I think it does.
> 
> My originally comments were ment to show the fact that mammals can have scales, breast feet, lay eggs..
> Oh, and going back to the Pangolin, shoot out acid.




Fair enough - and shooting acid is always awesome.

- Marty Lund


----------



## Paka

I like them both.

When I was a wee lad playing AD&D back in the day, we house-ruled a race that were pretty much Dragonborn with a different name.

And the Teifling are just fun; I dig 'em.

I don't play D&D to re-live Tolkien, so its fine to me.


----------



## Brennin Magalus

Dragonbait said:


>




lol


----------



## greatamericanfolkher

I personally don’t have an issue with dragonborn, as I’ve always wanted to play klingons in d&d, but I think the art dept went a little overboard with the tieflings.


----------



## Korgoth

mlund said:


> By definition, they are not mammals because they do not give birth to live young. You could make them vaguely Avian with none of the necessary traits or make up some new Draconic category, but they still don't give birth to live young or nurse their young - ergo breasts are simply there to facilitate bad art.




As has been pointed out, Monotremes are an Order of Class Mammalia.

I still hate Dragonborn, though. And Dragonboobs most of all.


----------



## williamhm

greatamericanfolkher said:


> I personally don’t have an issue with dragonborn, as I’ve always wanted to play klingons in d&d, but I think the art dept went a little overboard with the tieflings.




yeah I like the unified backstory for tieflings, I think it makes them more of a race than an occasional accident, Im even okay with the horns and eyes, its just the big huge tails that I do not like.  As for dragonborn, yeah I wish they had wings, but I love their backstory and fluff.

Unlike in previous edditions I can see myself playing every race in the 4e line up.  

Does anyone else also like the retooled halfling better?


----------



## The Little Raven

mlund said:


> However, I can't see how....






> I can't see any rhyme or reason...






> I don't see how...




I don't see how a beast of a dragon's size can fly or breathe fire, but they can. That's the beauty of fantasy: the impossible is perfectly possible.



> Yes, yes, the platypus and echidna - the extremely small and isolate exceptions to the genera rule about mammals - small, bird-looking critters.




And that has what to do with the incorrect claim you made about mammals?



> Frankly, I'd think Dragonborn would have a lot more in common with, say, Dragons than the platypus but that's just me.




They do have more in common with dragons. They hatch from eggs, have scales, and can breathe some kind of breath weapon. Just like dragons, they are not reptiles.



> Frankly, a lot of my impulses towards Dragonborn probably come from being introduced to the concept of Draconic Humanoids through Lizardmen, Yuan-Ti, and Draconians - all of which were described as "reptilian."




Reptilian =/= Reptile.



> Without both of those things in place Dragonborn seem too stretched from being Draconic on the one hand or Mammalian for me to be comfortable with their appearance and name.




Draconic =/= Reptile.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII

Seems that most people do actually like them, or at least one of them.


----------



## Fifth Element

ProfessorCirno said:


> I don't recall saying that was the only change, nor have I found me saying that here.  If you find it, let me know, eh?
> 
> What I DO remember saying was a comment on how odd I found it that people thought that, amongst other things (And I remember saying THAT bit almost word for word) that the dragonborn and new tieflings would drive new sales.



All right, here's what you said: "Equally, I'm surprised people think adding those in will *in of themselves* be a draw for more people to start playing the game" (emphasis added)

I'm sure the designers feel that the changes made to 4E as a whole (including the addition of these races) will bring in new players. They don't necessarily think the new races will do it in of themselves, as you said.



mlund said:


> Yes, yes, the platypus and echidna - the extremely small and isolate exceptions to the genera rule about mammals - small, bird-looking critters.



Just admit you were wrong about mammals.

And remember, 4E is all about exceptions. Why would you be surprised they used an exception here as well?


----------



## Wormwood

GoodKingJayIII said:


> Seems that most people do actually like them, or at least one of them.



Of course. 

We just post less.


----------



## Old Gumphrey

ProfessorCirno said:


> Hey, WE weren't the ones that decided to give them .




All races have those. Your comment is pants on head retarded.


----------



## mlund

Fifth Element said:


> Just admit you were wrong about mammals.




Sure thing. Mammals are: "any vertebrate of the class Mammalia, having the body more or less covered with hair, nourishing the young with milk from the mammary glands, and, with the exception of the egg-laying monotremes, giving birth to live young."

If you want to argue that a Dragonborn ought to be a monotreme, however, I'd disagree with that opinion. Further, unless Dragons nurse their young, I see no reason why the Dragonborn ought to do so.

I'll also note that Ruin Explorer has made a much better, compelling as a matter of fact, argument as to why breasts on female Dragonborn are just crudely designed to superimpose a human-like gender on the creature, not to meet any actually anatomical purpose.



> And remember, 4E is all about exceptions. Why would you be surprised they used an exception here as well?




I'm not really surprised, just disappointed. There is really nothing more than a visual "cheat," in the art direction that makes me like their work on the 4th Edition Dragonborn less.

- Marty Lund


----------



## Korgoth

GoodKingJayIII said:


> Seems that most people do actually like them, or at least one of them.




According to the poll, about 45% of respondents like them both, 8% don't care about them and the remaining 47% dislike one or both.

So, overall each one of the two has over a 50% "approval rating", but it's also true that almost 50% of people dislike at least one of them. I would guess that the latter is what gave the OP the impression that they are widely disliked.


----------



## drothgery

Korgoth said:


> According to the poll, about 45% of respondents like them both, 8% don't care about them and the remaining 47% dislike one or both.
> 
> So, overall each one of the two has over a 50% "approval rating", but it's also true that almost 50% of people dislike at least one of them. I would guess that the latter is what gave the OP the impression that they are widely disliked.




Err... the like/love one options also included people who were indifferent about the other (like, say, me; I like dragonborn and am indifferent to tieflings).


----------



## Mark

The Green Adam said:


> I'll try again...
> 
> http://barkingalien.deviantart.com/art/The-Dragling-90208155
> 
> The image linking function of the site doesn't seem to work well for me.
> 
> AD




That works.  Thanks!  Send an email my way directly instead of through the boards and let's see if we can thwart the spam filters or whatever is keeping me from reaching you in return.


----------



## Rechan

Dude, pangolins *do* rock. I'd play a pangolin race. Claws, armor, and spittin' acid. What's not to love? 

But then, I'd play a kenku, a tri-keen, a dromite, a kobold, an undead (more foresaken style than your run of the mill vampire or whatever), a bugbear, a minotaur... 

You get the idea. If it's removed from "Human-looking", I'll give it a go.


----------



## AllisterH

lutecius said:


> Ew  I don't know if this anonymous poll is reliable, but i am appalled at the thought that so many people on these boards may actually like dragonborn.
> 
> Tiefling, i could see (with a different look, fluff and name) but dragonborn?
> Even if wotc hadn't gone out of their way to make them look so dorky, they'd still be akin to furry.
> 
> Maybe i'm just too old (34)




Um, seriously guys, was Dragonlance NOT the most well known settting among the public? Weren't Draconians presented as possible heroic characters since the Doom Brigade novel which PRECEDED TSR's troubles and pre-3E.


----------



## Wormwood

drothgery said:


> Err... the like/love one options also included people who were indifferent about the other (like, say, me; I like dragonborn and am indifferent to tieflings).



Well, the poll's ambiguous phrasing of 'not so much' on options 3 and 4 can be read as either ambivalence or active dislike.

Two levels of granularity would have helped.


----------



## Fifth Element

Korgoth said:


> I would guess that the latter is what gave the OP the impression that they re widely disliked.



That's not what the OP said. The phrase was "universally despised" I believe. That's a far cry from "widely disliked".


----------



## AllisterH

???

Seriously, how come nobody points out that Dragonlance has had Dragonmen characters for a LONG, LONG, while.

Is not Dragonlance the most well known of the campaign settings among both gamers AND non-gamers?

Wouldn't people, I don't know, expect to be able to play Dragonborn given the large part that Draconians play in arguably the one setting they're most likely to have picked up via the novels


----------



## Fifth Element

lutecius said:


> Ew  I don't know if this anonymous poll is reliable, but i am appalled at the thought that so many people on these boards may actually like dragonborn.



You're actually appalled that other people have different tastes than you do?

It's not an age thing, obviously. I'm 32 and I've been gaming for nearly 20 years. I have no issue with these races being included in core. I would have made a different decision were I in charge, but I realize a lot of people probably like them. And I don't find that appalling.



Korgoth said:


> According to the poll, about 45% of respondents like them both, 8% don't care about them and the remaining 47% dislike one or both.



This is a biased way of presenting the data. For the "like" number you include only those who like *both* races, but for the "dislike" number you include those who dislike *either* race.

A more fair way to present it is: 44% like or love both races, 26% dislike or hate both races. The rest are indifferent, or split in their opinions of the races.


----------



## Elrohir_of_Kellemar

Minotaurs - now that would work. Dragonborn and Tieflings simply don't exist ... and what about Kender (the race that drove DMs mad).


----------



## Scarbonac

Hate 'em. 

If they were entirely optional, with tieflings giving up their giant lizardy tails to the dragonborn and getting Nightcrawler-esque tails and tiny Renn Faire devil-horns instead, I could maybe be persuaded to _tolerate_ them.

Maybe.


----------



## williamhm

Elrohir_of_Kellemar said:


> Minotaurs - now that would work. Dragonborn and Tieflings simply don't exist ... and what about Kender (the race that drove DMs mad).



 Reasons why I despise dragonlance.  

Id also say more people like the new races then do not from the polls.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Two things.

1) The problem with dragonborn isn't "They're dragon people!"  Yes, some people get caught up in that.  The problem with dragonborn is how they're presented.  Compare them artistically and aesthetically with draconians.

2) That's also the problem with the dragonboobs.  Yes, part of the problem is "This is stupid and doesn't belong because of biology."  But the BIG problem is "This is stupid and doesn't belong because, holy crap, could you be any LAZIER with your designs?"  That doesn't mean the artists themselves were lazy, but that the design for them was.  As someone else stated, I imagine the meeting somehow went:

"So, we have these big dragon people, how do we differentiate between genders?"  
"Just give them jugs."  
"You've got a gift, my friend."

There's dozens on top of dozens of ways it could've been done better, many said and re-said over and over again.  Make the males more colorful.  Give a sexual dimorphism that's designed for ONLY THE DRAGONBORN to see (since they're the only ones that matter).  Look into how _actual anatomy works_.  But instead, Wizards decided to go with "Just give them jugs".  That's why most people think dragonboobs are stupid - they're lazy, they're sexist, and they pander horribly to 11-14 year old hole-in-pants demographics that _would buy or not buy the game irregardless of dragon breasts_.

Unless you think they're pandering to scalies.  That's YOUR call, 4e fans ;p


----------



## Mallus

ProfessorCirno said:


> The problem with dragonborn is how they're presented.



You could try ignoring the art and using your imagination. 



> they're lazy, they're sexist, and they pander horribly to 11-14 year old hole-in-pants demographics



Not a Frazetta fan, eh? So much for tradition.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Do other D&D boards talk about breasts this much or is it just us?


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Mallus said:


> You could try ignoring the art and using your imagination.




So you agree with me that the image the dragonborn present is a bad one and that players are better off making their own?



> Not a Frazetta fan, eh? So much for tradition.




I like Frazetta's techniques, if not always his subject material.  He's a good artist because he's good at making artwork, not because his characters show skin.

Honestly, that links right back to the complaints about the dragonborn.  They're not aesthetically pleasing.  The breasts - and many, many other things - hurt their image and amke them less "draconic humanoid creatures" and more "Humans in a funny suit."


----------



## Brennin Magalus

Mallus said:


> You could try ignoring the art and using your imagination.




_It's a game of the imagination!_


----------



## Nifft

ProfessorCirno said:


> So you agree with me that the image the dragonborn present is a bad one and that players are better off making their own?



 I think it's quite a stretch to get from what he said to what you are trying to make him agree to have said.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Mallus

ProfessorCirno said:


> So you agree with me that the image the dragonborn present is a bad one and that players are better off making their own?



