# Do you want Tieflings in the phb?



## mhensley (Aug 24, 2007)

I've seen a lot of speculation that Tieflings will become a core race in 4e.  I have nothing against them, but having them as a core race seems kind of out of place when they have never been anything but a very minor race (if included at all) in any setting I've used.  Do you want Tieflings in the phb?


----------



## Horacio (Aug 24, 2007)

As a Planescape fan, I can only say "Yes!"


----------



## Bavix (Aug 24, 2007)

*No Tieflings*

Hell no!


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 24, 2007)

Yes, I think it's a great move - and not just because I'm a Planescape fan. I like what it implies about the importance of fiends to the "core feel" of Fourth Edition.


----------



## Szatany (Aug 24, 2007)

Depends on the alternative. If I'd have to choose between tieflings and half-orcs or gnomes, then definitely tieflings. If between them and drow, I'd gladly pick the drow.


----------



## Jer (Aug 24, 2007)

Where's the response for "Don't Care"?

Seriously - as long as there are rules for humans in the core, I don't really care what other races they put in there.  They could have the Flumph as a core PC race and it wouldn't bother me ... much.  Other than trying to figure out how a Flumph fighter is going to wear plate armor, I suppose.


----------



## The_Gunslinger658 (Aug 24, 2007)

Hi-

I said no because there is no Half-Celestial to counter-balance the Tiefling, include the Half-Celestial and then I will vote yes.


Scott


----------



## crazy_cat (Aug 24, 2007)

Yes.

If having Tieflings in the PHB is the price we have to pay to lose Gnomes - then I'm all for it.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 24, 2007)

Like all races, it depends on the campaign.  In my current _Planescape_ campaign, of course I want tieflings; one of the main antagonists is a tiefling incarnate.

If I'm running a _Dragonlance_ campaign, then not particularly.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Aug 24, 2007)

What the heck is a Tiefling, anyway?  I've never actually used or read about the race.  I'm curious as to why people would feel strongly about it being a core race, one way or the other.


----------



## Green Knight (Aug 24, 2007)

I'm all for it... so long as Aasimar's are included, as well.


----------



## Midknightsun (Aug 24, 2007)

Put me in the "I really don't care, but if they end up booting gnomes for it then YAHOOOO!" camp.  While their at it, maybe they can replace Half-Orcs, or at least retool them so they are not mostly suck.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 24, 2007)

I'll let you know when I see what they've done with them.


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 24, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I'll let you know when I see what they've done with them.




Yes. assuming I care that mutch one way or another.


----------



## FreeXenon (Aug 24, 2007)

I like the idea as long as they have the Aasimar as well. I bet that they will have a Plane Touched race that will have Aaismar and Tiefling, and possibly a few more types, defined more through Talent trees.

Just a thought.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 24, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> What the heck is a Tiefling, anyway?  I've never actually used or read about the race.  I'm curious as to why people would feel strongly about it being a core race, one way or the other.



In prior editions, at least, a tiefling was a human with fiendish heritage. It was never outright stated, but the general assumption is that you get a tiefling when a half-fiend mates with a human, and that the "fiendish heritage" continues to express itself for generations afterward - so any given tiefling may have only a fiendish great-great-great-great-grandparent.

Fourth Edition press has referred to the "half-demon" tiefling, but this may be dumbed-down marketing verbiage for the non-_D&D_-gamer market (since we're talking about ICv2 and InQuest magazine, here). On the other hand, they may well have redefined the tiefling as "half-fiends and subsequent generations", since the promotional art seems more dramatically fiendish - larger horns and tails - than previous conceptions, such as the example in the current _Monster Manual_.


----------



## FreeXenon (Aug 24, 2007)

or perhaps they can gain half-fiendish status through a series of racial talents and feats?


----------



## drothgery (Aug 24, 2007)

About the only things I've heard about 4e that I'm less than enthusiastic about are tieflings as a core race, and non-LG paladins (though I wouldn't mind a holy warrior class where the paladins were the LG version). I guess I think D&D is supposed to be a heroic game that's about the good guys.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 24, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> What the heck is a Tiefling, anyway?  I've never actually used or read about the race.  I'm curious as to why people would feel strongly about it being a core race, one way or the other.



 It's in the 3.5 Monster Manual, under "Planetouched", alongside their celestial counterparts, the Aasimar.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 24, 2007)

I like the name _Cambion_ better.

The "ling" part at the end bothers me, because I think of Halflings, which makes me think of Hobbits, and then I get a cramp.


----------



## FreeXenon (Aug 24, 2007)

I really like the thought of the Non-Lawful-Good Paladins. They have had them in pretty much every edition of the game in one form or another. Even if the players never play the non-Goody-Two-Shoes paladins, it gives the other organizations their champions.

Come one y'all - Orcus and druidic circles both need champions to sow death and balance in the world.... Who better than the 'righteous' Paladin to zealously do this fulfill their master's needs.


----------



## Grazzt (Aug 24, 2007)

Nope. Don't like tieflings. Leave 'em for another book if ya have to.


----------



## Psion (Aug 24, 2007)

Horacio said:
			
		

> As a Planescape fan, I can only say "Yes!"




As a Planescape fan, I can only say no.


----------



## Aeric (Aug 24, 2007)

If it makes sense for tieflings to be common in 4e's implied setting, then I'm all for including them in the core books.  If not, then no.


----------



## Stormborn (Aug 24, 2007)

Yes.  And it has nothing to do with DnD's cosmology.  
Beings of demonic or divine heritage are a staple of fantasy and mythology and I have been longing to run a campaign playing on those themes of secret heritages, anceint rivalries, and an inherited struggle that the characters may or may not want.  I just haven't done it yet. If tieflings are included as a race playable at first level I hope a celestial version is as well (and I think I have seen refrences to 'eladrin' as replacements for aasimar), but if they dont I can adapt one easilly enough from the tiefling.  In fact (sight unseen so take it for what thats worth) my first 4e campaign will likely revolve around those themes and prominently feature tieflings, eladrin, and other races with a connection to the celestial/infernal war.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 24, 2007)

I voted yes, but only so long as they replace gnomes. We can't just keep adding races. Also the name 'tiefling' must be changed, call them the Hellborn or something.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Aug 24, 2007)

Honestly, I'm totally indifferent.  But since that's not an option, I chose yes because I'd rather have more options than less.  Who knows, maybe having tieflings as a core race will give some insight into creating other monsters into PC races.


----------



## Felon (Aug 24, 2007)

OK, please clarify something for me. Do we have any indication that tieflings will be a core race beyond seeing something with horns on the cover of the PHB?

Having planetouched as a core race would dovetail nicely with paladins having their alignment restrictions broadened.

What I suspect we'll see the current punitive favored class system replaced by some bonus ability you get by taking levels in the favored class. That's what I think the Friend of Earth, Elven Evasion, Half-Elf Inspiring Presence are references to.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 24, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> I like the name _Cambion_ better.




Not the same thing.

Cambion is the name of the old male half-fiends from 2e (which were just called half-fiend in 3e, and given more options). Tieflings are merely planetouched - not half-fiend. Maybe one eigth. The fiendish incursion into their bloodline is a ways back - and it doesn't have to be a demon. Any evil outsider will suffice.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 24, 2007)

I'd personally lean towards making them a non-core race. It's not the end of the world, unless something more important (like gnomes) had to make way for it.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 24, 2007)

I keep reading the thread title as "Do you want tieflings in the pub?"

The answer would have to be no as I feel they lower the tone of the establishment.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 24, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Not the same thing.
> 
> Cambion is the name of the old male half-fiends from 2e (which were just called half-fiend in 3e, and given more options). Tieflings are merely planetouched - not half-fiend. Maybe one eigth. The fiendish incursion into their bloodline is a ways back - and it doesn't have to be a demon. Any evil outsider will suffice.




I know; I just like the name Cambion better than Tiefling, and as the name Cambion isn't currently being used…


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 24, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I keep reading the thread title as "Do you want tieflings in the pub?"
> 
> The answer would have to be no as I feel they lower the tone of the establishment.




Totally, and they always monopolize any of the recreational options (pool, darts etc).

And the rampant shagging behind the dustbins is very off-putting.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 24, 2007)

Not particularly.  I think their origins are rather too specific to make a good core race for generic use.


----------



## hexgrid (Aug 24, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Not particularly.  I think their origins are rather too specific to make a good core race for generic use.




It's not nearly as specific as half-orcs.


----------



## Shadeydm (Aug 24, 2007)

I don't think they need to be in the PHB I, PHB II or III would be just fine.

If they are going to be in the PHB I vote for a better name Teifling sounds lame and looks wrong.


----------



## delericho (Aug 24, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> And the rampant shagging behind the dustbins is very off-putting.




Then maybe you should stop.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 24, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Not particularly.  I think their origins are rather too specific to make a good core race for generic use.




I kind of agree with Umbran, but I voted yes...since they were cool in Dawnforge.  But it's a yes with a caveat, I would want the Aasimar in there as well...it just seems right if both are in the book.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 24, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> Then maybe you should stop.




I've tried, but there are so many hot tiefling chicks here in London!


----------



## The_Gneech (Aug 24, 2007)

No. "Planetouched" of any variety should be extreme fringe characters, not one of the basic choices right out of the box. Put 'em in the _Monster Manual_.

-The Gneech


----------



## Nifft (Aug 24, 2007)

Sure, why not? I'm willing to give WotC the benefit of the doubt.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Sigdel (Aug 24, 2007)

I voted no. D&D has enough Angst-ridden suck-boys as it is without having to add them in the PHB.
If they are, you might as well add in drow so they both can have the whole "ARRRG! Woe is me! I was born from evil, but I am good! Gosh darn my heritage! What is the fantasy version of Hot-Topic? For I wish to mope." thing going on.


----------



## Malhost Zormaeril (Aug 24, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> About the only things I've heard about 4e that I'm less than enthusiastic about are tieflings as a core race, and non-LG paladins (though I wouldn't mind a holy warrior class where the paladins were the LG version). I guess I think D&D is supposed to be a heroic game that's about the good guys.




Hear, hear.  I was less than enthusiastic about dropping Gnomes, as I'm a fan of those, but I won't argue this here.  The non-LG paladins I'm very much less than enthusiastic about -- very nearly depressed, really.  The Tieflings as a core race with nary a mention of Aasimar is like the icing on the cake, here -- I know there is a market for kids who want to play 3B1L super-powered fiends and create a reign of terror, and I don't particularly care for it -- but the thing about D&D being about the heroes, rather than the villains, is right on the money for me.  YMMV, though.


----------



## GreatLemur (Aug 24, 2007)

I'm cool with 'em.  I'm _not_ too excited by the fact that the 4E tiefling art we've seen kind of suggests that _all_ tieflings have the exact same non-human features (that doesn't make a lotta sense to me, considering how varied fiends are), but that's probably a bit of a premature judgement.

Also, I'm really hoping aasimars are in.  It seems dumb to include tieflings without 'em.  They've gotta do something to make 'em a little more interesting, though.  "Like humans, but prettier and more noble-looking" is boring as hell.



			
				Sigdel said:
			
		

> I voted no. D&D has enough Angst-ridden suck-boys as it is without having to add them in the PHB.
> If they are, you might as well add in drow so they both can have the whole "ARRRG! Woe is me! I was born from evil, but I am good! Gosh darn my heritage! What is the fantasy version of Hot-Topic? For I wish to mope." thing going on.



Well, I've gotta agree, I am really sick of that crap.  I deeply, _deeply_ wish D&D could leave behind this absurd (and, honestly, kind of creepy) idea about evil being a genetic quality.  I've always been really annoyed by stuff like that "Most half-orcs are evil and violent, but some struggle against their natural inclinations and try to be heroes!" fluff.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 24, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> Also, I'm really hoping aasimars are in.




Well it looks like eladrins (formerly aasimar) are in as a  PC race.


----------



## Malhost Zormaeril (Aug 24, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Well it looks like eladrins (formerly aasimar) are in as a  PC race.




Huh, Eladrin is the new word for Aasimar?    To me, they were the Celestial race natural to Olympus/Arvandor...  Living and learning, living and learning.

Hey, maybe they can change "Tiefling" to "Yugoloth"!  It would certainly be cooler, and I heard very very little of those fellows in 3e...


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 24, 2007)

Sigdel said:
			
		

> I voted no. D&D has enough Angst-ridden suck-boys as it is without having to add them in the PHB.
> If they are, you might as well add in drow so they both can have the whole "ARRRG! Woe is me! I was born from evil, but I am good! Gosh darn my heritage! What is the fantasy version of Hot-Topic? For I wish to mope." thing going on.




Ditto for Half Orc.

I think quasi-evil races and especially ones with planar heritages should be in future supplements and not the core books.

It's better to beef up Gnomes and Half Elves than it is to add in crap races, and even Half Elves should be dropped (half races in general should be dropped in favor of actual races).

Where's the angst ridden Dwarf half boy???

Tieflings are just lame, were not even in several of the settings, and the main reason for people to take them was Alter Self. Talk about metagaming.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 24, 2007)

hexgrid said:
			
		

> It's not nearly as specific as half-orcs.




Just last week I got to explain to my wife and 11 and 13-year old nephews sometimes the snarling psychotic baboon-men in the Monster Manual. . . well . . . uh . . . you see, sometimes they _fall in love_ with regular people. And have babies and stuff. 

At least with the Tieflings, I can point to the succubus picture and we can assume it was consensual


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 24, 2007)

Malhost Zormaeril said:
			
		

> Hey, maybe they can change "Tiefling" to "Yugoloth"!




No, no, I can't stand those silly comic book names (baatezu, tanar’ri, and especially yugoloth) made up to appease the D&D is satanic crowd in the early 90's.

I also want my Typed demons back, where the Balor is simply the name of one Type VI demon!


----------



## Klaus (Aug 24, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Just last week I got to explain to my wife and 11 and 13-year old nephews sometimes the snarling psychotic baboon-men in the Monster Manual. . . well . . . uh . . . you see, sometimes they _fall in love_ with regular people. And have babies and stuff.
> 
> At least with the Tieflings, I can point to the succubus picture and we can assume it was consensual



 I'd go one step further and instead of tieflings have a "inheritor" race. You choose your heritage from Celestial, Fiendish, Fey or Giant.


----------



## Felon (Aug 24, 2007)

OK, let's clear some stuff up...


			
				Malhost Zormaeril said:
			
		

> The Tieflings as a core race with nary a mention of Aasimar is like the icing on the cake, here.



As far as I can tell, we've heard nary a mention of tieflings being a core race either. The PHB cover illo shows a character with horns, and folks have already leapt to conclusions based on that. 

At least that seems to be the case. I asked for some sources a page back and was given none.



			
				Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Well it looks like eladrins (formerly aasimar) are in as a  PC race.



What's your source for that?


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 24, 2007)

Sure.

ANY non-Tolkienesque race in the PHB is a plus in my book, even gnomes (ESPECIALLY gnomes if they were more explicitly Dragonlance- or Warcraft-style mechanic-gnomes).  Unusual ones like tieflings are doubly valuable.  They all demonstrate that the game is, or at least can be, bigger than any one vision of fantasy.

If I were doing a PHB I'd include at a minimum the 'standard four' (human, dwarf, elf and halfling) plus mechanic-oriented gnomes, some type of demon-blooded, some type of angel/spirit-blooded, a cute critter/mascot race, at least one anthropomorphic animal race, warforged and orcs.

Now, with that said, tieflings themselves do exactly squat for me.   The IDEA of demon-blooded humanoids is cool and has powerful literary and popular grounding, but the actual Planescape-tied implementation to date leaves me anything but enthused.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 24, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> What's your source for that?




Scroll down to the 12th post and read the line just below the picture:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=204241


----------



## Mercule (Aug 24, 2007)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Nope. Don't like tieflings. Leave 'em for another book if ya have to.




There is deep irony in the source and message, here.  Isn't Grazzt just about the most um... fertile of the demon princes?  



			
				The_Gneech said:
			
		

> No. "Planetouched" of any variety should be extreme fringe characters, not one of the basic choices right out of the box. Put 'em in the _Monster Manual_.




This pretty well sums it up for me.  I'd gladly play or allow a tiefling character.  The PHB races should represent the most common races, though, not fringers, no matter how "cool".

The best thing about having tieflings in the PHB is that they aren't drow, which don't even have the benefit of being cool or interesting.  Drow -- the only race more annoying than tinker gnomes.


----------



## TheArcane (Aug 24, 2007)

I voted no... It just doesn't fit well for me. We have humans... dwarves... elves... and fiendish horned humanoids with tails and cloven feet, at least that's how tieflings are currently portrayed on the PHB cover. Variety is good and all, but this is a bit too much and should be in some supplement, not core. The essence of D&D, be it deeply rooted in Tolkienisms as it is, should not IMHO be thrown away just for the sake of popularity and coolness. I'm sure the inclusion of the tiefling as a core race has absolutely no effect on the mechanics of the rest of the game, except maybe filling a "favored class" slot, if it still exists.


----------



## Tewligan (Aug 24, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I'll let you know when I see what they've done with them.



Piratecat, your attitude of waiting to see what 4e is like before passing judgement on it is really inappropriate in the 4e discussions taking place here. If some 4e snark doesn't start really soon, you'll be reported to the mods.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 24, 2007)

As a race, no. As a bloodlines style evolving template that could be added to any base race, yes. 

My main issue with planetouched is the strong implication in the art and descriptions that only humans have any planar mingling. Give me an even shot at a "Tiefling halfling" and an "assimar dwarf" and I'm all for it. A single race called tiefling? No thank you.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 24, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Just last week I got to explain to my wife and 11 and 13-year old nephews sometimes the snarling psychotic baboon-men in the Monster Manual. . . well . . . uh . . . you see, sometimes they _fall in love_ with regular people. And have babies and stuff.
> 
> At least with the Tieflings, I can point to the succubus picture and we can assume it was consensual



Wow. I can see how hard it would have been to say "that picture is of a big mean warrior in the middle of a fight, and there is a whole race that does look kinda funny but are still people and in this story people of all kinds make babies with each other...."

The assumption that all half orcs come from rape (of a human woman of course, because a human man would never touch an orc woman during a (retaliatory and deserved, obviously) village raid) has always struck me as more of an advertisement of the speaker's imaginative shortcomings than the "telling it like it is" it's so often advertised as.  

But of course, mental domination power aside, sex with succubi must be consensual, because they're HOT.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 24, 2007)

_*re: Tolkein roots*_

Wait, people are arguing that the PHB shouldn't leave its Tolkein roots and are complaining about the Tiefling?

What are the Maia then? What about Merlin? In many mythologies, Merlin was a cambion in D&D terms. As an aside, why the seemingly kneejerk reaction if D&D even thinks about incorporating "new" fantasy concepts. When D&D was created, LotR was the defining fantasy gateway for people but nowadays, for good or for worse, things like Warhammer and Warcraft are people's first introudction to fantasy. Why not use elements from said mythologies especially given how many of them shamelessly used D&D/Tolkein elements.

_*re: Tiefling appearance.*_
In the planewalker's handbook, there was a table that listed both physical appearance traits and possible powers. Thus, it was possible for a tiefling to have cloven feet AND wings AND a tail or just have 4 digits on their hands/feet and yet both were considered tieflings.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 24, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> I know; I just like the name Cambion better than Tiefling, and as the name Cambion isn't currently being used…




"....I thought I'd confuse the heck out of people."?


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 24, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> What are the Maia then?




Angels, maybe even deities. Not half-breeds.


----------



## Gryffyn (Aug 24, 2007)

Put me down for "sure, why not?"  I'm in favor of a broader spectrum of core races, and replacing either gnomes or half-orcs with tieflings is a good start.

I'm also in favor of dropping the half-elf, and replacing it with something a little more exotic.


----------



## delericho (Aug 24, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> If I were doing a PHB I'd include at a minimum the 'standard four' (human, dwarf, elf and halfling) plus mechanic-oriented gnomes, some type of demon-blooded, some type of angel/spirit-blooded, a cute critter/mascot race, at least one anthropomorphic animal race, warforged and orcs.




Ooh, I like that selection! I might also add something like the Catacae (from Meiville's Perdido Street Station and other books).


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 24, 2007)

Sigdel said:
			
		

> I voted no. D&D has enough Angst-ridden suck-boys as it is without having to add them in the PHB.
> If they are, you might as well add in drow so they both can have the whole "ARRRG! Woe is me! I was born from evil, but I am good! Gosh darn my heritage! What is the fantasy version of Hot-Topic? For I wish to mope." thing going on.




Bah. When I play drow I usually go. "I was born from evil, and evil I am. Now let's see what you look like on the inside." Or "While some idiots say I'm born from evil, I'm not. And neither am I evil. If you have a problem with it, self-defense isn't evil."

Oh, and I have spell in my campaign. "Slay Living Cliche".


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 24, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I'd go one step further and instead of tieflings have a "inheritor" race. You choose your heritage from Celestial, Fiendish, Fey or Giant.




What would you inherit from a Giant, except large feet?


----------



## Jer (Aug 24, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Scroll down to the 12th post and read the line just below the picture:
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=204241





Okay, wait a second -

Have we had any confirmation that the images on the jump drives that Wizards handed out all give images of player characters?  Eladrin is a creature type after all, with roots back to second edition.  In fact, one of the images in the thread is of a beholder - and I really, really doubt that we're going to see beholder PCs in the 4e PHB.  The "Eladrin Wizard" in the picture could easily be some snipped from the Monster Manual or something.

You could make all kinds of speculations from that image -- Eladrin are already a type of "Celestial Elf" sort of creature.  Going by just the image, you could just as easily speculate that Elves get to transform into Eladrin when they hit the top of their "racial progression" in 4e and become Celestial beings.


----------



## Sigdel (Aug 24, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> No, no, I can't stand those silly comic book names (baatezu, tanar’ri, and especially yugoloth) made up to appease the D&D is satanic crowd in the early 90's.
> 
> I also want my Typed demons back, where the Balor is simply the name of one Type VI demon!




Yugoloth is a name from Call of Cthulhu. Or I think it is. I could be wrong.  
I hate the way most of the demons look in D&D. They seem so removed from what we view demons as that they are more like just another monster that you have to kill and not a FREAKIN DEMON.

Sorry, I ranted. But it's my birthday. I think I am allowed.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 24, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> As a race, no. As a bloodlines style evolving template that could be added to any base race, yes.




Now I know what's bothering me with all this: Planetouched as races instead of racial templates.

Well, It doesn't say anywhere that it's no template or anything similar. 

Wasn't there some talk about giving up some of your class features and getting stronger racial stuff? Maybe that's the tiefling. 

Or we get bloodline feats.


----------



## Awakened (Aug 24, 2007)

Holy crap, is this even.
Honestly, I don't think Tieflings should be core, but I voted yes for selfish reasons: I'm a Realms player for life, and Tieflings are a core Realms race, so I'm all for it. 
But why include Tieflings and shun Aasimars?! Charisma bonuses are so juicy!


----------



## Nebulous (Aug 24, 2007)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> No. "Planetouched" of any variety should be extreme fringe characters, not one of the basic choices right out of the box. Put 'em in the _Monster Manual_.
> 
> -The Gneech




I voted yes, only because i think it's a neat character concept, but as a DM, i would have to judge it on a case by case basis. If it doesn't fit the setting of the campaign then a player can't use it, even if it is a core race. 

For what it's worth, i like tiefling better than gnome.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 24, 2007)

Tewligan said:
			
		

> Piratecat, your attitude of waiting to see what 4e is like before passing judgement on it is really inappropriate in the 4e discussions taking place here. If some 4e snark doesn't start really soon, you'll be reported to the mods.



Sorry! I'll ban myself.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Aug 24, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> As a race, no. As a bloodlines style evolving template that could be added to any base race, yes.
> 
> My main issue with planetouched is the strong implication in the art and descriptions that only humans have any planar mingling. Give me an even shot at a "Tiefling halfling" and an "assimar dwarf" and I'm all for it. A single race called tiefling? No thank you.



Hey, thanks for dropping off my opinion in the thread, KB.

I'm all for "born of mingled immortal blood" being in the core as a race option, but surely they mate with non-humans too?


----------



## Felon (Aug 24, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Scroll down to the 12th post and read the line just below the picture:
> http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=204241



Thanks for the link. I"m not sure that's conclusive that eladrin are a core race, but assuming it is, then we may be looking at eladrin as the CG branch of planetouched. Again, I'm guessing there's some kind of parallel between planetouched on the multi-aligned paladin.


----------



## Mercule (Aug 24, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> What would you inherit from a Giant, except large feet?




Well, if you only get one enlarged feature, giant blood would explain the barmaids in some artwork.


----------



## talinthalas (Aug 24, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> OK, please clarify something for me. Do we have any indication that tieflings will be a core race beyond seeing something with horns on the cover of the PHB?




Yes it was stated by Rich Baker I believe that the tiefling will be in the PHB1.  And that is why he is on the cover of the PHB1.  And Orcus is on the cover of the MM1.  Does anyone remember what was on the DMG?