I agree with myself that the art isn't important to me. 



> I like Frazetta's techniques, if not always his subject material.



I like Dejah Thoris, Princess of Helium... rawr.



> He's a good artist because he's good at making artwork, not because his characters show skin.



I'm merely pointing out the longstanding relationship between the fantasy genre and ah... titillating imagery. WotC certainly didn't invent it, and from a certain point of view it's kinda traditional.  



> ...and more "Humans in a funny suit."



All aliens and/or dragonmen are humans in funny suits. That's why they're useful to us as characters.


----------



## Korgoth

Fifth Element said:


> This is a biased way of presenting the data. For the "like" number you include only those who like *both* races, but for the "dislike" number you include those who dislike *either* race.
> 
> A more fair way to present it is: 44% like or love both races, 26% dislike or hate both races. The rest are indifferent, or split in their opinions of the races.




 ARRGH. Everything is about "bias" this and "partisanship" that.

_I was trying to explain how the OP might have gotten the impression that these were widely disliked_. No flippin' politics involved, alright?! If option 3 means the respondent dislikes Tiefs, and option 4 means the respondent dislikes Drags (which is how I took them: like one but dislike the other to some degree) then almost half of the respondents had a negative opinion about one or both of these races. _Which might lead the OP to think that they're widely disliked._ That's a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the data and explains why the OP might have thought, incorrectly, that most people dislike them.

Currently, only 8.5% of respondents actually "hate" both races; we cannot tell how many respondents of 3 and 4 "hate" as opposed to merely dislike the disfavored race. But obviously the OP used overly strong language when he said "despised", because although it's clear that they are despised by some (or so they say when voting), the despisers are outnumbered by the likers and the dislikers as well.


----------



## williamhm

the dragonborn boobs arent a problem for me.  After all its not as if dragonborn have beaks, or something else which would preclude breast feading.  No where does it say dragons do not nurse their young.  Im willing to go with it because its fanatasy.


----------



## Keefe the Thief

Korgoth said:


> According to the poll, about 45% of respondents like them both, 8% don't care about them and the remaining 47% dislike one or both.
> 
> So, overall each one of the two has over a 50% "approval rating", but it's also true that almost 50% of people dislike at least one of them. I would guess that the latter is what gave the OP the impression that they are widely disliked.




Yeah, but this is ENworld. If you´d do a poll about "how do you like page numbers in 4e?", you´d get similar poll results, and a long-winded flamewar in which Mourn would defend the page numbers with posts like "it´s clearly an improvement over AD&Ds arbitrary numbering" and with a long winded essay from RFisher about the way of page numbering in AD&D that only 1/3 of the readers would understand but 3/4 of the readers would applaud for sensible explanations and reasonings.

In other words, it would be a pretty cool thread.


----------



## The Little Raven

Keefe the Thief said:


> In other words, it would be a pretty cool thread.




AD&D did, indeed, have an arbitrary page numbering scheme.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Mourn said:


> AD&D did, indeed, have an arbitrary page numbering scheme.




I agree. I mean, who comes up with these sequences: 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ...

really?!

Disclaimer: I have never seen an AD&D rulebook.


----------



## Lurks-no-More

Doug McCrae said:


> Do other D&D boards talk about breasts this much or is it just us?




Dunno about the WotC boards, but the DB breasts do not appear to be an issue on RPG.net. To be honest, I'm kind of disappointed in the whole nerdrage over this issue, complete with meticulous appeals to science to show that one's opinion is objectively supported by the facts. I expect better from D&D players.


----------



## Steely Dan

Wyrmshadows said:


> Young boys would like boobs on a ham sandwich





I like breasts on everything, including my men, well, as long as they accompany it with the right amount of hormone treatment and make-up.


----------



## Staffan

AllisterH said:


> Seriously, how come nobody points out that Dragonlance has had Dragonmen characters for a LONG, LONG, while.



Were draconians playable as PCs?



> Is not Dragonlance the most well known of the campaign settings among both gamers AND non-gamers?



I'm pretty sure the Forgotten Realms holds that title. Look at the number of novels for both, for example.

Note: I like both dragonborn and tieflings (though I would have preferred the more subtle Planescape tieflings), I just wanted to set the record straight.



Steely Dan said:


> I like breasts on everything, including my men, well, as long as they accompany it with the right amount of hormone treatment and make-up.



Leo? Is that you?


----------



## Steely Dan

Staffan said:


> Leo? Is that you?




…DiCaprio?  No.

I didn't know he had a penchant too.


----------



## Fifth Element

Korgoth said:


> ARRGH. Everything is about "bias" this and "partisanship" that.
> 
> _I was trying to explain how the OP might have gotten the impression that these were widely disliked_. No flippin' politics involved, alright?!



A. Calm down.

B. OP did not suggest that "most people don't like them". The phrase was "universally despised". Very different things, and the phrasing cannot be written off as being "overly strong language". They're completely different.


----------



## Mercurius

Fifth Element said:


> A. Calm down.
> 
> B. OP did not suggest that "most people don't like them". The phrase was "universally despised". Very different things, and the phrasing cannot be written off as being "overly strong language". They're completely different.




A. As the OP, I admit that I was incorrect in my assessment that Dragonborn and Tielfing are "universally despised." But...

B. They certainly aren't enormously admired or liked; they are more popular than I thought, but there is a chunk of people that don't like them. That said, I would imagine that the more traditional races might have similar degrees of popularity (it would be interesting to poll on each race to see which are more and less liked; my guess is that gnomes and halflings, maybe half-elves, are all less popular than dragonborn and tieflings).

C. I agree with Korgoth: Not everything is or need be political. Not is everything anti- or pro- 4E. 

D. Furthermore, I would suggest not taking certain phrases too literally or as solid dogma; my usage of "universally despised" was obviously overly dramatic and inaccurate, but I didn't mean it in a heavy handed or permanent way. I should have used less strong language, but I certainly didn't mean it to be set in stone (Yet another semantic wrangle on ENWorld ). This is symptomatic of taking things too politically here; notice how when a politician says something somewhat controversial, pundits hold onto it and chew over it endlessly, like a dog gnawing on a bone. What is worse about the internet is that you can always go back and say, "Look what he said! That is his permanent, fixed viewpoint." Even if something was said in-the-moment, somewhat whimsically, and/or for effect. So yeah, I think it would behoove all of us to take things a bit more lightly around here. And of course I should probably be more careful with my language and "de-incendiarize" it a bit 

E. Finally, after reading the Dragonborn and Tiefling entries in greater depth, I have to officially change my vote from "dislike" to "indifferent" (or more accurately, ambivalent or mixed as I like aspects of them, and dislike others). I actually like the history and the general idea of both, but just don't like the visual presentation: I think both look silly. So if I use them in a campaign I would change their look considerably, toning down the "monsteryness" of both--and making members of both races be more variant in appearance. I might get rid of breath weapon too. But I was basing my earlier opinion, erroneously I might add, on style more than substance. The core idea of both races is interesting enough for me to consider use in a campaign, with significant modification (if largely cosmetic).


----------



## Rel

Mercurius said:


> Finally, after reading the Dragonborn and Tiefling entries in greater depth, I have to officially change my vote from "dislike" to "indifferent" (or more accurately, ambivalent or mixed as I like aspects of them, and dislike others). I actually like the history and the general idea of both...




See?  Proof that we can find middle ground!

Group hug everybody!


----------



## Fifth Element

Mercurius said:


> C. I agree with Korgoth: Not everything is or need be political. Not is everything anti- or pro- 4E.



I made no claims of politics. I merely pointed out that the presentation of data was biased, because the two "sides" were not calculated in the same way. I wanted to be clear so that those reading the post did not mistake it for a valid way of presenting the data.

To be clear, I didn't say that Korgoth was biased, just that the presentation of data was biased, which it was.



Mercurius said:


> So yeah, I think it would behoove all of us to take things a bit more lightly around here. And of course I should probably be more careful with my language and "de-incendiarize" it a bit



I agree, thought I think you and Korgoth are reading more into my post than was there.

And as to your point above, I think the latter will lead to the former. And by the latter I don't mean you specifically, but all of us in general.


----------



## lutecius

Rel said:


> See? Proof that we can find middle ground!
> 
> Group hug everybody!



I'd hug many things but not a dragonborn or tiefling as pictured, let alone a group of them. I'm not sure i'd feel confortable around their lovers either.

Maybe with a different  look... does poking them with a ten foot pole count as a hug?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

lutecius said:


> I'd hug many things but not a dragonborn or tiefling as pictured, let alone a group of them. I'm not sure i'd feel confortable around their lovers either.
> 
> Maybe with a different  look... does poking them with a ten foot pole count as a hug?



A Pincer Staff might be closer to a hug...


----------



## MerricB

Mercurius said:


> That said, I would imagine that the more traditional races might have similar degrees of popularity




If one were to look at traditional (real world mythological) races, one finds...
...human (duh)
...elf
...dwarf
...and that's about it.

Hey, I'm reaching on elf. Tolkien (via Norse, sort of) and Celtic Myth.

Dwarves have a stronger lineage, although - again - Nordic mythology is the strongest source for Dwarves As We Know Them.

After that, Halflings sort of exist (apart from Tolkien) as the little men of fairy stories: perhaps brownies and others of that sort. They're not really a strong PC race (as oD&D halflings weren't, either! You played a halfling only because you Really Really Liked Halflings).

(Asian Mythology has a bunch more animal and river spirits, of course...)

Cheers!


----------



## EATherrian

I was just looking through some old video games last night and discovered my Planescape:Torment discs and it came to me.  I really think that my dislike of the Tieflings is more tied to their current look and back story than the race itself.  If they presented a Tiefling like my beloved Annah I'd be more open to them.  As for Dragonborn, I've been going over some old campaign world notes and actually found a place for them!  So, I'm moving up from dislike to neutral.  I still don't like the fluff and look for them, but I can see how to do decent work with them.  Also regarding the breasts argument, I always thought that Dragons had live births.  Has it ever been revealed, maybe in an Ecology article?



MerricB said:


> If one were to look at traditional (real world mythological) races, one finds...
> ...human (duh)
> ...elf
> ...dwarf
> ...and that's about it.
> 
> Hey, I'm reaching on elf. Tolkien (via Norse, sort of) and Celtic Myth.
> 
> Dwarves have a stronger lineage, although - again - Nordic mythology is the strongest source for Dwarves As We Know Them.
> 
> After that, Halflings sort of exist (apart from Tolkien) as the little men of fairy stories: perhaps brownies and others of that sort. They're not really a strong PC race (as oD&D halflings weren't, either! You played a halfling only because you Really Really Liked Halflings).
> 
> (Asian Mythology has a bunch more animal and river spirits, of course...)
> 
> Cheers!




I actually think the old version of the gnome is more in tune with traditional fairy tale creatures, at least with the affinity for pranks and illusions; but you have a good point overall.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Mercurius said:


> D. Furthermore, I would suggest not taking certain phrases too literally or as solid dogma; my usage of "universally despised" was obviously overly dramatic and inaccurate, but I didn't mean it in a heavy handed or permanent way. I should have used less strong language, but I certainly didn't mean it to be set in stone (Yet another semantic wrangle on ENWorld ). This is symptomatic of taking things too politically here; notice how when a politician says something somewhat controversial, pundits hold onto it and chew over it endlessly, like a dog gnawing on a bone. What is worse about the internet is that you can always go back and say, "Look what he said! That is his permanent, fixed viewpoint." Even if something was said in-the-moment, somewhat whimsically, and/or for effect. So yeah, I think it would behoove all of us to take things a bit more lightly around here. And of course I should probably be more careful with my language and "de-incendiarize" it a bit



Consider this, the claim that the cancellation of Dungeon & Dragon 'felt like being raped', which was made by a poster on ENWorld, will never be forgotten.


----------



## Particle_Man

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I agree. I mean, who comes up with these sequences:
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ...
> 
> really?!
> 
> Disclaimer: I have never seen an AD&D rulebook.