Talinthalas


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Aug 24, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Wow. I can see how hard it would have been to say "that picture is of a big mean warrior in the middle of a fight, and there is a whole race that does look kinda funny but are still people and in this story people of all kinds make babies with each other...."
> 
> The assumption that all half orcs come from rape (of a human woman of course, because a human man would never touch an orc woman during a (retaliatory and deserved, obviously) village raid) has always struck me as more of an advertisement of the speaker's imaginative shortcomings than the "telling it like it is" it's so often advertised as.
> 
> But of course, mental domination power aside, sex with succubi must be consensual, because they're HOT.



Your orcs are welcome to be people, man.

Mine are born in deep holes in the earth, mockeries of men crafted by the hate and rage of the Horned Lord, Breaker of Walls and Reaver of Cities, an ancient horror buried under the bleak mountain range known to the world as The Crags. They take what they want when they want, regard humans roughly as a steak you get to torture to death first, and they don't have womenfolk. So, assumption holds.

My succubi however lie like, well, demons. And pretend to be loved ones. So yes again.

You can stick your 'imaginative shortcomings' in your _bag of holding_, chief. Some of us keep post-modernism largely out of their non-Planescape milieus.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 24, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> Your orcs are welcome to be people, man.
> 
> Mine are born in deep holes in the earth, mockeries of men crafted by the hate and rage of the Horned Lord, Breaker of Walls and Reaver of Cities, an ancient horror buried under the bleak mountain range known to the world as The Crags. They take what they want when they want, regard humans roughly as a steak you get to torture to death first, and they don't have womenfolk. So, assumption holds.
> 
> ...



Your orcs are homebrewed, and you are welcome to them. Bye now.


----------



## der_kluge (Aug 24, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Sure, why not? I'm willing to give WotC the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> Cheers, -- N





You say this after having seen what they did to the 3rd edition Bard??  Wow, that's a whole lotta faith, mister.


I say absolutely not.  Even if they do end up there, I won't allow them.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 24, 2007)

Continuing along ...

I notice that one of the big design drivers of 4E is to have race matter more than in 3E (where whatever racial bonuses you have are swamped by your class bonuses before long).

As mentioned in a different thread, this may take the form of some kind of "Racial Talent Trees."  As in, there's a Dwarf talent tree, an Elf Talent tree, etc.

Well, what if there's also a Fiendish Blood, a Fey Blood, and a Celestial Blood talent tree, which is available to all races?

So, a tiefling (as pictured on the front of the PHB) is just a Human who's taken the first couple Fiendish Blood talents instead of the Human talents?


----------



## Kesh (Aug 24, 2007)

Sigdel said:
			
		

> Yugoloth is a name from Call of Cthulhu. Or I think it is. I could be wrong.




You may be thinking of Y'golonac. (Not entirely worksafe image, there.)


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 24, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> So, a tiefling (as pictured on the front of the PHB) is just a Human who's taken the first couple Fiendish Blood talents instead of the Human talents?




I hope so. I think races that are instantly customisable would be cool and sell like hot cakes.


That way they could do several bloodlines - fey, demon, devil, archon, eladrin....


As for orcs: D&D usually defines them as bloodthirsty savages who gather in hordes to be slaughtered by low-level heroes raid the goodly races' nations. The origin of half-orcs is never spelled out in the core rules (though Midnight all but does it), but I don't think the average D&D scenario allows for drunken passion or harmonious mixed-race marriages as the major cause for those half-breeds.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Aug 24, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Your orcs are homebrewed, and you are welcome to them. Bye now.



I mulled this over a bit, tossing a couple replies around in my head, variations of "well of course they are; I'm the DM", and "adherence to fluff doesn't make you not rude" largely, but I decided eventually that I don't want to play the rhetorical points game on the internet any more.

So I'll concede that they are, and that 'Always Chaotic Evil' doesn't really mean always (sure sets a good baseline assumption though), and invite you to drown me and everybody else in all the condescension you can muster in the name of the Orcish Civil Liberties Union. Because ultimately, none of this matters if it doesn't go down at the table, polyhedrons flying.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Aug 24, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Continuing along ...
> 
> I notice that one of the big design drivers of 4E is to have race matter more than in 3E (where whatever racial bonuses you have are swamped by your class bonuses before long).
> 
> ...



See now, that would be awesome.

And further proof my last computer crashed because the WotC design team stole my house rules document from it with evil magic.


----------



## The Souljourner (Aug 24, 2007)

They're probably dropping Gnomes, which I think is a good thing.  They're not different enough from halflings or dwarves to be significant.   I'd say drop the Half Elf as a mechanic as well.  No one ever plays them, they have absolutely no flavor of their own.  If you want to play a half elf, pick one of your parent races, take those stats, and say you're half the other thing.  Bam, done.  Drop Half Orcs, they're not appropriate as generic PCs, in my opinion.  If you later want them in an expansion, fine.  but there's no need for them in the PHB.

So, that leaves us with Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfing.  All very distinct and very playable.  The problem is that that's only 4.  If it were up to me, I'd leave it at 4 and give racial feats/talent trees to uniquify them... Let the expansions give unusual races, hell, have a whole book of unusual PC Races.... I bet it would sell like hotcakes.   Leave core D&D core D&D.  Tieflings are not core D&D.

-Nate


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 24, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> So I'll concede that they are, and that 'Always Chaotic Evil' doesn't really mean always




They're just "often chaotic evil". 

Still, I can't count the stories I've read or heard of of friendly orcs falling in love with humans. And that's because I cannot count to nothing.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 24, 2007)

The Souljourner said:
			
		

> They're probably dropping Gnomes, which I think is a good thing.  They're not different enough from halflings or dwarves to be significant.




So let's drop the dwarves.   



> No one ever plays them, they have absolutely no flavor of their own.  If you want to play a half elf, pick one of your parent races, take those stats, and say you're half the other thing.  Bam, done.




I wouldn't call "best of both worlds" or "being caught between two stools" no flavour, and I'm not against half-races, especially if they have a long history in D&D and other stories as well.


----------



## GreatLemur (Aug 24, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> Mine are born in deep holes in the earth, mockeries of men crafted by the hate and rage of the Horned Lord, Breaker of Walls and Reaver of Cities, an ancient horror buried under the bleak mountain range known to the world as The Crags. They take what they want when they want, regard humans roughly as a steak you get to torture to death first, and they don't have womenfolk.



But, wait, why would things like that even be _interested_ in womenfolk?  Except as food, of course.

That's a big part of my problem with half-orcs, actually: Even in campaigns where orcs are normal, biological creatures, they generally look pretty different from humans.  _Really_ different.  So, reasonably, human women would look about as appealing to them as vice versa.


----------



## Blind Azathoth (Aug 24, 2007)

Sigdel said:
			
		

> Yugoloth is a name from Call of Cthulhu. Or I think it is. I could be wrong.
> I hate the way most of the demons look in D&D. They seem so removed from what we view demons as that they are more like just another monster that you have to kill and not a FREAKIN DEMON.
> 
> Sorry, I ranted. But it's my birthday. I think I am allowed.




Yugoloth isn't exactly a Cthulhu Mythos name, although it definitely is evocative of the style of naming for Lovecraft's "gods," and of some specific entities, like Y'golonoc (as Kesh pointed dout) or Yog-Sothoth, though it's actually closest to the name of a planet, Yuggoth. It's one of the reasons I like the name Yugoloth so much better than "Daemon."

(And happy birthday!)


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 24, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> They're just "often chaotic evil".
> 
> Still, I can't count the stories I've read or heard of of friendly orcs falling in love with humans. And that's because I cannot count to nothing.



I can't count the stories I've read about D&D characters mining for gold or silver, so I'll just assume that all precious metals in the world comes from dragon's hordes...   Yes, it's perfectly legitamate to say that your half* was born from war rape and be angsty about it. The idea that this is therefore the only explanation when orcs in the current edition are an "often evil" race (less commonly evil than drow), not a demon spawned abomination is what's silly to me.

*Tanis half elven was a war rape child, but thats not the default half elf explaination - because elves are pretty and humans must be acceptable to them?

edit : And why the false dicotomy between "rape" and "falling in love"? You think human mercaneries turn down the orcish camp followers when they stop to trade? You think an orc's gold is any worse than a stinky dwarf's who hasn't changed his armor since he got back from campaign to a whore in a port city? I'm not skipping the "gritty" explainations for halfbreeds, I'm just aknowledging all of them.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Aug 24, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> They're just "often chaotic evil".
> 
> Still, I can't count the stories I've read or heard of of friendly orcs falling in love with humans. And that's because I cannot count to nothing.



 

That'll learn me to read the MM more often. Since I can stat an orc up to about level 5 in my sleep - I like fights with orcs, what can I say - I just don't read the entries any more.



--------------------
And I'd miss half-elves a lot, having made about a quarter of my characters in that middle space between the Elder Races and the world of men. They strike me as the most likely to adventure - hell, my favorite was a third generation professional adventurer! Plus, we know they're in, so calls for their deletion are just sour grapes.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 24, 2007)

Blind Azathoth said:
			
		

> Yugoloth isn't exactly a Cthulhu Mythos name




Agreed. Yugoloth is far too proncounceable.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 24, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> I can't count the stories I've read about D&D characters mining for gold or silver




There's plenty. Not all of them heroes, I give you that, but NPCs are characters, too.   

Plus, if you never saw anyone mining, what are your dwarves doing to work up a thirst?


----------



## delericho (Aug 24, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> That's a big part of my problem with half-orcs, actually: Even in campaigns where orcs are normal, biological creatures, they generally look pretty different from humans.  _Really_ different.  So, reasonably, human women would look about as appealing to them as vice versa.




In general, I've seen something of a continuum, from the very human-looking Orcs to the not-at-all human-looking Orcs, and everything in between. So, it strikes me as not impossible. Also, IRL a lot of people are attracted to larger, stronger 'protector' types, and in a more egalitarian fantasy universe that may be more pronounced. Similarly, a lot of people find the idea of 'rescuing the damsel in distress' similarly attractive. So, I think that works somewhat.

In addition, in campaigns where the two races live in reasonably close proximity, it is entirely possible that humans will become integrated into an Orc tribe as some sort of slave class, or conversely that Orcs will live as an underclass in Human cities. It's not unreasonable to think that a significant number of Half-orc children will thus be born.

And then, of course, there's all the rape that goes with various tribes invading one another all the time. I have no great problem with accepting crimes of that sort occur on both sides.

I go with much the same explanation for Half-elves, too, although my campaign also includes some of the stuff from one of the early 3e Dragon magazines, which said that young elves would often go on 'exploratory' tours into the human world where they would experiment. So, I assume lots of half-elves result from those.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Aug 24, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> But, wait, why would things like that even be _interested_ in womenfolk?  Except as food, of course.
> 
> That's a big part of my problem with half-orcs, actually: Even in campaigns where orcs are normal, biological creatures, they generally look pretty different from humans.  _Really_ different.  So, reasonably, human women would look about as appealing to them as vice versa.



Because they're intentionally a mockery of men, fashioned by their unfathomed master to bring death, ruin, and misery to the children of those who bound him to the bones of the world. The act of love, of bringing more life to the world, becomes a savagery destined to birth a violent and shameful reminder should the would-be mother somehow survive the raid in general. Half-orcs that are actually -born- are rare, and those that survive to adulthood rarer still. 

They don't really know why they do what they do; theology and philosophy are largely beyond them. They raid, enslave, murder, rape, pillage, and destroy because it brings them a wordless exultation closest in sensation to a paladin's righteous certainty, though it is enough for them that they are orcs, and that is what orcs do. 

But I should really curb my threadjack. You folks talk about tieflings in the core.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 24, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> But, wait, why would things like that even be _interested_ in womenfolk?



Everyone knows Earth women are the most beautiful in the universe. That's why the BEMs are always coming here.

Well, apart from elves. It even says in the PHB that they have no body hair. I kid you not. Page 15.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Aug 24, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> edit : And why the false dicotomy between "rape" and "falling in love"? You think human mercaneries turn down the orcish camp followers when they stop to trade? You think an orc's gold is any worse than a stinky dwarf's who hasn't changed his armor since he got back from campaign to a whore in a port city? I'm not skipping the "gritty" explainations for halfbreeds, I'm just aknowledging all of them.



 

I REALLY think you meant excluded middle, chief.

And to that I say - if they have any other options, likely yes. The dwarf is a lot less likely to think of kidney punches as foreplay.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 24, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Do you want Tieflings in the phb?



I voted yes, even though I don't particularly care for tieflings. But:
I definitely appreciate that there is *some* new race in the PHB!