IIRC, before page 1, there are some small roman numeral pages...at least for the DMG 1st ed AD&D.


----------



## williamhm

I like the more monsterous aperance of the dragonborn, and like I said earlier the only thing I do not like about tieflings is the tail.  But then Im inclined to like anything that adds beyond the tolkienesqueness of dnd.


----------



## Doug McCrae

MerricB said:


> If one were to look at traditional (real world mythological) races, one finds...
> ...human (duh)
> ...elf
> ...dwarf
> ...and that's about it.



I think if you look at European myth and folklore, the strongest case can be made for a small trickster humanoid whether it's called a troll, leprechaun, goblin, fairy, elf, brownie, kobold or whatever. Like hobbits they tend to be very domestic, either cleaning your house or messing it up. And the other common one is a nature spirit such as the green man, dryad, nereid or rusalka.

So there should be three races in D&D - humans, leprechauns and dryads.


----------



## Tervin

Doug McCrae said:


> I think if you look at European myth and folklore, the strongest case can be made for a small trickster humanoid whether it's called a troll, leprechaun, goblin, fairy, elf, brownie, kobold or whatever. Like hobbits they tend to be very domestic, either cleaning your house or messing it up. And the other common one is a nature spirit such as the green man, dryad, nereid or rusalka.
> 
> So there should be three races in D&D - humans, leprechauns and dryads.




I would add one more. The changeling. In this case meaning the seemingly human individual who is actually a fey creature in disguise, which was swapped with the real baby at birth.


----------



## lutecius

Doug McCrae said:


> I think if you look at European myth and folklore, the strongest case can be made for a small trickster humanoid whether it's called a troll, leprechaun, goblin, fairy, elf, brownie, kobold or whatever. Like hobbits they tend to be very domestic, either cleaning your house or messing it up. And the other common one is a nature spirit such as the green man, dryad, nereid or rusalka.
> 
> So there should be three races in D&D - humans, leprechauns and dryads.



and ogre/giant/troll, you forgot a big race!

In one of my homebrews the humanoid races were:
- human
- gnomes (generic small race including dwarves, halflings, leprechauns, goblins...)
- fairies (hawt nature spirits, nymphs, dryads, male and female elves...)
- ogre (generic tall brutish race, half-giants, hags, orcs...)
everything else was a subtype.


----------



## SuperGnome

Sad to say i'm on the Grognard wagon.  The races are alright, but I have a deep dislike of them being core.  If there were in the phb2, that's totally cool with me, but they don't fit into the history of almost anything.  To just plop them in like they were always there and retroactively change the histories and topography (and cosmology I suppose) to fit bugs me.  It bugs me more when classic core races are pushed out to make room.  And yes, you can just choose to not use either/both of these races, but because they're core it cuts into the players options in a pretty serious way.

That all being said, and recognizing I've purchased my Grognard Express tickets, I allow them as core.  If my players all think they don't belong, I'll take em out and substitute gnomes and half-orcs back in.  If they like these two new ones, that's fine by me.


----------



## Eric Tolle

MerricB said:


> If one were to look at traditional (real world mythological) races, one finds...
> ...human (duh)
> ...elf
> ...dwarf
> ...and that's about it.




*blink blink* Just what do you mean by "real world" here?  Traditional role-playing games surely, not real-world mythology.  Because there's a hell of a lot more mythological races than that.

Let's see...

Satyre, Dryad, White Women, Centaurs, Mermaids, Nixies, Selkies, Trolls, Phooka, Folletti, redcaps, Spriggans, boggarts, Clurichaun, Domovoi, Vodyanoy, Rusalka, Vila, Kappa, Kitsune,Tengu, Apsara, Aziza, Tanuki, Mimi, Tjilpa, Caipora, Duende, Chitauli, Rokurokubi....and that's just a start.  There's thousands more supernatural races in world mythology.

Even if you do the dodgy thing of combining different mythological creatures by shared characteristics, there's a hell of a lot of diversity in European mythologies, much less the rest of the world.

This sounds to me like a dodgy attempt to support a limited creature selection in rpgs, rather than anything based on actual mythology.


----------



## hendelmasad

*Meh!*

This is a very minor quibble.  While I do not hate the idea of either race, I really hate the name Tiefling.  It just doesnt sound EVIL-ESQUE.  It just doesnt fit imo: "Ohh this is my hunting Falcon, his name is Fifi!"  I know its minor but every time someone says the word "Tiefling" its like nails on blackboard.  SO I will include both races in any game I run but, change the name from Teifling to something else...I thought Cambion was cool.  



HMasad


----------



## Rel

hendelmasad said:


> This is a very minor quibble.  While I do not hate the idea of either race, I really hate the name Tiefling.  It just doesnt sound EVIL-ESQUE.  It just doesnt fit imo: "Ohh this is my hunting Falcon, his name is Fifi!"  I know its minor but every time someone says the word "Tiefling" its like nails on blackboard.  SO I will include both races in any game I run but, change the name from Teifling to something else...I thought Cambion was cool.
> 
> 
> 
> HMasad




Agreed.  I prefer the term Satan-Spawn myself.  Feel's very 1980's!


----------



## Fenes

hendelmasad said:


> This is a very minor quibble.  While I do not hate the idea of either race, I really hate the name Tiefling.  It just doesnt sound EVIL-ESQUE.  It just doesnt fit imo: "Ohh this is my hunting Falcon, his name is Fifi!"  I know its minor but every time someone says the word "Tiefling" its like nails on blackboard.  SO I will include both races in any game I run but, change the name from Teifling to something else...I thought Cambion was cool.
> 
> 
> 
> HMasad




For native german speakers, "Tiefling" sounds close to "Teufel", the german word for "devil", so I never thought it did not sound evil-esque. Literally translated, "tief" means "deep", and that's not that un-evil sounding either.


----------



## Brennin Magalus

Rel said:


> See?  Proof that we can find middle ground!
> 
> Group hug everybody!




_We got to work for a better future
We've got to join hands for tomorrow
Take the first step and you will see
The future begins with you and me

We can start to make a difference
If we want it for our children
Recycle that can and plant that tree
Cuz the future begins with you and me _

http://media.southparkstudios.com/crap/downloads/download.php?file_id=20852


----------



## Choranzanus

MerricB said:


> If one were to look at traditional (real world mythological) races, one finds...
> ...human (duh)
> ...elf
> ...dwarf
> ...and that's about it.
> 
> Hey, I'm reaching on elf. Tolkien (via Norse, sort of) and Celtic Myth.
> 
> Dwarves have a stronger lineage, although - again - Nordic mythology is the strongest source for Dwarves As We Know Them.
> 
> After that, Halflings sort of exist (apart from Tolkien) as the little men of fairy stories: perhaps brownies and others of that sort. They're not really a strong PC race (as oD&D halflings weren't, either! You played a halfling only because you Really Really Liked Halflings).
> 
> (Asian Mythology has a bunch more animal and river spirits, of course...)
> 
> Cheers!




Since when are half elves not traditionaly mythological?
In fact all 3.x races have pretty solid mythological roots except half orc.
Granted, for someone from central europe gnome=dwarf.


----------



## Jhaelen

Choranzanus said:


> Since when are half elves not traditionaly mythological?



Well, I don't remember having heard or read anything about half-elves outside of Tolkien's novels (and even there they've not been called 'half-elves'). What traditional, mythological roots are you thinking about?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Jhaelen said:


> Well, I don't remember having heard or read anything about half-elves outside of Tolkien's novels (and even there they've not been called 'half-elves'). What traditional, mythological roots are you thinking about?




Ones like these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-elf

Seriously, he's not wrong.


----------



## Rechan

In all honesty, I've been considering half-elves as 'fey touched'. Those with fey in their blood, not necessarily "My dad was an Elf".

This due to the fact I would enjoy nixing elves completely.


----------



## Miyaa

My problem with Dragonborn is that it feels too much like catfolk. Or dogfolk. If I wanted a part-animal part human, I'd go with lycanthropes.

As for the tiefling, if they only had the asimars with them, then I'd be alright with them. Those two go together, like two peas in a pod.

And that dragling image way back looked way too much like the offspring of Jar Jar Binks and a human.

Also, am I the only one who thinks the Elderin, Elves, and Drow are nothing more than Asian, European, and African elves?


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Miyaa said:


> As for the tiefling, if they only had the asimars with them, then I'd be alright with them. Those two go together, like two peas in a pod.




Unfortunately, as we read in Races and Classes, Wizards thinks that good guys are lame; only angsting anti-heroes are cool!


----------



## Dragonbait

Miyaa said:


> Also, am I the only one who thinks the Elderin, Elves, and Drow are nothing more than Asian, European, and African elves?




That's... That's a new one to me..


----------



## Eric Tolle

Miyaa said:


> Also, am I the only one who thinks the Elderin, Elves, and Drow are nothing more than Asian, European, and African elves?




Hopefully.  

This would be making some really nasty associations, and we've already had one thread closed for racial content.


----------



## Serendipity

I went indifferent - neither of the races are inherantly bad ideas, it's just that IMO, the execution is rather lacking.   
The notion of the 4e Tiefling is fine, but I wish they'd call it something else as it's nothing like what I think of when I think Tiefling (e.g. Planescape).

When I finish changing my game over to 4e I'll pro'lly include both races, but with some mods - and swap out the fluff for some of my own.  What's been put forward so far has lacked.


----------



## Rechan

ProfessorCirno said:


> Unfortunately, as we read in Races and Classes, Wizards thinks that good guys are lame; only angsting anti-heroes are cool!



Which, all it requires is a teensy bit of recalibration.

Look at the angels in 4e as a basis. They're not "Good". They are merely forces of personality, dedicated to certain causes. An Aasimar can equally function on that same perspective. They are "Angelic" like the 4e angels: full of awe and intensity, not warm celestial fuzzies. 

An evil aasimar is just as likely as an evil tiefling. The aasimar is a matter of passion and direction whipped up and charging, while the tiefling is corrupted and sinister.


----------



## Hussar

Well, ignoring those sitting on the fence in the middle, those that like the races outnumber those who don't by about 2:1.  For a completely new, untested couple of races without any traction, I'd say that's pretty darn successful.


----------



## EATherrian

Hussar said:


> Well, ignoring those sitting on the fence in the middle, those that like the races outnumber those who don't by about 2:1.  For a completely new, untested couple of races without any traction, I'd say that's pretty darn successful.




I'm not sure we can take a ENWorld poll as quite scientific though.  I'm sure the poll could easily be different on different sites.


----------



## Spiral

mlund said:


> If you want to argue that a Dragonborn ought to be a monotreme, however, I'd disagree with that opinion. Further, unless Dragons nurse their young, I see no reason why the Dragonborn ought to do so.



Is there any info in any of the books outlining how the dragonborn came into existence?  My brain immediately goes into "magically-created hybrid servitor race who outlived their creator".  The mammaries are just vestigial.  I have a human mercenary fighter who really, really hates dragonborn because in his experience they're arrogant, cruel and self-important snakes.  From what he's gathered, the real opinion of dragons on the dragonborn ranges from _They're an abomination_ to _They're a slightly chewier and more filling snack._

Of course, he had a bit of a rough childhood.  _"Stupid 4 year old dragonborn bullies with their breath weapons... I'll never be called Kindling or Stickman ever again!"_  Fun concept.

Edit:  Hopefully the promised ecology article will flesh out the Dragonborn a little.

@Fenes: Wikipedia agrees with you on tieflings, for what that's worth.


			
				Wikipedia! said:
			
		

> "Tiefling" was coined by Wolfgang Baur, when original Planescape designer David "Zeb" Cook asked for a Germanic-sounding word for humans with fiendish blood. Baur derived the name from teufel, or "Devil" in German. The direct translation of tiefling, however, would be "deepling," since tief means "deep." A closer derivation from teufel would be teufling.
> 
> In a standard game, Tieflings tend to have an unsettling air about them, and most people are uncomfortable around them, whether they are aware of the tiefling's unsavory ancestry or not.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Hussar said:


> Well, ignoring those sitting on the fence in the middle, those that like the races outnumber those who don't by about 2:1.  For a completely new, untested couple of races without any traction, I'd say that's pretty darn successful.




The ones in the middle aren't sitting on the fence though.  They're not indifferent.  They like one and dislike the other.  You can't count them out.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> "So, we have these big dragon people, how do we differentiate between genders?"
> "Just give them jugs."
> "You've got a gift, my friend."




Quality!


----------



## Lurks-no-More

ProfessorCirno said:


> Unfortunately, as we read in Races and Classes, Wizards thinks that good guys are lame; only angsting anti-heroes are cool!



Yes, that's why they're _explicitly_ discouraging Evil-aligned PCs in the PHB. 

Or, in other words, you're spouting frantic hyperbole.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Lurks-no-More said:


> Yes, that's why they're _explicitly_ discouraging Evil-aligned PCs in the PHB.
> 
> Or, in other words, you're spouting frantic hyperbole.




"Tieflings trace their origins back to the 2nd Edition PLANESCAPE Campaign Setting.  With their horns, tails, and wicked tongues, tieflings quickly became the exotic "bad boys" and "bad girls" of the Outer Planes.  Sly, sexy, and a little sinister, they afforded D&D players a chance to flirt with the dark side without actually crossing the line into full-blown evil.  Why play Drizzt when you could play the great-grandson of a pit fiend"

Tieflings reappeared in the 3rd Edition Monster Manual as one of the "plane-touched," inexorably bound to their do-gooder cousins, the aasimar.  Forgive my bias, but I'll take horns and brimstone over sunshine and perfection any day.  Sometimes it just doesn't pay to be the super good guy."

Word.
For.
Word.

Page 48 of Races and Classes.


----------



## Fenes

Anti-hero doesn't have to mean evil, it usually just means "bad tempered or otherwise "not so good" hero that kills evil with lots of violence and other dark touches".

Tieflings and Dragonborn seem to fit this rather well, compared to say the clichee Paladin that upholds honor and good without using every means at his disposal.


----------



## hong

ProfessorCirno said:


> "Tieflings trace their origins back to the 2nd Edition PLANESCAPE Campaign Setting.  With their horns, tails, and wicked tongues, tieflings quickly became the exotic "bad boys" and "bad girls" of the Outer Planes.  Sly, sexy, and a little sinister, they afforded D&D players a chance to flirt with the dark side without actually crossing the line into full-blown evil.  Why play Drizzt when you could play the great-grandson of a pit fiend"
> 
> Tieflings reappeared in the 3rd Edition Monster Manual as one of the "plane-touched," inexorably bound to their do-gooder cousins, the aasimar.  Forgive my bias, but I'll take horns and brimstone over sunshine and perfection any day.  Sometimes it just doesn't pay to be the super good guy."




Sounds pretty cool, huh?


----------



## rounser

> Forgive my bias, but I'll take horns and brimstone over sunshine and perfection any day.  Sometimes it just doesn't pay to be the super good guy.



Do they actually believe this or is it just marketing cheerleading?


----------



## Steely Dan

Lurks-no-More said:


> Or, in other words, you're spouting frantic hyperbole.





I think "frantic" is an _exaggeration_… You see; you see what I did there?!

Yes, ban the word "hyperbole", whenever I see that word on these boards it comes off as pretentious twatness.


----------



## Choranzanus

Jhaelen said:


> Well, I don't remember having heard or read anything about half-elves outside of Tolkien's novels (and even there they've not been called 'half-elves'). What traditional, mythological roots are you thinking about?



Never underestimate the amount of mythology in Tolkien's novels.

Well, I am somewhat biased, because some of the most important persons in Czech mythology are half elves, in fact. But in european mythology as a whole most wizards have nonhuman heritage and fey heritage is by far the most common, so they are in fact quite common (that is not to say they are all wizards but most of them I think are). Of course you do not find them under labels like half elves because they are all unique and not a proper race as such, althought they share many traits.

In my campaign I have elves and half-elves as humans with variuos amounts of fey blood. Half-elves are thus more common than elves. Unfortunately, racial cultural traits in 3.5 do not really support this very well. 3.5 elves do not seem very fey blooded to me.


----------



## Rel

Steely Dan said:


> twatness.




Steely Dan, please don't say twatness like I did in this post.

Twice.


----------



## Nifft

ProfessorCirno said:


> The ones in the middle aren't sitting on the fence though.  They're not indifferent.  They like one and dislike the other.  You can't count them out.



 You're wrong. I like Tieflings and am indifferent to Dragonborn.

What option should I have chosen instead?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## williamhm

Im going to ask the people who think tieflings and dragonborn should not be core one question.  Why?  Why should they not be core?  Just because tolkien did not have them?


----------



## ThirdWizard

EATherrian said:


> I'm not sure we can take a ENWorld poll as quite scientific though.  I'm sure the poll could easily be different on different sites.




I'd be very surprised if the two races weren't _more_ popular outside of ENWorld.


----------



## Desdichado

Miyaa said:


> Also, am I the only one who thinks the Elderin, Elves, and Drow are nothing more than Asian, European, and African elves?



Quite probably, because I can't think of a single reason to make that correllation.

Why; where do you get that?


----------



## EATherrian

hong said:


> Sounds pretty cool, huh?




No, it makes my Drizz't-sense go off, and I start getting stabby at the game table.


----------



## EATherrian

ThirdWizard said:


> I'd be very surprised if the two races weren't _more_ popular outside of ENWorld.




Well, there's no accounting for taste.


----------



## EATherrian

williamhm said:


> Im going to ask the people who think tieflings and dragonborn should not be core one question.  Why?  Why should they not be core?  Just because tolkien did not have them?




For me it's because I don't see them having a broad role, and since I'm using an established game-world that included all of the 3.x core, new core races mean too much ret-conning or trashing my world and creating a new one.  Some of us enjoy our worlds and enjoy having the races we've had since 1st Edition AD&D still available as core.  Plus as I mentioned in another response I think that the Tieflings are just there to help out the 'angsty' vibe that started with a certain badly written dark elf.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

williamhm said:


> Im going to ask the people who think tieflings and dragonborn should not be core one question.  Why?  Why should they not be core?  Just because tolkien did not have them?




Personally, I think they should have to sit in the corner until their art and design is re-done, but I'm not sure that's the same thing as them not being core. I think the main problem Dragonborn have is that, despite being, y'know kinda a Dragons, they're actually pretty dull and unmemorable. If you gave Klingons a breath-weapon you'd have something more exciting, frankly, and when your fancy new fantasy is racer is "duller than Klingons", I don't think you should be too proud of yourself. Also tail fiasco.


----------



## Old Gumphrey

Fenes said:


> Anti-hero doesn't have to mean evil, it usually just means "bad tempered or otherwise "not so good" hero that kills evil with lots of violence and other dark touches".
> 
> Tieflings and Dragonborn seem to fit this rather well, compared to say the clichee Paladin that upholds honor and good without using every means at his disposal.




Actually, dragonborn are described as being _extremely_ honorable as a race, so the only race that is less anti-hero (by default) than they are would be dwarves, and that's even arguable.

So I fully disagree that they fit anti-hero rather well, and say that they actually don't fit anti-hero at all unless you specifically make them unlike the rest of their kind.


----------



## Fenes

They're a warlike inhuman lizard race. That alone makes them "anti hero".


----------



## Rechan

Fenes said:


> They're a warlike inhuman lizard race. That alone makes them "anti hero".




Are they more warlike than oh, DWARVES? You know, the guys whose natural inclination is for the Fighter? 

Also, Inhuman? Hint: If it ain't human, it's inhuman. 

Warlike and Inhuman does not mean anti-hero. If you want to stretch the definition, then by nature, adventurers are anti-heroes. They're breaking into people's homes to murder them and loot. They butcher humanoids based on their skin and race. They walk into town armed to the teeth. They defile the resting place of the dead. Etc. Etc.


----------



## Nifft

Fenes said:


> They're a warlike inhuman lizard race. That alone makes them "anti hero".



 Every PC race is warlike and inhuman (except for humans, who are instead warlike and human).

Cheers, -- N


----------



## ProfessorCirno

williamhm said:


> Im going to ask the people who think tieflings and dragonborn should not be core one question.  Why?  Why should they not be core?  Just because tolkien did not have them?




Because they're change for the sake of change, and it's _poorly done_ change.  They're not aesthetically pleasing at all.  Their fluff isn't enjoyable.  Dragonborn are there for "People who want to play dragons!" and tieflings are there for "People who like Drizzt!"  Because they're too out there and "wowee!" for Core.


----------



## Fifth Element

ProfessorCirno said:


> Because they're change for the sake of change, and it's _poorly done_ change.  They're not aesthetically pleasing at all.  Their fluff isn't enjoyable.



Pure opinion. Many enjoy the art and background info.



ProfessorCirno said:


> Dragonborn are there for "People who want to play dragons!" and tieflings are there for "People who like Drizzt!"  Because they're too out there and "wowee!" for Core.



People have been wanting to play dragons since at least 1E days (otherwise EGG would not have warned against it). And methinks if they wanted a race for people who want to play Drizzt, they would have used, y'know, *drow*.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Fifth Element said:


> People have been wanting to play dragons since at least 1E days (otherwise EGG would not have warned against it). And methinks if they wanted a race for people who want to play Drizzt, they would have used, y'know, *drow*.




I believe it was on this thread, last page, in which I showed the developers stating that they modeled the new tieflings after Drizzt.


----------



## williamhm

ProfessorCirno said:


> I believe it was on this thread, last page, in which I showed the developers stating that they modeled the new tieflings after Drizzt.




change is good though, and how is the fluff any worse than the fluff for any other race?  I mean I love the new art for dwarves but their fluff could come straight out of tolkien.  Which is really bland.  Personally I like the fluff for both tieflings and dragonborn, as do according to the poll the majority of people.


----------



## Rechan

ProfessorCirno said:


> I believe it was on this thread, last page, in which I showed the developers stating that they modeled the new tieflings after Drizzt.



Here's you, quoting Races and Classes:


> Forgive my bias, but I'll take horns and brimstone over sunshine and perfection any day. Sometimes it just doesn't pay to be the super good guy.



"Sunshine and Perfection" encompasses Drizzt more than horns and brimstone. Believe me? Read any of Salvatore's books. Try to slog through the basalt-thick tripe that are Drizzt's journal entries at the beginning of each Act. They are full of "Why can't we all just get along"s. The "angst" comes from the "Woe, everyone is mean to me, where be my acceptance?", "There is so much evil in the world. It's not right," and other 'outwardly stoic, inwardly crying and desperately in need of a hug' stuff. He, honest to god, *touched a unicorn* in _Sojourn_. Du'Urden craps rainbows.

Tieflings are, well, horns and brimstone. It's "Evil-Curious" and "The Bad Boy", lacking only a pompadour (but I think that's because it just doesn't work with the horns). They scream "YEAH I've got infernal redbull pumping through my veins; want to fight about it?" that reaches out to every angry or cynical teenager in the world who thinks he's too cool in his trench coat. They are a race of John Bender, Fonzi, Marlon Brando, Captain Jack Sparrow, Spike, Dirty Harry, Lord Byron, Rudy, Blade, Neo, Gambit and Wolverine in a blender. 

So I don't see how one can connect Drizzt to the Tieflings.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Rechan said:


> Here's you, quoting Races and Classes:
> "Sunshine and Perfection" encompasses Drizzt more than horns and brimstone. Believe me? Read any of Salvatore's books. Try to slog through the basalt-thick tripe that are Drizzt's journal entries at the beginning of each Act. They are full of "Why can't we all just get along"s. The "angst" comes from the "Woe, everyone is mean to me, where be my acceptance?", "There is so much evil in the world. It's not right," and other 'outwardly stoic, inwardly crying and desperately in need of a hug' stuff. He, honest to god, *touched a unicorn* in _Sojourn_. Du'Urden craps rainbows.
> 
> Tieflings are, well, horns and brimstone. It's "Evil-Curious" and "The Bad Boy", lacking only a pompadour (but I think that's because it just doesn't work with the horns). They scream "YEAH I've got infernal redbull pumping through my veins; want to fight about it?" that reaches out to every angry or cynical teenager in the world who thinks he's too cool in his trench coat. They are a race of John Bender, Fonzi, Marlon Brando, Captain Jack Sparrow, Spike, Dirty Harry, Rudy, Neo, Gambit and Wolverine in a blender.
> 
> So I don't see how one can connect Drizzt to the Tieflings.