----------



## grimslade (Aug 24, 2007)

Tiefling in the PHB? Cool. Let's get all the bloodline races in there. Genasi, Aasimars, Fey-touched, Dragon-blooded and Far Realm Spawn. Or even better make gnomes into the Fey-touched race and give em a little more flavor than the current Hippy dwarves.


----------



## Malhost Zormaeril (Aug 24, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> No, no, I can't stand those silly comic book names (baatezu, tanar’ri, and especially yugoloth) made up to appease the D&D is satanic crowd in the early 90's.
> 
> I also want my Typed demons back, where the Balor is simply the name of one Type VI demon!




You're certainly entitled not to stand them, but I got into the hobby in 2nd Edition (92, if memory serves), and even now, after seven years of 3e, I still can't tell which are the Demons and which are the Devils...  so I still use the terms from 2nd Edition.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Aug 24, 2007)

Frack, no.

Demonic-based races have no business in the initial core book of a heroic game system.  Save them for a later supplement, Planar Handbook, or whatever.  And if you think they should be there to provide anti-hero fodder, I have one response: good drow.  Doesn't sound so hot now, does it?  

I'd much rather they kept the gnome than added the tiefling ... and I hate gnomes.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 24, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> And if you think they should be there to provide anti-hero fodder, I have one response: good drow.  Doesn't sound so hot now, does it?




Actually, yes.

The ONLY reason I didn't have drow listed in my theoretical PHB is because they're technically an elven subrace.  In retrospect, I think that may be a bit of bias creeping into my selections, so I'll formally add them to my list.

Drow, specifically good drow with two scimitars on the run from their evil kin, may annoy a great many 'veteran roleplayers' for reasons I don't quite understand but which seem related to annoyance at spiky hair and large weapons and the combination thereof, but they are associated with one of the most popular characters to ever come out of D&D.

If a new player comes into the game wanting to play a Drizzt clone, I say - kudos to him, and let's make it happen.


----------



## Felon (Aug 24, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> And if you think they should be there to provide anti-hero fodder, I have one response: good drow.  Doesn't sound so hot now, does it?



Sounds fine. Not sure what your point was, unless it's just that it's trendy to bash other trends that are popular.


----------



## Felon (Aug 24, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> You say this after having seen what they did to the 3rd edition Bard??  Wow, that's a whole lotta faith, mister.



As opposed to the 2nd-edition bard, or (yikes) the 1st-edition one? 

I suspect that 4e will decide to do the right thing with our little friends who like to play their lutes and sing while everyone else is in a bloodly slog.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 24, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> good drow.  Doesn't sound so hot now, does it?




Hot enough to evaporate wolfram.


----------



## mhensley (Aug 24, 2007)

Jhaelen said:
			
		

> I voted yes, even though I don't particularly care for tieflings. But:
> I definitely appreciate that there is *some* new race in the PHB!




Personally I've always wanted the lizardman to be a core race.  It takes the same place as the half-orc (big, strong, and dumb) and its a neutral race.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 24, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> If a new player comes into the game wanting to play a Drizzt clone, I say - kudos to him, and let's make it happen.




Drizzt clones are a myth. I'd say for every actual Drizzt clone out there there are about 10,000 people who bash good-aligned drow because they think drow should be CE outsiders with alignment "REALLY always CE, no exceptions, ever" and think that everyone not agreeing is having badwrongfun.

Haven't had any Drizzt clone. Had more than a few good drow. Among them there were no rangers, not that much two-weapon fighting and no scimitars I can remember. 


I say make drow a player character race in the core rules, have all the bashers leave the game in disgust, and make the community a better place for it.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Aug 24, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Personally I've always wanted the lizardman to be a core race.  It takes the same place as the half-orc (big, strong, and dumb) and its a neutral race.



With the new philosophy of balancing races from level 1 on, I whole-heartedly concur with this opinion.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 24, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> As opposed to the 2nd-edition bard, or (yikes) the 1st-edition one?




1st edition was where you had to dual class twice, right? So you had to, like, become a legendary fighter first, then a master thief, and finally unravel the most intricate arcane mysteries, and then you received the power to.... sing and dance and play the lute.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Aug 24, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> I like the name _Cambion_ better.
> 
> The "ling" part at the end bothers me, because I think of Halflings, which makes me think of Hobbits, and then I get a cramp.




Try eating more bananas.  The potassium helps with the cramps.    

Oh, and actually I like the Cambion option, too.  Don't know why--Tiefling sounds petty and immature to me.  Cambion evokes a stronger image to me.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Aug 24, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> 1st edition was where you had to dual class twice, right? So you had to, like, become a legendary fighter first, then a master thief, and finally unravel the most intricate arcane mysteries, and then you received the power to.... sing and dance and play the lute.




Fighter, then thief, then druid, actually, but yeah.  And it wasn't super-high level, but considerable enough.  It was basically a prestige-prestige class.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 24, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Drizzt clones are a myth.



Unfortunately, hot drow priestesses wearing silver chain mail bikinis and with S&M fetishes played by men are not a myth..... *shudder*


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 24, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> I have one response: good drow.  Doesn't sound so hot now, does it?



But the only problem with the good drow bit is it's been overdone. That's why we need tieflings. Then in five years time once the tiefling paladin bit has become cliche we move on to something else.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 24, 2007)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Don't know why--Tiefling sounds petty and immature to me.  Cambion evokes a stronger image to me.




Cambion sounds like a sweet.   "Get Cambion! Now with the Sugar Free template!"

I like Tiefling. I'm just glad that the Aasimar isn't called Hochling.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 24, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, hot drow priestesses wearing silver chain mail bikinis and with S&M fetishes played by men are not a myth..... *shudder*




What level did you get with that character, by the way?


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 24, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> But the only problem with the good drow bit is it's been overdone. That's why we need tieflings. Then in five years time once the tiefling paladin bit has become cliche we move on to something else.




You know what? My 11 and 14-year old players have never *once* heard of a 'good Drow'.

I say, _bring on _the Drow, the Tieflings, and the freakin' Goblins (oh please please please).


----------



## GreatLemur (Aug 24, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Personally I've always wanted the lizardman to be a core race.  It takes the same place as the half-orc (big, strong, and dumb) and its a neutral race.



I could definitely get behind that.  I dig lizardfolk, and that'd really help shift the balance of the PHB races away from "straight outta Tolkien" so that the tiefling doesn't look so out of place.

But then, I wouldn't even mind seeing warforged in there, if it weren't for the fact that they're an important part of Eberron's unique feel.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 24, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> I like Tiefling.




Honestly, I would _prefer _much cheesier 'comic book/video game' names like Demonspawn  or Hellion or what have you---the kind of thing that would appeal to my younger players while sending grognards into apoplexy.

It'll never happen...but that's what Rule Zero is for, I suppose


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Aug 24, 2007)

Awakened said:
			
		

> Holy crap, is this even.
> Honestly, I don't think Tieflings should be core, but I voted yes for selfish reasons: I'm a Realms player for life, and Tieflings are a core Realms race, so I'm all for it.
> But why include Tieflings and shun Aasimars?! Charisma bonuses are so juicy!



Tieflings had charisma bonuses back in 2nd editions.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 24, 2007)

I would prefer the name 'cambion' for the demon-descended as well.  Tiefling is too Planescapey for me to ever actually want to play one.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Aug 24, 2007)

One of Sigil's former Factols, Lhar is a half-orc and his parents were described as a blind human male, and his orcish wife.  They lived in the Hive, Sigil's ghetto and were really really poor.  They had to give Lhar up for adoption when his orcish mother got pregnant again.


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 24, 2007)

I went with Yes, but really it's more like a Sure, why not?  Sounds like fun.
-blarg


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 24, 2007)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> One of Sigil's former Factols, Lhar is a half-orc and his parents were described as a blind human male, and his orcish wife.



Kind of like Ben n' Alicia.


----------



## dagger (Aug 24, 2007)

I voted yes.

Its pretty even...


Yes 105  	52.24%
No   96 	 47.76%


----------



## Green Knight (Aug 24, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Kind of like Ben n' Alicia.




Or Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner. 

I assume Jennifer Garner must be blind. After all, how else could she marry Ben Affleck?


----------



## Agamon (Aug 24, 2007)

I wanted to vote, but I don't care either way.  Not sure what the big deal is.  They've bcome a staple of D&D in the past few years.


----------



## variant (Aug 24, 2007)

Seriously, why in the hell are people voting yes? Races are going to take up a good amount of space because of the level 20 class progression and would take up space from something else. Who here wants to see new Tiefling feats every single damn Supplement? Not me. 

Tiefling is a complete waste of space in both the core PHB and future supplements.

Would you people really feel comfortable if someone decided that they were going to play a Tiefling every single campaign?



			
				Agamon said:
			
		

> I wanted to vote, but I don't care either way.  Not sure what the big deal is.  They've bcome a staple of D&D in the past few years.




Uhm, no they haven't.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 24, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> What level did you get with that character, by the way?



  Dude, I skipped that and went straight for the "risen succubus" PC... the kinky drow look was just one possible option...


----------



## jeffh (Aug 24, 2007)

*Given* the new idea of progressive addition of racial features instead of LA, I think it's as good a way as any to showcase that.

Having said that I think post 126 has misunderstood how that progression will be handled. As I understand it, will be mostly the same as now with the addition of racial feats and alternative race-specific class features. I don't see why that would take up much more space than races do now, and to the extent it will, it seems to me it's a good use of that space anyway.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 24, 2007)

variant said:
			
		

> Would you people really feel comfortable if someone decided that they were going to play a Tiefling every single campaign?




If a player wanted to play a Tiefling in "every single campaign', then I would assume that they are *enjoying* the race, and therefore both the player and I would be grateful that the race was included in the core rules.

Anything else?


----------



## variant (Aug 24, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> If a player wanted to play a Tiefling in "every single campaign', then I would assume that they are *enjoying* the race, and therefore both the player and I would be grateful that the race was included in the core rules.
> 
> Anything else?




So, you would say the same thing about Drow?

I am sure *lots *of people would just *love *Drow to be Core.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 24, 2007)

variant said:
			
		

> So, you would say the same thing about Drow?
> 
> I am sure *lots *of people would just *love *Drow to be Core.



If drow were balanced and people wanted to play them, why not?

Why do happy players bother you so much?


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 24, 2007)

Drow got cool again with Eberron.  I'd be fine with it.


----------



## variant (Aug 24, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> If drow were balanced and people wanted to play them, why not?
> 
> Why do happy players bother you so much?




Lots of things make players happy. Giving out loot that goes above and beyond their level will make them 'happy'. Not everything that makes players happy is necessarily good for the campaign.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 24, 2007)

variant said:
			
		

> I am sure *lots *of people would just *love *Drow to be Core.



Drow would be a good choice for core but #1 for me would be warforged. The best new PC race for D&D since... hmm, 1974 I think.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 24, 2007)

variant said:
			
		

> So, you would say the same thing about Drow?
> 
> I am sure *lots *of people would just *love *Drow to be Core.




Absolutely, to both this and your earlier question.

Why the heck would I possibly care what the player decided to play?   If he was enjoying himself, what possible benefit would it be to the game for me to metaphorically swat him on the nose with a rolled-up magazine and say his fun was badwrong?  How could that possibly be anything OTHER than rude and obnoxious of me?

Now, if I chose to run a humans-only Sword and Sorcery game in the style of Lieber or Howard, and that player didn't decline to participate, he'd have to play a human same as everyone else.  But his normal racial choice would be no more obnoxious (or any of my damned business) than if he habitually played dwarves or elves.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 24, 2007)

variant said:
			
		

> Lots of things make players happy. Giving out loot that goes above and beyond their level will make them 'happy'. Not everything that makes players happy is necessarily good for the campaign.




We weren't talking about giving out too much treasure and throwing off game balance. 

We were talking about allowing players to choose races they enjoy---be it Drow, Tiefling or whatever.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 24, 2007)

Just as fantasy is becoming more mainstream, with the LotR movies, Harry Potter and WoW, so are what were once the wilder extremes of fantasy roleplaying, such as drow PCs, becoming closer to the roleplaying mainstream. I guess it's just to do with how long the idea has been around, and also people getting bored of the same-old.

Change in and of itself can be a good. To stick with the same thing time after time after time is what it means to be hackneyed or cliche. To be original is a good, and all that means is to do something new.


----------



## variant (Aug 24, 2007)

I don't want crap that I would never let people play taking up room in the Core Rulebooks and future supplements. It would be a waste of space that could be used for something better.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 24, 2007)

Why is Tieflings automatically crap?

Have you seen the rules for them?

Could you tone down the word choice?


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 24, 2007)

variant said:
			
		

> I don't want crap that I would never let people play taking up room in the Core Rulebooks and future supplements. It would be a waste of space that could be used for something better.