Here's ALSO me quoting that same thing:



> Sly, sexy, and a little sinister, they afforded D&D players a chance to flirt with the dark side without actually crossing the line into full-blown evil. Why play Drizzt when you could play the great-grandson of a pit fiend"


----------



## Mallus

ProfessorCirno said:


> Dragonborn are there for "People who want to play dragons!" and tieflings are there for "People who like Drizzt!"



You sure about that? My group likes both the new races, and we, collectively, know our way around fantasy. In fact, we incorporated the whole Tiefling/Dragonborn war into our new homebrew. A first for us, being inspired by RAW fluff.


----------



## Rechan

ProfessorCirno said:


> Here's ALSO me quoting that same thing:



And here is me saying that doesn't dispute a single word I just said. In fact, it reinforces it.


----------



## hong

ProfessorCirno said:


> Here's ALSO me quoting that same thing:



You might want to read the bit you quoted again.


----------



## Fifth Element

ProfessorCirno said:


> Here's ALSO me quoting that same thing:



That actually refers to giving an alternative to playing a Drizzt-type. I don't think that meshes with your claim that tieflings were modeled on Drizzt.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Rechan said:


> And here is me saying that doesn't dispute a single word I just said. In fact, it reinforces it.






Fifth Element said:


> That actually refers to giving an alternative to playing a Drizzt-type. I don't think that meshes with your claim that tieflings were modeled on Drizzt.




I don't see the difference there.  "Man, I want to play a Drizzt type of character.  Hey, look, the new tieflings were modeled based on 'why go with Drizzt when you can do this?'  Awesome, it looks made just for me!"

And then the rest of the group secretly plots to kill him.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Mallus said:


> You sure about that? My group likes both the new races, and we, collectively, know our way around fantasy. In fact, we incorporated the whole Tiefling/Dragonborn war into our new homebrew. A first for us, being inspired by RAW fluff.




Ok?  Lots of people like lots of things.  That doesn't change the fact that the PHB literally states that Dragonborn are for people who want to play as dragons.


----------



## hong

ProfessorCirno said:


> I don't see the difference there.  "Man, I want to play a Drizzt type of character.  Hey, look, the new tieflings were modeled based on 'why go with Drizzt when you can do this?'  Awesome, it looks made just for me!"
> 
> And then the rest of the group secretly plots to kill him.



Your group sounds a bit dysfunctional.


----------



## Fenes

If Dragonborn are supposed to be for people who like to play Dragons, then the race fell far, far short of the mark.

I consider the race ugly, and unsuited for all campaign settings I play.


----------



## Hussar

Fenes said:


> Anti-hero doesn't have to mean evil, it usually just means "bad tempered or otherwise "not so good" hero that kills evil with lots of violence and other dark touches".
> 
> Tieflings and Dragonborn seem to fit this rather well, compared to say the clichee Paladin that upholds honor and good without using every means at his disposal.




I would point out that this is false.

Anti-heroes aren't just a slightly dirty sort of hero.  Anti-heroes are out and out evil.  These are people who are only incidentally doing something that helps other people.  Elric commits genocide against his own species, as an example of anti-hero.  Angus Thermopolye from Donaldson's Gap series is a multiple murderer and rapist.  Belkar is flat out evil.

These are anti-heroes.  Batman, Wolverine and various others are not.



ProfessorCirno said:


> Ok?  Lots of people like lots of things.  That doesn't change the fact that the PHB literally states that Dragonborn are for people who want to play as dragons.




Which is different from your first point that tieflings are for people who want to play Drizzt.  Besides which, what's wrong with wanting to play something draconic?


----------



## Fenes

Nothing wrong, but someone wanting to play a Dragon playing a Dragonborn looks to me like someone wanting a 200 oz. Sirloin steak ordering tofu.

(I like Tofu, but I'd never mistake it for steak.)

And if you drop the - rather pretentious - "Dragon" from the name, you've got tailless lizardfolk. Something we already had, just graphically redesigned like the Tiefling ("Now with boobs! and no tail!").


----------



## Fenes

Hussar said:


> I would point out that this is false.
> 
> Anti-heroes aren't just a slightly dirty sort of hero.  Anti-heroes are out and out evil.  These are people who are only incidentally doing something that helps other people.  Elric commits genocide against his own species, as an example of anti-hero.  Angus Thermopolye from Donaldson's Gap series is a multiple murderer and rapist.  Belkar is flat out evil.
> 
> These are anti-heroes.  Batman, Wolverine and various others are not.




Wiki disagrees with you. Batman at least started out as an anti-hero in his time.

Just, these days, what was an anti-hero 10 years ago, is now closer to what we consider a hero.

And hulking lizard _mercenaries_ certainly qualify for anti-heroes, compared to paladins, good clerics, folk heroes, etc.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Fenes said:


> Wiki disagrees with you. Batman at least started out as an anti-hero in his time.
> 
> Just, these days, what was an anti-hero 10 years ago, is now closer to what we consider a hero.
> 
> And hulking lizard _mercenaries_ certainly qualify for anti-heroes, compared to paladins, good clerics, folk heroes, etc.




Batman's initial characterization (essentially James Bond in Costume) is very different from the way the character came to be defined over the history of its run.  It's not at all fair to claim the standards of the time have changed based on this character when the character changed so much and so quickly away from the anti-hero origins.


As for the specific point on Dragonborn:

If you're living in a DnD world I don't think hulking lizard would be discomfiting. The deity of Justice is a dragon for land's sake.

And as for 







> _mercenaries_



:  I don't think you can call the Seven Samurai anti-heroes just because they fought under contract.


----------



## Fenes

My campaign's god of justice is not a dragon.


----------



## Steely Dan

Fenes said:


> My campaign's god of justice is not a dragon.





Mine is Joe Pesci.


----------



## Lurks-no-More

ProfessorCirno said:


> Because they're change for the sake of change, and it's _poorly done_ change.  They're not aesthetically pleasing at all.  Their fluff isn't enjoyable.



Your personal preferences are not objective measurements of good and bad, you know.


----------



## rounser

> Your personal preferences are not objective measurements of good and bad, you know.



You're implying he's alone in this view.  He's not.  I think he's spot on.


----------



## Old Gumphrey

And I think he's full of it. There isn't a poster on EnWorld that I more consistently disagree with. Change for the sake of change? What about complaining for the sake of complaining?



Fenes said:


> If Dragonborn are supposed to be for people who like to play Dragons, then the race fell far, far short of the mark.
> 
> I consider the race ugly, and unsuited for all campaign settings I play.




Cool, most people don't, you're in the minority here.



Fenes said:


> Nothing wrong, but someone wanting to play a Dragon playing a Dragonborn looks to me like someone wanting a 200 oz. Sirloin steak ordering tofu.
> 
> (I like Tofu, but I'd never mistake it for steak.)
> 
> And if you drop the - rather pretentious - "Dragon" from the name, you've got tailless lizardfolk. Something we already had, just graphically redesigned like the Tiefling ("Now with boobs! and no tail!").




A proud warrior race isn't the same thing as a backwoods swamp-dwelling barbarian tribe.



Fenes said:


> Wiki disagrees with you. Batman at least started out as an anti-hero in his time.
> 
> Just, these days, what was an anti-hero 10 years ago, is now closer to what we consider a hero.
> 
> And hulking lizard _mercenaries_ certainly qualify for anti-heroes, compared to paladins, good clerics, folk heroes, etc.




Oh, really? Is that why according to the fluff you're rallying against, dragonborn make good paladins? The dragonborn paladin in my game is such an anti-hero; he's always defending the weak, smiting demons, and bringing foes to justice. You can tell he's an anti-hero because he looks like a lizard.



Fenes said:


> My campaign's god of justice is not a dragon.




You can't change core fluff, then complain that core fluff is wrong. Core D&D says the God of Justice is a dragon. Dragon men follow him and are quoted in the fluff as making excellent paladins. It doesn't matter if they're too fat and tailless for your taste, that's the way it is until you change it.

Nothing wrong with them being savage mercs in your game, but that's not how they're written, and no matter how many times you say it, it's not going to come true.


----------



## Fenes

Plant Dragonborn into a swamp, and give them tails, and there's lizardfolk - it's not as if all lizardfolk have the same customs, some even work as mercenaries. A breathweapon doesn't make tailless lizardfolk into dragons.

And changing the core fluff is what I hate about 4E. Suddenly, lizardfolk is accepted everywhere in civilised lands, the god of justice is a dragon, and so on - no, thanks. 

There was no Tiefling or Dragonborn Empire in my campaigns pre-4E, there won't be one even if we use the 4E rules. I won't change a background that worked for more than 15 years (and far longer for those who started playing earlier) just so we can have ugly lizards in the party.

If someone wants to play a dragon, I'd be more likely to let him or her play a dragon instead than some "dragonborn" - at least it would be more interesting, and have a better background.

And for a while, "New Coke" was the official coke as well, if I recall correctly. It didn't make it "real coke" either.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Fenes said:


> Plant Dragonborn into a swamp, and give them tails, and there's lizardfolk - it's not as if all lizardfolk have the same customs, some even work as mercenaries. A breathweapon doesn't make tailless lizardfolk into dragons.



Actually, it does. If you make a reptilian creature and give it a breath weapon (especially one that can be fiery), you can't tell me that this is not inspired by Dragons! 



> Suddenly, lizardfolk is accepted everywhere in civilised lands, the god of justice is a dragon, and so on - no, thanks.



Why suddenly? The implied setting didn't change. It was created with 4E, and as such, it has always been that way (except of course, that not lizardfolk are accepted everywhere, but Dragonborn.) 



> There was no Tiefling or Dragonborn Empire in my campaigns pre-4E, there won't be one even if we use the 4E rules. I won't change a background that worked for more than 15 years (and far longer for those who started playing earlier) just so we can have ugly lizards in the party.



You're not required to change an existing setting! You can do it, if you like (which you don't), but there is nothing forcing you to do it.


----------



## Fenes

"Inspired by a dragon" is not "a dragon". If I want to play a dragon, I want to play a dragon, not a lizardfolk warrior with delusions of grandeur.

The Implied setting was replaced. And they are wrecking FR so they can fit dragonborn and the new tieflings in.

And yes, I am not forced to change any setting - so I won't have to treat my lizards differently at all. I'll simply not use the fluff for lizards and tieflings.


----------



## rounser

> Why suddenly? The implied setting didn't change. It was created with 4E, and as such, it has always been that way (except of course, that not lizardfolk are accepted everywhere, but Dragonborn.)



And if you close your eyes, put your hands over your ears, stamp your feet and yell "LA LA LA LA LA" loudly enough, you can pretend the last 30 years of D&D never really happened.

Remember, mouseketeers, FR and DL were the first campaign settings!


----------



## DandD

Dragon men are still dragon men (now called Dragonborn), however. And the implied setting for 3rd edition was Greyhawk... Which only a minority care for. 

The new Forgotten Realms are set 100 years into the future. People who don't want Dragonborn nor Tieflings simply don't have to apply the standart-FR-edition-change-catastrophe, and voilà, everything is still the same. Of course, the FR are still boring, even after the newest "oh-my-gosh-explosions"-events. 

Some people don't even use half-orcs, gnomes, half-elves or whatever freak-race there is.


----------



## Fifth Element

rounser said:


> Remember, mouseketeers, FR and DL were the first campaign settings!



...that were not default settings.


----------



## Doug McCrae

More and more I'm realising that both the new races were a really good idea.

D&D needed a big strong honorable warrior race. It's a very popular concept as evidenced by the Klingons in Star Trek. They could've used orcs, but presumably wanted to keep them as bad guys a la Lord of the Rings.