Ah, I understand our differences now.

With the exception of a specific campaign which restricted races (mutually agreed upon between my players and myself), the term _'let people play'_ would never cross my mind.


----------



## variant (Aug 24, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Why is Tieflings automatically crap?
> 
> Have you seen the rules for them?
> 
> Could you tone down the word choice?




Mechanics are just mechanics. The flavor of them sucks. I don't want teenage angst in my campaign.



			
				Wormwood said:
			
		

> Ah, I understand our differences now.
> 
> With the exception of a specific campaign which restricted races (mutually agreed upon between my players and myself), the term _'let people play'_ would never cross my mind.




So you would let someone play an Ilithid?


----------



## tsadkiel (Aug 24, 2007)

variant said:
			
		

> So you would let someone play an Ilithid?




I would.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 24, 2007)

variant said:
			
		

> Mechanics are just mechanics. The flavor of them sucks. I don't want teenage angst in my campaign.
> 
> 
> 
> So you would let someone play an Ilithid?



 Absolutely.

If he was willing to suck up the LA and the substandard hit dice, and be recognized as a member from a well-nigh-universally hated race or take steps to avoid same, I'd work with the player to get that done.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 24, 2007)

variant said:
			
		

> Mechanics are just mechanics. The flavor of them sucks. I don't want teenage angst in my campaign.




Explain your "teenage angst" comment, please, and why this is universal amongst all tiefling characters.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 24, 2007)

variant said:
			
		

> So you would let someone play an Ilithid?




A mind flayer balanced to be on par with the rest of the PHB races?

Assuming it fit the campaign (and I could make it work, I'm sure) I don't see why not.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 24, 2007)

variant said:
			
		

> So you would let someone play an Ilithid?




Not only WOULD I allow it, I HAVE allowed it, once with the default LA (which was absurd), once with the LA knocked down a bit by feel (which worked better but was still kind of boring for the player), and finally with a homebrew LA +3 version found on these very boards (which worked great).

Because that was an Ivalice game, mind flayer was actually one of the few non-human races that made sense (along with minotaur, goblin and awakened undead).  Orcs, elves, dwarves, halflings and gnomes were all out because they didn't fit the setting, whereas those four races were clearly available.


----------



## Gundark (Aug 24, 2007)

Where is the "neutral" option?


----------



## reanjr (Aug 24, 2007)

*No, but ok*

Voted no, but I'm not against it.  The races in the PHB make little difference to me as a DM or player.  If you want a "core" game, tieflings would make an interesting character choice.  If you want to customize your game with racial selection, then it does not matter.


----------



## variant (Aug 24, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Explain your "teenage angst" comment, please, and why this is universal amongst all tiefling characters.




What else do they have? They are just humans with a bad attitude and look "cool."


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 24, 2007)

I've played a medusa, an air elemental and a drider. And I've been in games with goblin, ogre, troll, stone giant, ghoul, vampire, rakshasa, barghest, slaad, chain devil, astral stalker and astral deva PCs.

The only real problem was the lack of balance in Savage Species and the LA system.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 24, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I've played a medusa, an air elemental and a drider. And I've been in games with goblin, ogre, troll, stone giant, ghoul, vampire, rakshasa, barghest, slaad, chain devil, astral stalker and astral deva PCs.




Awesome!

I've seen goblins, hobgoblins, dopplegangers, svirfneblin and a halfling ghoul all played as PCs.

Hat's off!


----------



## EricNoah (Aug 24, 2007)

Don't care either way.


----------



## variant (Aug 24, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I've played a medusa, an air elemental and a drider. And I've been in games with goblin, ogre, troll, stone giant, ghoul, vampire, rakshasa, barghest, slaad, chain devil, astral stalker and astral deva PCs.
> 
> The only real problem was the lack of balance in Savage Species and the LA system.




Never in my life as a DM would I let my players play any of those.


----------



## jeffh (Aug 24, 2007)

I'm not wild about really weird races myself, but a teifling isn't anywhere near as exotic a choice as some I've seen requested. As a rough guideline, if it's got opposable thumbs I'll at least consider it. I talked someone out of playing a unicorn once by making that point.


----------



## Shadeydm (Aug 24, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I've played a medusa, an air elemental and a drider. And I've been in games with goblin, ogre, troll, stone giant, ghoul, vampire, rakshasa, barghest, slaad, chain devil, astral stalker and astral deva PCs.
> 
> The only real problem was the lack of balance in Savage Species and the LA system.



None of which were in the PHB which just goes to show we don't need tieflings in it either and people will still be able to play them.


----------



## Felon (Aug 24, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Drizzt clones are a myth. I'd say for every actual Drizzt clone out there there are about 10,000 people who bash good-aligned drow because they think drow should be CE outsiders with alignment "REALLY always CE, no exceptions, ever" and think that everyone not agreeing is having badwrongfun.
> 
> Haven't had any Drizzt clone. Had more than a few good drow. Among them there were no rangers, not that much two-weapon fighting and no scimitars I can remember.



Like most folks who take pride in a close-minded stance, the folks going on about Drizz't clones don't really have their standards thought out that well. It doesn't have to be a dual-scimitar-wielding ranger. Doesn't even have to be good-aligned. Any drow PC is, to their mind, a Drizz't clone. Indeed, do we not have folks in this thread implying that a tiefling PC is only a step removed from being Drizz't clone?


----------



## variant (Aug 24, 2007)

jeffh said:
			
		

> I'm not wild about really weird races myself, but a teifling isn't anywhere near as exotic a choice as some I've seen requested. As a rough guideline, if it's got opposable thumbs I'll at least consider it. I talked someone out of playing a unicorn once by making that point.




It is exotic enough to not waste precious page space on in the Core PHB.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 24, 2007)

variant said:
			
		

> It is exotic enough to not waste precious page space on in the Core PHB.




If space is an issue, just drop a couple of the Tolkien retreads.

I nominate anything with 'half' in its name.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Aug 24, 2007)

variant said:
			
		

> Would you people really feel comfortable if someone decided that they were going to play a Tiefling every single campaign?



I would be really comfortable if someone wanted to play a tiefling every campaign, or a Githzerai, or an elf, or a dwarf or whatever.

Elves and dwarves are in the 3e PHB and there aren't elf and dwarf feats in every book.  Neither will there be Tiefling feats in every book.

And there's nothing "Teen angst" about tieflings, it's the players that make the characters too.  You can choose to play a tiefling any way you want.  They don't even have to be "emo" they could be all cheery and noble and oblivious to the fact that they are in fact part demon.  

As a PC race they have a lot more variety in types, simply because there's at least 50 different types of fiends, if not more.


----------



## Maliki (Aug 24, 2007)

Bavix said:
			
		

> Hell no!




Exactly.


----------



## Green Knight (Aug 24, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Like most folks who take pride in a close-minded stance, the folks going on about Drizz't clones don't really have their standards thought out that well. It doesn't have to be a dual-scimitar-wielding ranger. Doesn't even have to be good-aligned. Any drow PC is, to their mind, a Drizz't clone. Indeed, do we not have folks in this thread implying that a tiefling PC is only a step removed from being Drizz't clone?




I knew a player who once made a character who started as a Drizzt clone, but then morphed into an even cheesier character. Note that this was in AD&D. 

First he changed the race from Drow to Wood Elf, because Wood Elves got a Strength bonus. Then he went from a Ranger to a Fighter/Thief, because of Backstab, and his belief that Fighter/Thieves were just plain better than Rangers. Last but not least, instead of taking Scimitars, he took Katanas, which inflicted more damage than Scimitars. It was mind-blowing watching this guy work. He started with the base of making a Drizzt clone, and then tweaked him in the most munchkin ways he could think of. 

No point to this story. I just thought it was amusing.  

Incidentally, that character met his end during a game I was running in Myth Drannor. He got killed by an NPC from the Myth Drannor boxed set (a Halfling Thief). Did I mention that that player utterly despised Halflings?


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Aug 24, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Indeed, do we not have folks in this thread implying that a tiefling PC is only a step removed from being Drizz't clone?




Implying, heck, I came right out and said it, though with a caveat:

*Tieflings as anti-heroes are only one step removed from cliched angst-ridden playing-against-type good drow.*

Which is fine if that's how you want to roll, but it doesn't belong in the base core book for the game.  There are plenty of supplements coming to devote to that sort of thing.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 24, 2007)

variant said:
			
		

> What else do they have? They are just humans with a bad attitude and look "cool."




Apparently, my players have much more imagination than yours.  I've had elves which were not tree-huggers, halflings who weren't thieves, and dwarves who didn't grumble incessantly.

In fact, in the last game I ran, I had an all-warforged party except for their human Political Office ... I mean, wizard.  And *they* all managed to be different characters.

I take it you've never played Planscape: Torment before, and met Annah-of-the-Shadows?


----------



## variant (Aug 24, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> If space is an issue, just drop a couple of the Tolkien retreads.
> 
> I nominate anything with 'half' in its name.




All the half-races shouldn't even exist and just go poof, but that doesn't mean they should go about adding exotic races to replace them. Hell, the Gnome isn't Tolkein-esque and there's talk of it getting the boot.



			
				Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Elves and dwarves are in the 3e PHB and there aren't elf and dwarf feats in every book.  Neither will there be Tiefling feats in every book.




4th edition is not 3rd edition. 4th edition is going to be about advancing in both Race and Class.



			
				Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> And there's nothing "Teen angst" about tieflings, it's the players that make the characters too.  You can choose to play a tiefling any way you want.  They don't even have to be "emo" they could be all cheery and noble and oblivious to the fact that they are in fact part demon.




Then what is the point other than to metagame the things for their abilities?



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Apparently, my players have much more imagination than yours.
> 
> I take it you've never played Planscape: Torment before, and met Annah-of-the-Shadows?




So all your tieflings are Annah-of-the-Shadows ripoffs?


----------



## ruemere (Aug 24, 2007)

Either add "Can breed with about any other humanoid race in your monster book" to special qualities of Humans or turn all Half-something races into templates applied to source races (template would contain specific listing of what special quality from one race can be traded for another, and which specific qualities are impossible to inherit).

I like the concept of halfbreeds, but I don't like turning them into separate races, especially since halfbreeds are quite uncommon (and considering the fact that most half-something races were inferior in execution).

Also (this very personal) I hate game design where some races are best at playing certain classes. So, please, say NO to strong-yet-dumb races, strongly magical races, super-agile races. Each race should offer a variety of various abilities, usable equally by all classes.

Finally, I'm mostly OK with human-only LG-only paladins. It's just that should not be expected to be paragons of chivalry and at the same time significantly inferior to fighters.
I'm also fine with nonhuman nonLG paladins... it's just that champions of a cause should be champions, not a fighter-wannabes. For some cool ideas on how to refresh this stale concept, check Monte Cook's Champion class.
Oh, I'm not saying that I like MC's treatment (to me, Champions are still too limited), but they are a step in the right direction. Just like Oathsworn.

Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Aug 25, 2007)

variant said:
			
		

> Then what is the point other than to metagame the things for their abilities?



It's called role-playing, someone has a desire to pick a certain type of character they want to play.



			
				variant said:
			
		

> So all your tieflings are Annah-of-the-Shadows ripoffs?



Is every tiefling a feisty girl?  Are Kylie, Rhys, Neeshka, Alisohn Nilesia, Haer'Dalis or Enkillo the Sly anything like Annah?  No

Is Laraunna and any elven character anything like Legolas?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 25, 2007)

variant said:
			
		

> So all your tieflings are Annah-of-the-Shadows ripoffs?




Uh, no.  I'm just pointing you to a publicly-available, generally-well-known Tiefling who exhibits exactly 0% "Teen Angst."

In other words, I'm saying that your reasoning is unsound.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 25, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> What would you inherit from a Giant, except large feet?



 Helloooo, Powerful Build! 

A Giant scion (and there's a cool name for ya: Scion) would eventually gain stuff from Goliaths, Half-Ogres, Half-Giants, Eberron's Eneko or the norse Trollborn.


----------



## grimslade (Aug 25, 2007)

I don't get this 'save space for something else' argument. What else do you want in the PHB? 
More feats? More spells? Sub races? *yawn* At least a Tiefling or Aasimar has a little flavor rather than suburban dwarves or Beach elves. What is getting crowded out of a 300 pg PHB by having less than a page to the tiefling? Give me options for a character not another write -up of fireball except its made of ice.


----------



## Xyxox (Aug 25, 2007)

Better to have gnomes than tieflings.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Aug 25, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> I don't get this 'save space for something else' argument. What else do you want in the PHB?
> More feats? More spells? Sub races? *yawn* At least a Tiefling or Aasimar has a little flavor rather than suburban dwarves or Beach elves. What is getting crowded out of a 300 pg PHB by having less than a page to the tiefling? Give me options for a character not another write -up of fireball except its made of ice.