Also, people love dragons. They're almost as popular as elves. Was it in this thread someone wrote that WotC revealed any book with 'dragon' or 'magic' in the title sold more? And okay, dragonborn are only mini humanoid dragons, but that's as close as you're going to get and remain balanced. This ain't Rifts.

And tieflings have got that whole emo goth Vampire-player vibe. I think they do occupy the same niche as Drizzt. Both look evil and everyone is all down on them for the way they look. Just like goth kids. Okay, Drizzt is really a cissy, whereas a tiefling may have any personality but it's basically the same idea - the evil appearance/not necessarily evil on the inside disconnect.

To make room they got rid of the two most unpopular races in D&D. Gnomes were pointless. How many short arses did D&D need ffs? It's like Gary had almost as much of a hard on for short people as the 3e MM creators had for fishmen. Halflings got shorty covered. Elves got fey covered. So we don't need gnomes.

And half-orcs? Well they could've gone the whole hog and made them orcs but for whatever reason, half-orcs have never been popular among D&D players. Maybe it was the int penalty. Most likely it was the ugliness. Your goth emo "people look at me and think I'm evil" fan won't stoop to actually being physically unattractive.


----------



## Fifth Element

Fenes said:


> "Inspired by a dragon" is not "a dragon".



Semantics. Obviously playing an actual dragon does not fit in the core game, so dragonborn are a viable alternative.

Can you imagine the uproar if dragons were included as a core PC race?


----------



## Doug McCrae

rounser said:


> And if you close your eyes, put your hands over your ears, stamp your feet and yell "LA LA LA LA LA" loudly enough, you can pretend the last 30 years of D&D never really happened.



Let's face it - most of it was crap.


----------



## rounser

> Let's face it - most of it was crap.



LOL

Yes...yes, a lot of it was.  The difference was most of it was optional.

The new _core_ is crap.  "Dragonborn"?  "Warlords"?  Tieflings without Aasimar?  "Eladrin"?

At least the previous cores gave you a foundation to go specific and wahoo from.  The new core is wahoo and arbitrary and "What the heck is an X" straight out of the gate, wham bam thank you ma'am.

Therefore, let's face it, the new _game_ is crap.  Unless you ban stuff.


----------



## Fifth Element

rounser said:


> At least the previous cores gave you a foundation to go specific and wahoo from. The new core is wahoo and arbitrary and "What the heck is an X" straight out of the gate, wham bam thank you ma'am.



What's really arbitrary, I think, is your definition of what's "wahoo" and what's not.

And why is having tieflings without aasimar "crap"? Symmetry for the sake of symmetry is no longer the standard.


----------



## Mallus

rounser said:


> The difference was most of it was optional.



Hint: all of it is optional. For example, the only core race in my 4 year old campaign is human.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel

Gundark said:


> I'm okay with Dragonborn. I like Tieflings. I was kinda "meh" on Dragonborn, however the players in my group loved them....3 out of the 5 are Dragonborn. So slowly my opinion has been changing.




Same case here... I originally disliked them and was resigned to having one Dragonborn in the party (I was sure the dragon-lover in the group was going to play one)

However, as I read more about them and translated the race and class one-page descriptions (some players in my group don't speak English very well) they started to grow on me...

And given the fact that three of my players picked them as first choice, I guess WotC did something right (I also got one Tiefling)

I think their ProudWarriorRace qualities just were too appealing.


----------



## rounser

> Symmetry for the sake of symmetry is no longer the standard.



See, I didn't see it as a "for the sake of" thing.  I saw it as actually supporting a theme.  And a coherent theme is what the current implied setting doesn't have.  It looks like the line-up for a specific world, with a handful of races and a poorly designed splat class cherry-picked from splatbooks according to the tastes of a specific DM.  Unfortunately that's now the new default.


----------



## Fenes

Fifth Element said:


> Semantics. Obviously playing an actual dragon does not fit in the core game, so dragonborn are a viable alternative.
> 
> Can you imagine the uproar if dragons were included as a core PC race?




Why wouldn't an actual dragon not fit? In 4E, where PCs are special, and not the norm, it would conceptually fit in very well.

Mechanically, one could make a "dragon race class", and spread the powers out. At heroic or epic tier, a dragon should not be out of place.


----------



## Staffan

ProfessorCirno said:


> Because they're change for the sake of change, and it's _poorly done_ change.




Change for the sake of change is superior to stasis for the sake of stasis. If you stop moving, you're dead.

And me personally, I think it's a pretty well-done change, at least the dragonborn. I could have gone for a more subtle tiefling a la Planescape, though.



Fenes said:


> And changing the core fluff is what I hate about 4E. Suddenly, lizardfolk is accepted everywhere in civilised lands, the god of justice is a dragon, and so on - no, thanks.



Yeah, curse WOTC for adding new-fangled stuff like Bahamut to the game.


----------



## Fenes

Staffan said:


> Yeah, curse WOTC for adding new-fangled stuff like Bahamut to the game.




If the whole fluff is rewritten and changed, it's a new thing, not the same thing.


----------



## Staffan

rounser said:


> The new _core_ is crap.  "Dragonborn"?  "Warlords"?  Tieflings without Aasimar?  "Eladrin"?



FYI, when tieflings were first introduced in Planescape, there was no such thing as aasimar. They didn't appear until either the second Monstrous Compendium Appendix for Planescape, or Planewalker's Handbook (not sure which was released first).


----------



## Fenes

Those tieflings from Planescape have nothing in common with the new tieflings. The PS tieflings were descendants of a fiend, not descendants of some noble who made a pact with a fiend. They also had a varied appearance, and different background.

While you can use the old fluff (and appearance) with the new stats with some tweaks, taken as it is, the 4E tiefling is a new thing.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Staffan said:


> Change for the sake of change is superior to stasis for the sake of stasis. If you stop moving, you're dead.



Continuing with an analogy duel, if you stop moving in a field of land mines, you will live. There really is no reason change for change's sake is superior. Which is better is circumstantial.

That said, while I miss gnomes and half-orcs, after all is looked at I'm neutral (leaning towards acceptance) to Dragonborn.


----------



## Lurks-no-More

Doug McCrae said:


> More and more I'm realising that both the new races were a really good idea.



I agree with your reasoning, and add as a bonus that they really drive some people to conniptions.


----------



## Spiral

Isn't the "new bahamut fluff" just a transplant from the Dragonlance campaign?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Amphimir Míriel said:


> I think their ProudWarriorRace qualities just were too appealing.



I think you're required to warn others that following this link could lead to them losing track of time and spending way too much time on the internet.


----------



## DandD

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I think you're required to warn others that following this link could lead to them losing track of time and spending way too much time on the internet.



Yeah, true. I was starting to read the synopsis of Princess Tutu, a story about a duck that transforms into a human ballerina and fights evil monsters by the time I finished the first links.


----------



## Thaumaturge

Eric Anondson said:


> Continuing with an analogy duel, if you stop moving in a field of land mines, you will live. There really is no reason change for change's sake is superior. Which is better is circumstantial.




False.  You will eventually starve, dehydrate, die of exposure, or go loony.  This is only a valid option if you expect someone to save you before any of the aforementioned conditions occurs.  Which.. as far as the analogy to D&D goes.. means.. um... hey look a minefield! *runs*

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

rounser said:


> And if you close your eyes, put your hands over your ears, stamp your feet and yell "LA LA LA LA LA" loudly enough, you can pretend the last 30 years of D&D never really happened.



As I see it, each edition of D&D had its own implied setting. Sure, there were some similarities, but the classes in each core books changed, and even the races weren't constant.

So I don't have to ignore the past 30 years to accept that a new edition might make changes to the implied setting. Neither edition forced me to use that setting. (In fact, AD&D seems to be known for having offered a multitude of settings, some with very different "fluff" or even different mechanical subsystems)


----------



## Hussar

The truly funny thing is, we know that people overwhelmingly used homebrew campaign settings.  WOTC's come out and stated as such.

Therefore, the past 30 years of D&D history didn't mean squat to most people.  Most gamers wouldn't know an aasimar if it came up and bit them on the petoot.  If people are, by and large, playing in their own worlds, then what possible difference could it make to jettison core "canon"?  Which wasn't really canon because it only applied in very limited circumstances.  The Tiefling background, for example, only came into the picture if you played Planescape, a setting that's been OUT OF PRINT for over a decade.

Anyone who came to D&D through 3e probably has zero idea and zero interest in that "thirty years of history" baggage.  Why would they?  It doesn't apply to their game.  It doesn't make any difference to their table.  So, the only reason to keep it is to keep a small core of fans happy.  The majority of fans couldn't care less.


----------



## Rechan

ProfessorCirno said:


> I don't see the difference there.  "Man, I want to play a Drizzt type of character.  Hey, look, the new tieflings were modeled based on 'why go with Drizzt when you can do this?'  Awesome, it looks made just for me!"



The difference is this:

The only "Evil" connotation to Drizzt is "Well my race is evil. But I'm a warm fuzzy teddybear with scimitars. How about a hug." 

Why play the Gentle Giant, whose only claim to "Ooh cool evil" is that he is of a race that is otherwise evil, when you can play something much darker with a better backstory that's easier for your DM to work into the story (because good drow are a lot harder to come by than tieflings). 

Drizzt is a GOOD GUY. Tieflings are, to put it in older terms, CHAOTIC NEUTRAL guy. 

So again I'll ask where the similarity is.


----------



## The Highway Man

Fifth Element said:


> Semantics. Obviously playing an actual dragon does not fit in the core game, so dragonborn are a viable alternative.
> 
> Can you imagine the uproar if dragons were included as a core PC race?




Do you know the tabletop RPG called "Chimeres"? There are plenty of ways in which dragons could be made playable from the get-go without resorting to portmanteaus and lazy design.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Doug McCrae said:


> Let's face it - most of it was crap.




That's not a very good argument, honestly, much of 4E seems to be "crap" and I guarantee will retrospectively be seen as crap, too. Certainly 4E's fluff seems full of absolute junk. Just probably not the rules.


----------



## DandD

The Highway Man said:


> Do you know the tabletop RPG called "Chimeres"?



I don't. I've heard of In Nomine, Gurps, Shadowrun, The Dark Eye, D&D, Warhammer Fantasy, Warhammer 40k, and even Alternity, but never knew of a tabletop RPG called "Chimeres".


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

rounser said:


> Therefore, let's face it, the new _game_ is crap.  Unless you ban stuff.




Not meaning to pick on you solely, rounser, but the "no edition wars" edict is still in effect - and some folks are stepping on (and over) that line.


----------



## Fifth Element

Fenes said:


> Why wouldn't an actual dragon not fit? In 4E, where PCs are special, and not the norm, it would conceptually fit in very well.
> 
> Mechanically, one could make a "dragon race class", and spread the powers out. At heroic or epic tier, a dragon should not be out of place.



It doesn't fit because all of the other PC races are Small or Medium-sized humanoid creatures. It would be fairly easy to do a dragon mechanically in 4E, sure, but then so would giants and manticores and any other monster, really. But I referred to the *core* game specifically. It would be rather incongruous to have the core races be human, elf, dwarf, halfling and dragon.


----------



## Fifth Element

The Highway Man said:


> Do you know the tabletop RPG called "Chimeres"? There are plenty of ways in which dragons could be made playable from the get-go without resorting to portmanteaus and lazy design.



I googled it, and it sounds nothing like core D&D, to which I referred in my post.


----------



## Maggan

Fifth Element said:


> It would be rather incongruous to have the core races be human, elf, dwarf, halfling and dragon.




I think that would make things a lot easier for people who're asking "are there any dragons or dungeons in this game?". 

Actually, I think the starting races should be human, elf, dwarf, halfing, dragon and dungeon. 

That'd make everything a lot clearer to people! 

/M


----------



## DandD

Hmm, what would be the stat modifiers for a living dungeon?


----------



## Fenes

If we can have small and medium creatures, why not large creatures as well?


----------



## Nifft

DandD said:


> Hmm, what would be the stat modifiers for a living dungeon?