Indications from the "Races" article on the WOTC site are that race descriptions and related mechancis will take up more space than now, in part due to the ability to "advance" the race with new mechanics as you gain levels.

I'd gladly throw the tiefling under a bus to get an additional core class in the PHB ... even if it were the monk.


----------



## Lobo Lurker (Aug 25, 2007)

Me? I'd gladly ditch the gnome for tieflings.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 25, 2007)

TheArcane said:
			
		

> The essence of D&D, be it deeply rooted in Tolkienisms as it is, should not IMHO be thrown away just for the sake of popularity and coolness.



To Hell with you.

_D&D_ and fantasy is *so* much bigger than Tolkien, it makes me want to scream when I see people spouting this kind of crap.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 25, 2007)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Or Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner.
> 
> I assume Jennifer Garner must be blind. After all, how else could she marry Ben Affleck?



I'm not saying Ben Affleck is handsome, but I *really* feel it's the other way around. I've never seen the appeal of that lantern-jawed woman.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 25, 2007)

variant said:
			
		

> Would you people really feel comfortable if someone decided that they were going to play a Tiefling every single campaign?



Absolutely.

_D&D_ isn't Tolkien. A tiefling doesn't seem out of place in the kind of fantasy that *I* enjoy reading about and playing with in my games.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 25, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> If he was willing to suck up the LA and the substandard hit dice, and be recognized as a member from a well-nigh-universally hated race or take steps to avoid same, I'd work with the player to get that done.



There was actually a neutral illithid NPC in the Spelljammer novels who could very easily be a PC. He got around with a _hat of disguise_ when he wasn't solely among friends.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 25, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Implying, heck, I came right out and said it, though with a caveat:
> 
> *Tieflings as anti-heroes are only one step removed from cliched angst-ridden playing-against-type good drow.*
> 
> Which is fine if that's how you want to roll, but it doesn't belong in the base core book for the game.  There are plenty of supplements coming to devote to that sort of thing.




As opposed to the not-at-all-cliched Legolas and Gimili clones?  Give me a break.  Every D&D race except gnomes and humans is ALL ABOUT playing up a cliche.

If this is even close to a popular enough _type_ of cliche to justify the amount of indigestion it appears to cause those who want their game pure and unsullied by how other people like to play, then it very much _does_ belong in the core books.

A lot more so than another 100 pages of the same cursed spell writeups that occupy a good third of the current PHB despite boiling down to maybe 5 pages of spell templates and 10 pages of actual unique spells.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 25, 2007)

In white box OD&D, Gary Gygax mentions the possibility of a balrog PC, so weird races are right there in the roots of the game. Viewed in this light, 1e is an aberrant blip where monster races weren't allowed. Then 2e brought them back in the splatbooks.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 25, 2007)

Eberron has an age of demons, long past. Greyhawk has quite a lot of fiends kicking about in Iuz and the Great Kingdom, in fact I believe its even rumoured publically that the royal family of the GK meddles in diablerie. So there is some precedent here.

I'm guessing the 4e back story will have the usual great and mighty empire, most powerful magics known, made many magic items, now in ruins, blah, blah. It will have been destroyed, obviously by hubris a la the legend of Atlantis. But before it was destroyed its inhabitants declined, becoming decadent a la Melnibone or the Roman Empire. They summoned many fiends and, being sick twisted pervs, had sexual relations with them. Hence tieflings, legacy of a once great nation's fall.


----------



## demon_jr808 (Aug 25, 2007)

I love Tieflings! I have to say they are one of my most favorite races 'flavor' wise. I've always had a fondness in my heart for characters that have a touch of evil or taint within them.

That being said, I don't think the Tiefling is an appropriate race to have in the PHB. Call me old school, but it feels a bit too esoteric to include and doesn't fit the 'generic' fantasy feel that I believe the Core Rules should have. Elves, dwarves, halfings, are staples in fantasy writing. In my opinion, Tieflings, not so much.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 25, 2007)

demon_jr808 said:
			
		

> Elves, dwarves, halfings, are staples in fantasy writing.



Staples in *Tolkien* and his *imitators*, hardly "fantasy" in a general sense. *Especially* the halflings, which have *no* predecessors.

How many elves, dwarves, or halflings are there in Robert E. Howard? Jack Vance? Fritz Leiber? Michael Moorcock (okay, there are elf-like peoples in his work, but they're pretty different!)? H. P. Lovecraft? Clark Ashton Smith?

Not to mention more contemporary authors (err, not that Vance or Moorcock are dead . . .) like China Mieville, Steven Erikson, George R. R. Martin, _et cetera_?


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Aug 25, 2007)

Only if 'aasimars' are included as well.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Aug 25, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Drow would be a good choice for core but #1 for me would be warforged. The best new PC race for D&D since... hmm, 1974 I think.




Another warforged fan, and a fellow Celt to boot!


----------



## Pale (Aug 25, 2007)

variant said:
			
		

> It is exotic enough to not waste precious page space on in the Core PHB.




Basically, you have a very conservative approach to your fantasy roleplaying. Just understand that others don't and it's not a waste of space simply because _you_ won't use it. You may understand this, and you may understand that your wants and desires should not and will not dictate content in the Core books... but your posts don't reflect that understanding.

I would also like to point out that I find your board name highly ironic considering your hard-line stance in this discussion.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Aug 25, 2007)

I don't want Tieflings in the PHB, but I do want them in the MM. I have a couple reasons for this. For starters, the PHB includes all of the core and default races, classes and features of the game. Something as exotic as the tiefling should not be included in the PHB, imo. I think part of the reason they're doing this is they want to show how to do the old LA races using the new "races gain powers as they go up in levels" feature of 4e. But imo, this would be better left to the MM.

Also, I've always thought that it was silly that Tieflings are a race (humans with a fiendish heritage) rather than a template. We've always used Tieflings that way in the group I play in, and we love it that way. We've had human tieflings, elf tieflings, halfling tieflings and so on. Makign them a core race in the PHB, especially with all of the racial progression rules coming in 4e, will make that very difficult to do.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Aug 25, 2007)

*Don't Axe Gnomes, Half-Elves or Half Orcs for Tieflings*

I don't mind having Tieflings as a core race, as long as the following prerequisites are met:

* No PC races that have existed since 1e AD&D are removed to make room for Tieflings
* Tieflings, Aasimar, Gensai, and all the other half-plane/energy-whatevers are equally represented


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 25, 2007)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Also, I've always thought that it was silly that Tieflings are a race (humans with a fiendish heritage) rather than a template. We've always used Tieflings that way in the group I play in, and we love it that way. We've had human tieflings, elf tieflings, halfling tieflings and so on.



Of course, in Third Edition we have many examples of planetouched races which are mixtures between outsiders and other, non-human creatures.

Fey'ri and tanarukk appear in _Monsters of Faerun_, for instance. They are elven-demon and orc-demon planetouched, respectively, and are in fact *listed under "Planetouched, tiefling".*

So. Consider that the Forgotten Realms is the first campaign setting coming out for Fourth Edition.


----------



## Kent H (Aug 25, 2007)

Yes, more than any other race besides human.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Aug 25, 2007)

I don't like the idea of the tiefling specifically being a core race, but if they make it into a "planetouched" (or whatever) race where you pick what bloodline you are and that determines your racial abilities as you advance (or however it will work in 4e) could be pretty sweet. 

Beyond that, though, I've never been one to have much stomach for people playing really bizarre races as PCs. I'm all for players having fun, but someone rolling up an otyugh or manticore or teletubby or something would hurt my sense of immersion into the world I'm thinking.


----------



## jeffh (Aug 25, 2007)

variant said:
			
		

> It (the Teifling) is exotic enough to not waste precious page space on in the Core PHB.



Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think they're in exactly the right place in terms of exotic-ness.

I'd be pretty sorry (and extremely surprised) to see Dwarves and Elves out of D&D, but that's more out of tradition than anything else. Beyond that, though, what's the point of playing a non-human that's just a human with slightly different abilities (and generally speaking, _bland _ones at that)? Why _shouldn't_ the fourth through Nth (where I hope to see N be at least five and no more than eight) core races be slightly more exotic?

You keep going on as though you expected it to be obvious to everyone that, for example, a teifling PC in every game was a bad thing. I don't see how it's worse than an elf PC in every game, and it seems actively _preferable _to a halfling PC in every game.


----------



## hong (Aug 25, 2007)

Ain't nothing exists that can't be banned anyway.


----------



## jeffh (Aug 25, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Staples in *Tolkien* and his *imitators*, hardly "fantasy" in a general sense. *Especially* the halflings, which have *no* predecessors.
> 
> How many elves, dwarves, or halflings are there in Robert E. Howard? Jack Vance? Fritz Leiber? Michael Moorcock (okay, there are elf-like peoples in his work, but they're pretty different!)? H. P. Lovecraft? Clark Ashton Smith?
> 
> Not to mention more contemporary authors (err, not that Vance or Moorcock are dead . . .) like China Mieville, Steven Erikson, George R. R. Martin, _et cetera_?



Actually, Christopher, I've been wondering for a while what _your_ ideal list of races would be. I think you were asked that on Usenet a while back (when I was still fairly active there), but I can't remember much except that I seem to recall you like Goliaths. Suppose you get to pick 5-8 races to be considered core, with no constraints save that humans have to be one of them and that most of them should have appeared somewhere in the 3.5 cannon. Your selection doesn't have to appeal to anyone besides yourself, though your players should at least be able to tolerate it. What lineup would you choose?

Er. Not that I see anything wrong with a human-only campaign, something I've considered a number of times.


----------



## hong (Aug 25, 2007)

jeffh said:
			
		

> Actually, Christopher, I've been wondering for a while what _your_ ideal list of races would be. I think you were asked that on Usenet a while back (when I was still fairly active there), but I can't remember much except that I seem to recall you like Goliaths. Suppose you get to pick 5-8 races to be considered core, with no constraints save that humans have to be one of them and that most of them should have appeared somewhere in the 3.5 cannon. Your selection doesn't have to appeal to anyone besides yourself, though your players should at least be able to tolerate it. What lineup would you choose?



 Chris just hates J.J.R. Tolkein with all of his body, including his pee-pee.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 25, 2007)

Well, I think it would be hypocritical of me to say tieflings shouldn't be core, since the first D&D character I played a long-running campaign with was a changeling warlock with a fiendish connection. Not a tiefling, but close. Chaotic neutral "destroy darkness with darkness" type, secretive, a bit angsty at times...

At least tiefings are more interesting than a strange elf-subrace that gets too much attention. Drow just seem boring and one-dimensional to me. Also, I have a general liking for the idea of a culture which exists entirely as a subset of some larger culture, rather than being something seperate, and planetouched characters fill that somewhat.

I would like to have assimar in as well though, if tieflings are core.

Of course, the names tiefling and aasimar are terrible, so if they are core, I would prefer them to use a better name. Even "demon-kin" would work better.


----------



## jeffh (Aug 25, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Chris just hates J.J.R. Tolkein with all of his body, including his pee-pee.



Oh, I know that. I've seen him say pretty much those exact words (er, minus the pee-pee bit) on rgfd probably about as often as you have. (Though nowhere near as many times in total - I gather you know each other fairly well in real life, while I've not had the pleasure of meeting either of you.) Still an interesting question, though.


----------



## variant (Aug 25, 2007)

jeffh said:
			
		

> Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think they're in exactly the right place in terms of exotic-ness.
> 
> I'd be pretty sorry (and extremely surprised) to see Dwarves and Elves out of D&D, but that's more out of tradition than anything else. Beyond that, though, what's the point of playing a non-human that's just a human with slightly different abilities (and generally speaking, _bland _ones at that)? Why _shouldn't_ the fourth through Nth (where I hope to see N be at least five and no more than eight) core races be slightly more exotic?
> 
> You keep going on as though you expected it to be obvious to everyone that, for example, a teifling PC in every game was a bad thing. I don't see how it's worse than an elf PC in every game, and it seems actively _preferable _to a halfling PC in every game.




How much can you possibly write about the Tiefling? "Fiendish blood, have horns, feel like they don't fit in, vagabonds, outcasts"? Seriously, what do they have that can't be done in a simple template in the Monster Manuel or Dungeon Master's Guide? Do you people really want them to take up space in not only the PHB with their Talents and Feats, but in every single Supplement to ever be released for then on?

Has anyone else here actually read the Half-Orc and Half-Elf text in the PHB? Anyone try to suffer through Races of Destiny? I have never read so much useless bloat in my life. The Tiefling suffers the same problem!

Elves, Humans, Halflings, Dwarves, and Gnomes all have their own unique fully established cultures. These 'don't just fit in' races do not belong because they aren't worth the trouble.


----------



## Someone (Aug 25, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Ain't nothing exists that can't be banned anyway.




No. 4e PHB will include Rule -1: Tieflings can't be banned.


----------



## Crashy75 (Aug 25, 2007)

You know what bothers me most about Tieflings?  The charisma penalty.  Have you ever noticed most demons have fairly high charisma scores?  Even the dretch is average.  As for the feeling of wrongness they emanate; give them a diplomacy penalty and be done with it.
EDIT: This may not be an issue in 4e however.


----------



## jeffh (Aug 25, 2007)

variant said:
			
		

> How much can you possibly write about the Tiefling? "Fiendish blood, have horns, feel like they don't fit in, vagabonds, outcasts"? Seriously, what do they have that can't be done in a simple template in the Monster Manuel or Dungeon Master's Guide? Do you people really want them to take up space in not only the PHB with their Talents and Feats, but in every single Supplement to ever be released for then on?
> 
> Has anyone else here actually read the Half-Orc and Half-Elf text in the PHB? Anyone try to suffer through Races of Destiny? I have never read so much useless bloat in my life. The Tiefling suffers the same problem!
> 
> Elves, Humans, Halflings, Dwarves, and Gnomes all have their own unique fully established cultures. These 'don't just fit in' races do not belong because they aren't worth the trouble.



Your lack of imagination isn't universally shared. I see no reason why there couldn't, in principle, be as much to say about tieflings as any other race, with the added advantage that it hasn't already been said.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 25, 2007)

jeffh said:
			
		

> Actually, Christopher, I've been wondering for a while what _your_ ideal list of races would be. I think you were asked that on Usenet a while back (when I was still fairly active there), but I can't remember much except that I seem to recall you like Goliaths.



I think goliaths are probably among the best of the _Races of_ freshmen, but mostly because of their interesting design and fun culture. I'd never put them in the core rules.



> Suppose you get to pick 5-8 races to be considered core, with no constraints save that humans have to be one of them and that most of them should have appeared somewhere in the 3.5 cannon. Your selection doesn't have to appeal to anyone besides yourself, though your players should at least be able to tolerate it. What lineup would you choose?



With the understanding that we're talking about the Fourth Edition model, with subsequent core rulebooks which can present other options? Easy, despite the fact that I wouldn't play some of them:

Changelings
Dwarves
Elves
Humans
Kobolds
Orcs
Tieflings

Here's my thinking:

I don't want to "double up" too much. Why have humans, elves, *and* half-elves? Why have half-orcs when you could have orcs?

Why have halflings when you already have Tolkienesque elves and dwarves, and kobolds fill the Small race niche while bringing the unique _D&D_ flavour? (Their presence would imply a closer relationship with other humanoids than in most settings, but they fill the "low-status" or "untouchable" niche well, too.)

Why not have changelings to emphasise the new social and non-combat challenges (they're better diplomats and social chameleons - ha! - than half-elves)?

Why not have tieflings - again, with their distinctively _D&D_ flavour - as a signifier of a slightly darker world where fiends are important? (I consider the involvement of the Lower Planes with the mortal world another distinctive element of _D&D_.)

*Edit:* My second _Player's Handbook_ would probably include at least two or three of half-elves, halflings, half-orcs, gnomes, along with warforged and shifters. I'd be inclined to include gnomes before halflings, as an aside.



> Chris just hates J.J.R. Tolkein with all of his body, including his pee-pee.



I'm really just completely sick and tired of seeing _D&D_ discussions dominated by Tolkienesque assumptions which have *never* applied, since the beginning of the game - especially when people start talking about "fantasy traditions" as though Tolkien and the hacks who imitated his work over the last fifty years are representative of the *good* fantasy fiction out there, or the tradition as a whole.

Tolkienesque elements are fine in _D&D_. I don't use them, but then the next guy probably doesn't use the Lovecraftian elements I might. _D&D_ should be more than one 20th-century writer and his hackish imitators - and it should be true to its own self-defined genre, which has never been tied to one type of fantasy.


----------



## Talaeden_Denthiir (Aug 25, 2007)

Yes and Aasimar too.  Make it a Planetouched race with at least these two 'talent' paths to choose from please


----------



## jeffh (Aug 25, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> I'd be inclined to include gnomes before halflings, as an aside.



Me too, although I found myself with no opinion on whether they should actually be in the PH.

I guess I asked a slightly different question than I intended to, although I like the list you gave. If you were to say "okay, you can only play these eight races" to your players, which eight (or fewer) would you pick? If the answer is "it depends on the setting" (as it very well might be), suppose this is one of the first steps in creating a new one of your own.


----------



## hong (Aug 25, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> I'm really just completely sick and tired of seeing _D&D_ discussions dominated by Tolkienesque assumptions




They are?


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 25, 2007)

Personally, I would rather they are not.

MM, MotP, whatever. Not PHB.


----------



## Ashardalon (Aug 25, 2007)

I'd vote other - I have nothing against them to be in, but only if their Aasimar counterparts are also in.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 25, 2007)

Crashy75 said:
			
		

> You know what bothers me most about Tieflings?  The charisma penalty.




Plus, aasimars don't get any penalty. So I just did away with the penalty.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 25, 2007)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> I knew a player who once made a character who started as a Drizzt clone, but then morphed into an even cheesier character. Note that this was in AD&D.
> 
> First he changed the race from Drow to Wood Elf, because Wood Elves got a Strength bonus. Then he went from a Ranger to a Fighter/Thief, because of Backstab, and his belief that Fighter/Thieves were just plain better than Rangers. Last but not least, instead of taking Scimitars, he took Katanas, which inflicted more damage than Scimitars. It was mind-blowing watching this guy work. He started with the base of making a Drizzt clone, and then tweaked him in the most munchkin ways he could think of.
> 
> No point to this story. I just thought it was amusing.




So all dual-wielders are drizzt clones now? No wonder there are so many of them supposed to populate the gaming tables. Hey, my character can cast light. He must be a Gandalf clone!!!


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 25, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Dude, I skipped that and went straight for the "risen succubus" PC... the kinky drow look was just one possible option...




Would never play one. The good part is a hindrance to all the fun you can have with a succubus's ability.


----------



## ProtoClone (Aug 25, 2007)

I voted no.

As a friend pointed out to me after I voted, it seems like WotC are trying to appeal more to a WoW mentality.  Now this is if they do become a playable race that is.

Why not Half Dragons instead? =P


----------



## Dinkeldog (Aug 25, 2007)

Please stick to the discussion of Tieflings without bringing the relative merits of other races and playstyles into this, thanks.


----------



## Green Knight (Aug 25, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> So all dual-wielders are drizzt clones now? No wonder there are so many of them supposed to populate the gaming tables. Hey, my character can cast light. He must be a Gandalf clone!!!




I'm not talking about all dual wielders. I'm talking about that specific case. And in that case, yes he is, because he actually set out to create a Drizzt clone, and then tweak it in such a way as to create an even tougher character.


----------



## ProtoClone (Aug 25, 2007)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Please stick to the discussion of Tieflings without bringing the relative merits of other races and playstyles into this, thanks.




Sorry, that was ment more to be more of a joke and just plain silliness.  Guess it would've helped to added "j/k" afterwards.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Aug 25, 2007)

Must expand on that, and after reading all the current pages from the PC mobile to desktop, from last night to this morning.

You are only one, to give mention to a culture reference.

Besides having a cultural background, the majority of the 'core' races have other points not mentioned.

A  loosely based 'Government' structure system.
Economic resources and value.
The ability to raise arm forces in the time of defensive and war.

Does the suppose including mention of the "Tiefling" meet this requirements?

Shucks, even some of the non-human races, can at least meet two or three of the four setups to be classified as a near 'core' class.

Half-breeds cannot.

I read some posts, that mentioned the removal of the half-breeds altogether...and yes, it is high time, such a thing needs to be done.

That 'feature' has run its course, and so far, so far...has anyone seen a module (not a novel), that the half-breeds have become a nation unto theirselves?

Anyone?

Sorry to sound pratical, but pratical common sense needed here. Even in the fantasy settings.

The mere mentioned of this 'mixed breeding' getting the core race stamp, is also very short-sighted. The other before mentioend half-breeds of Orc and Elf, should get that 'status' too. Cause, they have been around much longer, in previous and current core books.

Some others have said on the 'Tieflings', they are just there as a flavor, coloring, fluff.

The cool looking factor of being different.

All nice and dandy.

But from a pratical 'core race' classification requirement...they don't have it.

Not now, and not ever.

But all of this could be changed, if someone in the R&D box fonted the possible argument, that yeah...it is time to flip the switch, it is time to go crazy.

And yeah, it has been a accepted part as well, that books or material must grow up also.

But let's be pratical here...and puts some sense into it. Let there be near-fool-proof-reason of an existence that should be there.

And not just, for the hell of it.

Let the detractors and non-detractors be given sufficient understanding of why, such a thing may or must exist.

We honestly deserve that much. At this time, oh yes we do.

And the saddest part of this all. And funny to a point too. On a social scale outlook, to earn a 'core race' marker, what social outstanding benefits are there, that will advance them into a acceptable status, of being...a major race?

Feel free to pick this apart.

And oh, No is my vote.


			
				variant said:
			
		

> How much can you possibly write about the Tiefling? "Fiendish blood, have horns, feel like they don't fit in, vagabonds, outcasts"? Seriously, what do they have that can't be done in a simple template in the Monster Manuel or Dungeon Master's Guide? Do you people really want them to take up space in not only the PHB with their Talents and Feats, but in every single Supplement to ever be released for then on?
> 
> Has anyone else here actually read the Half-Orc and Half-Elf text in the PHB? Anyone try to suffer through Races of Destiny? I have never read so much useless bloat in my life. The Tiefling suffers the same problem!
> 
> Elves, Humans, Halflings, Dwarves, and Gnomes all have their own unique fully established cultures. These 'don't just fit in' races do not belong because they aren't worth the trouble.


----------



## David Argall (Aug 25, 2007)

As said, Tieflings are just not one of the top 8 choices for a D&D PC.  Increase the number of allowable races to 20 or so, and it can go in, but we have several races of more interest to the players, better connection to the history of the game, and better mythos connection too.

    Put the Tiefling in PH2 or 3.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 25, 2007)

Of course, it's obvious _why_ they're putting them in the PHB. Doesn't mean I have to like it.  Hm, or buy it. 

Angels and demons sell BIG. Hella marketable. People love them. Heck, *I* do too, for what it's worth. They have that certain something, an allure or whatever. I get that. But guys, there is a time and place. Core book time is not the time. PHB is not the place. Mm'k?


----------



## Seeten (Aug 25, 2007)

Seems to me Forgotten Realms is the default setting for 4e, and that seems to mean Tieflings need to be in the PHB, since they are a core FR race. I don't understand all the debate?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 25, 2007)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> That 'feature' has run its course, and so far, so far...has anyone seen a module (not a novel), that the half-breeds have become a nation unto theirselves?
> 
> Anyone?



Half-elves in Eberron.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 25, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Seems to me Forgotten Realms is the default setting for 4e, and that seems to mean Tieflings need to be in the PHB, since they are a core FR race. I don't understand all the debate?



For starters, Forgotten Realms isn't the default setting for 4E.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 25, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> For starters, Forgotten Realms isn't the default setting for 4E.



Yeah, I heard it was something like a part-'alt.Earth', high fantasy / sword & sorcery, metasetting thing, built upon on the still-warm remains of Greyhawk.


----------



## grimslade (Aug 25, 2007)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Yeah, I heard it was something like a part-'alt.Earth', high fantasy / sword & sorcery, metasetting thing, built upon on the still-warm remains of Greyhawk.



Not the whole corpse just the organs. All the tastiest bits with none of supporting fluff.
Tieflings in, although Lizardfolk would be a much better choice.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 25, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> Not the whole corpse just the organs. All the tastiest bits with none of supporting fluff.
> Tieflings in, although Lizardfolk would be a much better choice.



 Or gnolls. Or kobolds. Or hobgoblins.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Aug 25, 2007)

Crashy75 said:
			
		

> You know what bothers me most about Tieflings?  The charisma penalty.  Have you ever noticed most demons have fairly high charisma scores?  Even the dretch is average.  As for the feeling of wrongness they emanate; give them a diplomacy penalty and be done with it.
> EDIT: This may not be an issue in 4e however.




A wisdom penalty might be more appropriate, although I am not entirely convinced they need one just because they have a dexterity bonus.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Aug 25, 2007)

Tieflings aren't a race, are they?  