 You're thinking too small, grasshopper!

Consider the stat modifiers of *Living Greyhawk*!

Mua-ha-ha, -- N


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Rechan said:


> The difference is this:
> 
> The only "Evil" connotation to Drizzt is "Well my race is evil. But I'm a warm fuzzy teddybear with scimitars. How about a hug."
> 
> Why play the Gentle Giant, whose only claim to "Ooh cool evil" is that he is of a race that is otherwise evil, when you can play something much darker with a better backstory that's easier for your DM to work into the story (because good drow are a lot harder to come by than tieflings).
> 
> Drizzt is a GOOD GUY. Tieflings are, to put it in older terms, CHAOTIC NEUTRAL guy.
> 
> So again I'll ask where the similarity is.




Well, first off, Chaotic Neutral doesn't exist anymore, remember? 

Secondly, the PHB for Tieflings states that they're for people who want to overcome some inner darkness and still be a hero.  You're saying that's not similer to Drizzt?

Tieflings aren't the CN guy.  They're the "I'm so goth I crap bats.  Now I'll BRB, gotta go angst in the corner, but DON'T JUDGE ME, I'M STILL GOOD!" guy.



DandD said:


> Yeah, true. I was starting to read the synopsis of Princess Tutu, a story about a duck that transforms into a human ballerina and fights evil monsters by the time I finished the first links.




Dude, Princess Tutu is awesome.  I'm not even kidding.  It had everything set up to be mind numbingly bad, and somehow twisted it to be insanely cool.


----------



## Kingskin

Personally; I find the core races to be incredibly bland in 4th Ed. It just seems like lots of Elves and nothing much in between.
So you've got your standard races; humans, elves, dwarves and halflings. You can't really begrudge any of them, they really are essential to a generic fantasy game (much as I dislike elves I'll admit the game needs them to be what it is). But then you've got half-elves who are really only there for people that want to play humans but want the over-the-top bonuses that come with being an elf. Still, I suppose people expect them so they're in. I don't see the point of Eladrin whatsoever, they're too much like elves. Either combine the two into a single race or ditch one or t'other. Add tieflings on top (who seem to capture the angsty elf vote) and you've got a core roster which seems mostly elf.
The dragonborn I don't have such a problem with although they have the whole cliched alien-with-an-honour-system thing which makes you wonder when geekdom in general is going to get over klingons. I don't generally allow shaktar in SLA for the same reason, they're just not very inspiring when I read through the PHB. That being said, I don't think much of the 4th Ed fluff in general. But I don't want an edition war so I'll cut that train of thought off.
I'd rather have seen half-orcs and think the reason for ditching them is, frankly, pathetic (because somehow offscreen-interracial sex is worse than the in-your-face wholesale slaughter the game is built around) .
Anyway, it has given me the chance to play a full-blood orc when I re-imagined my character so I can't complain too bitterly.

One other thing: I find warforged to be the single most boring race I think I've come across in any game. Ever. If you want to play the Terminator, surely a sci-fi game is the best platform for that? And I know you can bring up the whole 'machine trying to find it's soul' argument but I've seen the extended edition of T2 and it made a good film.  But most games aren't set up for the level of pathos (limited as it is, when you consider it) and it just comes across as something I would have loved when I was 12. I'm 29 now, and I like orcs.


----------



## The Highway Man

Fifth Element said:


> I googled it, and it sounds nothing like core D&D, to which I referred in my post.




That's not the point. Chimeres indeed has nothing to do with core D&D. If you're going to change the great wheel and such to make it more appealing, there would have been also ways in which you could have made dragons playable as PCs. Chimeres is just a non-D&D example on how to make dragons protagonists of the game.

People just claming that dragons cannot be playable from the get-go aren't pushing their imagination enough. That is my point.


----------



## Barastrondo

ProfessorCirno said:


> Tieflings aren't the CN guy.  They're the "I'm so goth I crap bats.  Now I'll BRB, gotta go angst in the corner, but DON'T JUDGE ME, I'M STILL GOOD!" guy.




If they were really that unappealing, nobody would have voted for "I like them" or "I love them." Trust me, I come off many a year of work with World of Darkness fans. I have unfailingly found that the actual gamers who gravitate toward dark trappings because they're shallow spotlight-seekers are outnumbered by the gamers who exult in shallow stereotypes about how anyone who would play a heroic character with dark trappings are shallow spotlight-seekers. 

The problem is that the few shallow spotlight-seekers make a bad impression. Of course, so do the people accusing others of being shallow spotlight-seekers just because they filled in a word like "vampire" or "tiefling" on their character sheet.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Barastrondo said:


> If they were really that unappealing, nobody would have voted for "I like them" or "I love them." Trust me, I come off many a year of work with World of Darkness fans. I have unfailingly found that the actual gamers who gravitate toward dark trappings because they're shallow spotlight-seekers are outnumbered by the gamers who exult in shallow stereotypes about how anyone who would play a heroic character with dark trappings are shallow spotlight-seekers.
> 
> The problem is that the few shallow spotlight-seekers make a bad impression. Of course, so do the people accusing others of being shallow spotlight-seekers just because they filled in a word like "vampire" or "tiefling" on their character sheet.




Thing is, even a large number of people who DO like the tieflings readily agree that they're meant for that emogoth audience.  It doesn't matter if the number of people who dislike the dark trappings outnumber the number of people who are spotlight-seekers.  What matters is, at least from what I and many others have seen, the number of people who love the dark trappings because they're spotlight seekers greatly outnumbers the NON-spotlight-seekers who like dark trappings.


----------



## timbuktu

Ive liked tieflings since Planescape, sort of a cool evil race at least better IMHO than a playble drow race.

As for Dragonborn I dont hate them. Ive never liked anthropomorphic animal like races. But its fantasy so whats the big deal. Although I did sort of like 3x half dragons.


----------



## Barastrondo

ProfessorCirno said:


> Thing is, even a large number of people who DO like the tieflings readily agree that they're meant for that emogoth audience.




I've never seen anyone use the term "emogoth" or any such similar made-up pseudo-derisive term in such a way that I felt they were making an accurate observation. I've only seen them used in emotional arguments. Of which there are certainly plenty on the Internet, particularly on this board over the last month or two.



> It doesn't matter if the number of people who dislike the dark trappings outnumber the number of people who are spotlight-seekers.  What matters is, at least from what I and many others have seen, the number of people who love the dark trappings because they're spotlight seekers greatly outnumbers the NON-spotlight-seekers who like dark trappings.




Your anecdotal experience does not match mine. I've found that people who are spotlight-seekers are in exactly the same proportion regardless of genre, having nothing to do with a preference for dark trappings. They argue for the right to play gnomes as irritating tricksters with "eccentric" names so that the other players are forced to constantly react to their "hijinks." They try to play characters who are More Virtuous than their fellows so that they can grab the spotlight for extended bouts of playing moral superiority. They play deckers so that they can take over the game session to show off with one-on-one roleplaying. They want to take part in published campaign settings so they can excoriate any other player (or indeed person on the internet) who doesn't share the same One True Vision of what the Only Setting Worth Playing In Is Like. They play wizards with outlandishly baroque powers so that they can have a special power to dramatically solve every situation.

Gamers who make melodramatic bids for the spotlight are, in fact, present for every single classification of character that you would care to write on your character sheet, and in pretty much the same proportion. The assumption that there's a greater number of them attracted to dark trappings — or that the ones attracted to dark trappings are any more annoying than the ones with any other particular favorite genre or means of acting out — is in my experience seventeen gallons of lukewarm hogwash.


----------



## Doug McCrae

The 'evil seeming but not necessarily evil inside' schtick is something I would associate more with younger players - teenagers and early twenties - but not spotlight hogs.

That doesn't mean I think it's a bad thing, quite the reverse, D&D needs to be attractive to all players from 8-80.


----------



## Barastrondo

Doug McCrae said:


> The 'evil seeming but not necessarily evil inside' schtick is something I would associate more with younger players - teenagers and early twenties - but not spotlight hogs.
> 
> That doesn't mean I think it's a bad thing, quite the reverse, D&D needs to be attractive to all players from 8-80.




You should know that your sig made me stop, blink twice, then achieve happiness.


----------



## doctorhook

I honestly don't understand why anti-hero-type characters or their players are necessarily presumed to be "angsty" by some.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

doctorhook said:


> I honestly don't understand why anti-hero-type characters or their players are necessarily presumed to be "angsty" by some.




Because Races and Classes literally says that the developers like the new tieflings because they have angst ;p


----------



## Fifth Element

The Highway Man said:


> People just claming that dragons cannot be playable from the get-go aren't pushing their imagination enough. That is my point.



You're missing my point entirely. Sure dragons could be playable characters, no problem. But that would be a very different situation than what is the core D&D gameplay experience. It has nothing to do with limited imagination. It has to do with the limits of what core D&D is about. Bringing dragons into the mix as core PC races would be a drastic departure from that.

No one is claiming that dragons *cannot* be playable. But they are not desirable as PCs in core D&D. However, the interest in draconic creatures leads to the dragonborn, which are draconic but still fit within core D&D gameplay.


----------



## Fifth Element

Barastrondo said:


> I've never seen anyone use the term "emogoth" or any such similar made-up pseudo-derisive term



Pseudo-derisive? It seems fairly clear to me that it's just plain derisive.


----------



## hong

ProfessorCirno said:


> Thing is, even a large number of people who DO like the tieflings readily agree that they're meant for that emogoth audience.




An emogoth audience... WITH MORE DISPOSABLE INCOME THAN YOU.

HAW HAW!


----------



## Fenes

Fifth Element said:


> You're missing my point entirely. Sure dragons could be playable characters, no problem. But that would be a very different situation than what is the core D&D gameplay experience. It has nothing to do with limited imagination. It has to do with the limits of what core D&D is about. Bringing dragons into the mix as core PC races would be a drastic departure from that.
> 
> No one is claiming that dragons *cannot* be playable. But they are not desirable as PCs in core D&D. However, the interest in draconic creatures leads to the dragonborn, which are draconic but still fit within core D&D gameplay.




I do not understand why Dragonborn fit with the New Core D&D but Dragons would not. Would you say the same if WotC had aded Dragons to Core D&D?


----------



## Maggan

ProfessorCirno said:


> Because Races and Classes literally says that the developers like the new tieflings because they have angst ;p




No, it literally says that Chris Perkins feels that "their infernal heritage gives them plenty of angst and an excuse to "get medieval" whenever the mood suits them."

Whether this sentiment is shared by all developers isn't literally spelled out in Races&Classes at all, as far as I could find. I imagine that to be the case, but if it is literally written down in the book, I couldn't find it.

/M


----------



## DandD

Fenes said:


> I do not understand why Dragonborn fit with the New Core D&D but Dragons would not. Would you say the same if WotC had aded Dragons to Core D&D?



Dragons are core. They're just not core playable choices for the players, as they wouldn't mesh well with the balance in the game. Heck, if one really has problems with it and wants to play dragons, you can still claim that your dragonborn character is simply the bipedal magic form the dragon chose himself to be to fit in with the other bipedal characters. 

Dragonborn are meant to be more or less balanced with dwarves, elves, eldareladrin, humans, halflings, tieflings, half-elves and whatever. 

Huge firebreathing reptiles that can shoot out their flames of damage all the time, fly from the beginning, have immense strength compared to all the rest, more hitpoints than the most toughest defender-type could ever get, and get more attacks per round than anybody else was either a level-adjustment that made them suck-tastic then in 3rd edition. In 4th, better to not start with that at all. And quite frankly, unless everybody plays a dragon or a similarily strong monster, such a thing wouldn't work. It didn't back then in the older editions of D&D, it still doesn't work in 4th edition, and it won't work in 5th either.


----------



## rounser

> An emogoth audience... WITH MORE DISPOSABLE INCOME THAN YOU.
> 
> HAW HAW!



You mean, they have still have money to spare after paying for all that eyeliner and hair dye?

Who knew?


----------



## Barastrondo

Fifth Element said:


> Pseudo-derisive? It seems fairly clear to me that it's just plain derisive.




I say "pseudo" because it's a fake concept. If actual emogoths exist, they're heavily outnumbered by both the emos and the goths. Making up this word to try to sway others into agreeing "They like different things, they must be _the other_" just proves what a silly, emotional argument it is in the first place. 

Sort of like invoking the word "angst." Angst is only a bad word if you've already made up your mind that nobody can use the term seriously any more. Certainly the concept of angst is still heavily appealing to people in a general basis, even if they don't use that word to describe it. I would even guess that there are people who will mock the concept of enjoying darker trappings, internal darkness or angst, and then go out to see the new Batman movie as quick as they can. Does that make sense? No, not really — but that's why it's an emotional argument, not a logical one.


----------



## S'mon

Mulling it over - I think both dragon-blooded and demon-blooded are potentially cool archetypes, when done right - qv the Wilderlands' Orichalan Dragon Lords, or even 1e Cambions like Iuz.  But alligator-looking wingless, tailless critters with ladybumps don't cut it, and way-too-horny look-at-my-tail critters ain't much better.

I think, hmm, WoTC just doesn't _get_ cool.  They're like your dad trying to be trendy.


----------



## Nebulous

I might have liked dragonborn better if the artwork was better.  The PHB has so many pictures of dragonborn i got sick of seeing them. I guess they were just trying to push the "newness".  Tieflings are okay, but i'm not thrilled with them. I'm just glad that my gaming group stuck with the old standbys for now: human, elf, half-elf and dwarf.  If i do introduce dragonborn and tieflings, they will be races rarely seen.


----------



## Starbuck_II

S'mon said:


> Mulling it over - I think both dragon-blooded and demon-blooded are potentially cool archetypes, when done right - qv the Wilderlands' Orichalan Dragon Lords, or even 1e Cambions like Iuz. But alligator-looking wingless, tailless critters with ladybumps don't cut it, and way-too-horny look-at-my-tail critters ain't much better.
> 
> I think, hmm, WoTC just doesn't _get_ cool. They're like your dad trying to be trendy.



 Maybe they do get cool: you just don't get their cool.

Cool isn't a one or the other thing.


----------



## Keefe the Thief

S'mon said:


> Mulling it over - I think both dragon-blooded and demon-blooded are potentially cool archetypes, when done right - qv the Wilderlands' Orichalan Dragon Lords, or even 1e Cambions like Iuz.  But alligator-looking wingless, tailless critters with ladybumps don't cut it, and way-too-horny look-at-my-tail critters ain't much better.
> 
> I think, hmm, WoTC just doesn't _get_ cool.  They're like your dad trying to be trendy.





Dragonborn and Tieflings are way cooler than necroing this thread.


----------



## jensun

Keefe the Thief said:


> Dragonborn and Tieflings are way cooler than necroing this thread.



Indeed.

Although I feel compelled to point out that both races features very extensively in our game.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Keefe the Thief said:


> Dragonborn and Tieflings are way cooler than necroing this thread.




It wasn't his fault. A Spam post put this thread back up to the front page - I am not even sure he (re)read the thread to that point.  
I reported the spam and it was deleted already.

Funny, there's also a second spammer posting here. There must be something to Dragonborn and Tieflings that just screams "good marketing"


----------



## TerraDave

S'mon said:


> I think, hmm, WoTC just doesn't _get_ cool.  They're like your dad trying to be trendy.





I also don't know if it was worth some viagra pusher bringing back the thread. 

But its a good line.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

S'mon said:


> I think, hmm, WoTC just doesn't _get_ cool.  They're like your dad trying to be trendy.




They're trying to be cool and trendy when their core audience couldn't be cool even with a +10 bag of social conformity?

I should feel bad for that joke.


----------



## S'mon

Starbuck_II said:


> Maybe they do get cool: you just don't get their cool.
> 
> Cool isn't a one or the other thing.




Maybe it is.  Maybe you just don't get the Platonic Idealism of Cool.


----------



## S'mon

Keefe the Thief said:


> Dragonborn and Tieflings are way cooler than necroing this thread.




Not me, guv'nor.


----------



## S'mon

Anyway, as far as cool goes, I think there are generally agreed upon criteria, which is why a character like The Fonz works.  Restraint is one big one.  I think tieflings were cooler when they were more subtly abhuman; the new design is too OTT with the enormous horns and the tails.  Likewise, a dragon-blooded race that subtly shows its draconic heritage is cooler than bipedal alligators.

Still, I kinda wish I hadn't been suckered by that spam post into posting, this is all just IMO and if you like them, that's fine of course.  My personal preference would be to keep the stats but change the appearance.


----------



## Eric Tolle

S'mon said:


> Anyway, as far as cool goes, I think there are generally agreed upon criteria, which is why a character like The Fonz works.



Those criteria are indeed absolute.  And those criteria say I'm cool.  So, since I'm cool, and I think the Dragonborn and Tieflings are cool, that then means they are cool.  

So you can relax and play with confidence, knowing that your Tiefling wizard is indeed cool.   Or, you can simply not worry about whether something's cool or not, and just play the game.  Which is cool.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Of all the things to bold..."Factory farming dairy cows?"


----------



## That One Guy

ProfessorCirno said:


> Of all the things to bold..."Factory farming dairy cows?"



C'mon, everyone knows that D&D players LOVE Factory farming dairy cows. Especially if they play dragonborn or tieflings.


----------



## CleverNickName

That One Guy said:


> C'mon, everyone knows that D&D players LOVE Factory farming dairy cows. Especially if they play dragonborn or tieflings.



One of my players wanted a cow for her druid's animal companion.  Something about always having fresh milk for breakfast?  I dunno.


----------



## Cryptos

So... are they cows that do factory farming or people that do factory farming with dairy cows?

I was personally riveted with:



> I ant over everybody had the first got off with the fire, another glass.




This is definitely someone who loves their Tieflings!

Or, perhaps just someone who just completely misunderstood the Chaotic Neutral alignment.


----------



## Shroomy

Well, our dragonborn fighter saved my eladrin artificer butt last night from a really, really, really peeved off black dragon (who knew that burning down his lair would make him _so_ mad).  It almost makes up for earlier that session when he got hit by a mad wraith's _touch of chaos_ and crit'd me.


----------



## Vanuslux

Teiflings have had a pretty solid place in my campaign setting since my last 2E campaign ended with a demonic invasion that set the stage for my 3E setting, so I wasn't bothered by them being included in the core of 4E.  However, I don't like how 4E homogenized the variety out of them.  Fortunately, appearance issues are easy to houserule...their actual stats are fine.

Dragonborn...meh...they're okay.  I fortunately have a convenient way to work them into my setting, so they aren't really a problem...I just think they're a bit too out there to be a common PC race.


----------



## yesnomu

Are we still talking about this?

After playing as both, I like 'em a lot. I originally for Dragonborn and against Tieflings, but playing a Tiefling Wizard changed my mind. Mechanically, he's very fun, and I get to have great RP situations where I act snooty and arrogant.

I think this racial lineup is the most solid so far, of any edition. Each one (with the possible exception of the half-elf) is mechanically and conceptually unique and has strong areas of competence. I really couldn't be happier.


----------



## S'mon

Eric Tolle said:


> Those criteria are indeed absolute.  And those criteria say I'm cool.  So, since I'm cool, and I think the Dragonborn and Tieflings are cool, that then means they are cool.




Claiming to be cool is one of those things that make you not cool.  Sorry Eric.


----------



## Brazenwood

*Yikes!*

I hate the Tieflings and will not allow them in my campaign, the artwork in the books makes D&D look like devil worship now, so that should help us with the crazy Christians.  Also just don't like them because people like to role play the bad boy archetype with them, when it's much more convincing with say a human who is disturbed, looking the part is over the top, and those tails!  I mean if a Tiefling walked into a town in my world they'd attack on sight!  

Now Dragonborn I can tolerate, only because I have a culture that reveres Dragons and has (had?) a population of half-dragons, mainly sorcerers who made some ritual modifications, so I wouldn't really call them Dragonborn...but I'd only allow one per party and even then I'd try and talk the player out of it...

Kelly


----------



## jensun

S'mon said:


> My personal preference would be to keep the stats but change the appearance.



I am not a big fan of some of the art for them and I generally dislike the huge ungainly tail.  I have adapted them in my game so that they can come with a variety of inhuman features.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

ProfessorCirno said:


> They're trying to be cool and trendy when their core audience couldn't be cool even with a +10 bag of social conformity?
> 
> I should feel bad for that joke.




Not bad. Just uncool.


----------



## That One Guy

> Pulls out sword.
> 
> Begins hacking at this thread's throat



Ahem... don't mind me.

By the way, "I had created a vanishing event horizon. Tears that fractal scorpions. The other encrypted secrets. She would be another affair all ruined medicine, confetti and more road swayed violently red cheese wheel in the packets of the central metaphor for all dissolved. Boundaries all just preventative maintenance. "

...totally warlock tiefling... but which pact? Fey? Star?


----------



## GrumpyOldMan

S'mon said:


> I think, hmm, WoTC just doesn't _get_ cool. They're like your dad trying to be trendy.




As a dad, I’d like to say that nothing annoys my kids more than me trying to be trendy. That’s why I do it all the time 

It’s best if I can completely miss the point and misunderstand their annoyance.


----------



## The_Gneech

What is this, Night of the Living Thread?

Still, since the question has been posed...



Psion said:


> I don't dislike them so much as I don't want to see them as default elements.
> 
> Honestly, I'd be glad to allow either in my 3e game. _As exceptions_.




What he said.

-The Gneech


----------



## Rel

Just for the record, the thread WAS resurrected by a spammer.  I deleted the post leaving S'mon holding the bag and taking the blame.

It's what I do.

As for the matter at hand, now that we're several months down the line, I've got no problems with either of the two new races.  The campaign I'm going to start is being built from the ground up so the are included in the design rather than needing to be shoehorned in.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Factory farming dairy cows.




That was a little known spinoff to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles...it only lasted 2 episodes.



> I ant over everybody had the first got off with the fire, another glass.



_
*W*et *T*ree *F*rog?_


----------



## Zogmo

EricNoah said:


> I like Planescape-esque tieflings fine -- you know, the ones where no two look exactly alike.  Not the 4E variety that look like a unified race.
> 
> Not as interested in Dragonborn.
> 
> So I voted Tiefling Yes, Dragonborn No.




I love all things Planescape.  I've not kept the Tieflings and Dragonborn restricted too much as far as looks go.  As long as any horns, wings or whatever are nonfunctional and doesn't get in the way of things I'm good to go with whatever my players come up with.


----------



## MarauderX

Not as bad as gnomes!


----------



## Old Gumphrey

MarauderX said:


> Not as bad as gnomes!




Go jump in a lake.


----------



## rounser

> It's what I do.



That's just the way you roll?

Whoa.  Badass moderator.  Lock up your threads!


----------



## lutecius

S'mon said:


> I think, hmm, WoTC just doesn't _get_ cool.  They're like your dad trying to be trendy.



That about sums it up.



Starbuck_II said:


> Maybe they do get cool: you just don't get their cool.



That's why you can't use the word in a marketing pitch. It looks particularly bad when people don't get your cool.


----------



## Aeolius

As playable options in the MM, I'd have no objection. As a replacement for gnomes and half-orcs in the PH, however, it's simply one more nail in the "4e isn't D&D" coffin.

(Yes, all this from someone whose current game doesn't allow core races for PC use at all. )


----------



## Starbuck_II

S'mon said:


> Claiming to be cool is one of those things that make you not cool. Sorry Eric.



 Ehhhh, Mr. S, why you gotta be dishing a man's cool-atude.
(hits jukebox and it turns on) Let a man be who he gotta be. Ca'piece. Be cool and stay in school.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

My tiefling player plays him totally against type.

He's a cleric of "The Reason", an inward-looking & mysterious deity that we know almost nothing about. The tiefling himself is named "Des", short for "Destroyer" but is actually kind, calm and rational with no angst at all.

I like him. He's got blue fur.


----------