Perhaps they will be a racial ability you take optionally at first level after choosing a race.  And then grow into it using feats and/or talent tree options?


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 25, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Tieflings aren't a race, are they?




Yes, they are, at least in 3e. Sad but true. They should be a template, but they aren't - though I guess that's a very popular house rule. Note that Wizards has created 3 or 4 different tieflings: The normal tiefling (supposedly of some humanoid stock, though for some reason the racial traits of that race are suppressed, something unique to planetouched), the tanarukk (descendant of a demon/orc cross-breed), the fey'ri (descended from a blend of sun elf and demon, mainly succubus), and durzagon (descendant of duergar and fiend, probably some kind of devil).

The popular house rule part got me thinking, though: A lot of the things we know have been changed in 4e are things many people have house ruled in their campaigns, or at least complained about. I also think that a lot of people think that planetouched shouldn't be a separate race but rather a template. So it's not that unlikely that 4e won't have a tiefling race, but something like a template for them. Maybe as a bunch of feats.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 25, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Seems to me Forgotten Realms is the default setting for 4e




Nah. It's still an optional setting, as it should be. In fact, they god largely rid even of Greyhawk. 

If the Realms were the default setting, they had to put the planetouched into the core rules, and also a big deal of sub-races for the races (everything except humans has at least three subraces in the realms)


----------



## Kent H (Aug 25, 2007)

variant said:
			
		

> What else do they have? They are just humans with a bad attitude and look "cool."



Between here and the WotC boards, I'm pretty convinced you don't even really know what tiefling "flavor" is.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 26, 2007)

Planetouched races are as old as D&D itself, if not older...

Merlin in many mythologies would be a cambion, Gandalf is a celestial, Conan made liberal use of "demon-bred" humans while Sheeba (the Gray Mouser's patron wizard) is thought to be/rumoured in the novels themselves as being "born from an infernal conjunction".

I'm not sure why people insist that this is a "new" concept D&D has cribbed from WoW.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 26, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Gandalf is a celestial




That's not a planetouched, though. Planetouched are only touched by the planes. A celestial is a creature of the planes.



> I'm not sure why people insist that this is a "new" concept D&D has cribbed from WoW.




WoW? Definetly not. Planetouched - as we know them now in D&D - have been around a lot longer than WoW. I guess they have been around longer than Blizzard, for that matter.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Aug 26, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I'm not sure why people insist that this is a "new" concept D&D has cribbed from WoW.



Because they like to jump to conclusions and are largely ignorant of things not only from previous editions, but also things from the 3.5e monster manual.


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 26, 2007)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> No. "Planetouched" of any variety should be extreme fringe characters, not one of the basic choices right out of the box. Put 'em in the _Monster Manual_.
> 
> -The Gneech



I'm on  the fence on this one. For one thing I'd like an iconic race such as a tiefling. Everyone always wants to play one. The only other race I could think of that is more popular is drow.  Perhaps if they are going non campaign specific they include one or two races from the setting sthey are coming out with Tiefling from planescape, drow from forgotten realms, something dragonish from dragonlance, warforged from eberron (or shifter)

edited
oh the reason why i wouldnt want them is because aren't tieflings traditonally evil?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 26, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> WoW? Definetly not. Planetouched - as we know them now in D&D - have been around a lot longer than WoW. I guess they have been around longer than Blizzard, for that matter.



Not to mention there's no such creatures in WoW. Nothing even comparable.


----------



## Shadeydm (Aug 26, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> edited
> oh the reason why i wouldnt want them is because aren't tieflings traditonally evil?




Rumor has it we will have evil paladins in 4E so I am not sure they are concerned about PC alignment anymore.


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 26, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Rumor has it we will have evil paladins in 4E so I am not sure they are concerned about PC alignment anymore.



Even if alignment is gone, tieflings are primarily the bad guys, my big worry is that the game should still stay heroic fantasy. 

Unless they change the descrptions of tiefling to more neutral like the other races.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 26, 2007)

Obviously the PC tieflings will be the only Good ones, outcasts and such.


----------



## Grog (Aug 26, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Obviously the PC tieflings will be the only Good ones, outcasts and such.




Kinda like how the Drow turned out.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Aug 26, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Even if alignment is gone, tieflings are primarily the bad guys, my big worry is that the game should still stay heroic fantasy.
> 
> Unless they change the descrptions of tiefling to more neutral like the other races.



Tieflings were originally described as being any *Neutral* or Evil in alignment, from their write-up in the Planescape Monstrous Compendium.  Their original PC race write-up in the Planescape Campaign setting says they could be any alignment but lawful good (Aasimar were invented later).

The vast majority of all the iconic tiefling characters are neutral in alignment too.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 26, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Even if alignment is gone, tieflings are primarily the bad guys, my big worry is that the game should still stay heroic fantasy.



 The primary bad guys will be *gnomes*.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 26, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Perhaps if they are going non campaign specific they include one or two races from the setting sthey are coming out with Tiefling from planescape, drow from forgotten realms, something dragonish from dragonlance, warforged from eberron (or shifter)




I surely hope the warforged stay out of the PHB. They're not nearly classical enough to earn a seat in the council. Shifter could work, though. In the end, I'd still think the PHB races should be universal (note that this wouldn't exclude drow, since they are already in the core rulebooks of the current edition, and it wouldn't exclude anything dragonish, but that would probably be a dragonspawn, since they pushed the spawn of tiamat pretty much in the recent past. I don't think they made them just to abandon them a year later when 4e hits the shelves)



> oh the reason why i wouldnt want them is because aren't tieflings traditonally evil?




Not necessarily. Their evil blood might influence them, but they're no more or less evil than, say, elves are good.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Aug 26, 2007)

> Rumor has it we will have evil paladins in 4E...




Lame.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 26, 2007)

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> Lame.



On the contrary, I expect that they will be very much the equal of the good guys' preferred paladin type.


----------



## Shadeydm (Aug 26, 2007)

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> Lame.




I can't find the quote, but I would swear one of the WotC guys have said this.


----------



## delericho (Aug 26, 2007)

It's been a while since I checked my MM, but I _think_ I recall noticing at one point that the PC races in the PHB were _all_ the non-Evil, non-LA races in the core rulebooks. Orcs, Kobolds and Hobgoblins were out because they were Evil; Lizardmen (sorry, can't bring myself to call them Lizardfolk) were out due to monster hit dice; Aasimar were out due to a Level Adjustment.

On balance, I think that is the right policy to adopt. Of course, that means Teiflings don't make the cut - even if they cease to be a LA +1 race, they remain "Usually Evil (any)".

(The problem with including "Usually Evil" races as PC options is that it then eliminates that race as an option for PC opponents in the 'classic' kill-the-bad-guys campaign - can't go casually slaughtering Orcs if your buddy is one. And I'd certainly prefer Evil PCs remains an option the DM can allow, rather than being part of the default game.)


----------



## ragnarok77 (Aug 26, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> It's been a while since I checked my MM, but I _think_ I recall noticing at one point that the PC races in the PHB were _all_ the non-Evil, non-LA races in the core rulebooks. Orcs, Kobolds and Hobgoblins were out because they were Evil; Lizardmen (sorry, can't bring myself to call them Lizardfolk) were out due to monster hit dice; Aasimar were out due to a Level Adjustment.
> 
> On balance, I think that is the right policy to adopt. Of course, that means Teiflings don't make the cut - even if they cease to be a LA +1 race, they remain "Usually Evil (any)".




Exactly my point!
No for Tieflings!
Moreover i just can't understand why they should receive a better treatment than Aasimars...


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Aug 26, 2007)

ragnarok77 said:
			
		

> Exactly my point!
> No for Tieflings!
> Moreover i just can't understand why they should receive a better treatment than Aasimars...



They've been available as PCs longer than Aasimar have been, Aasimar were something that was tacked on to the game later, and it's only 3e that put the usually Evil thing in.  Before they were usually any *Neutral* or Evil.


----------



## AFGNCAAP (Aug 26, 2007)

In regards to the OP, I'd say No.

I don't care for the reinvented look--I liked the trace of fiendish ancestry implied with 3.X tieflings, which could reflect their descent from any of the fiends, rather than just from predominantly succubi or erinyes.

I'd prefer Aasimar to be included if Tieflings are, but then again, I prefer some semblance of balance like that.  Then again, I'd prefer Aasimar and Tielflings to be replaced with Heritage Feats, Bloodlines, or the like, so that _*any race*_, and not just humans, can be a form of tiefling/aasimar/genasi/etc.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Aug 27, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I can't find the quote, but I would swear one of the WotC guys have said this.




I am not doubting you; I just think 'evil paladins' are lame.


----------



## Campbell (Aug 27, 2007)

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> I am not doubting you; I just think 'evil paladins' are lame.



The concept of a paladin-like class that represents the champions of various ethos is not lame. Still referring to them as 'paladins' is lame though.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Aug 27, 2007)

Campbell said:
			
		

> The concept of a paladin-like class that represents the champions of various ethos is not lame. Still referring to them as 'paladins' is lame though.




That is what I meant to convey, actually.


----------



## Templetroll (Aug 27, 2007)

I vote yes.  My Tiefling will be short, have a large nose and an affinity for illusion.


----------



## Malhost Zormaeril (Aug 27, 2007)

Bwahahaha!  You, sir, get a cookie!  Nothing like starting the day with a laugh.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 27, 2007)

Campbell said:
			
		

> The concept of a paladin-like class that represents the champions of various ethos is not lame. Still referring to them as 'paladins' is lame though.




No one complained when they ceased to be human only. And historical paladins were all human.   

I don't think that paladin has to refer to LG champions of a divine cause. Why would other churches have no such champions?


----------



## Klaus (Aug 27, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> No one complained when they ceased to be human only. And historical paladins were all human.
> 
> I don't think that paladin has to refer to LG champions of a divine cause. Why would other churches have no such champions?



 I dunno... the term "paladin" for me is inextrincably associated with the LG champion. I'd rather have the broader class named something else, like Divine Champion or Divine Knight, and save "Paladin" for the LG sect.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 27, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I dunno... the term "paladin" for me is inextrincably associated with the LG champion. I'd rather have the broader class named something else, like Divine Champion or Divine Knight, and save "Paladin" for the LG sect.




Okay, but only LG _human_ divine knight types get to call themselves paladins. The rest still must call themselves divine knight or divine champion, or whatever the class is officially called. Only if you're LG and human you may call yourself paladin. 

I mean, if we play grognard, we may as well play with all the rules.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 28, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Okay, but only LG _human_ divine knight types get to call themselves paladins. The rest still must call themselves divine knight or divine champion, or whatever the class is officially called. Only if you're LG and human you may call yourself paladin.
> 
> I mean, if we play grognard, we may as well play with all the rules.



 Cha 17 FTW, baby! Yeah!


----------



## Nifft (Aug 28, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Only if you're LG and human you may call yourself paladin.



 I'd buy that. It'd be fine if every race has some specific PrCs (and Paladin was a Human-specific PrC).

EDIT: And there were similarly powerful Divine Warrior options available for other races. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## messy (Aug 28, 2007)

i voted "no." i'd reluctantly be ok with them only if aasimar are included, as well.

messy


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 29, 2007)

jeffh said:
			
		

> I guess I asked a slightly different question than I intended to, although I like the list you gave. If you were to say "okay, you can only play these eight races" to your players, which eight (or fewer) would you pick? If the answer is "it depends on the setting" (as it very well might be), suppose this is one of the first steps in creating a new one of your own.



The last time I kicked around some ideas for a setting, I used these races: 


Humans 
Changelings (_Eberron Campaign Setting_) 
Shifters (_Eberron Campaign Setting_) 
Poison dusk lizardfolk (_Monster Manual III_) 
Dromites (_Expanded Psionics Handbook_)
I suppose I would say that my personal tastes run to near-human or properly nonhuman creatures; I don't have that much interest in the "demi-human" range where elves, orcs, dwarves, and the like live. However, my previous post included those races based on the premise that I was deciding what would go in the first Fourth Edition _Player's Handbook_, which should cater to as many people as possible without giving up _D&D_'s unique attributes. 


I wouldn't like to see _Dungeons & Dragons_ become a game that catered only to my tastes in fantasy - I'd just like to see it cater to my tastes more than it does. The inclusion of tieflings as a default PC race in the next edition is a welcome step in that direction, but I wouldn't want to cut the Tolkienoid races out just because *I* hate that crap. Besides, if they weren't in there, I wouldn't be able to be as impressed with Eberron's completely reinventing them as I have been.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 29, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> The last time I kicked around some ideas for a setting, I used these races:
> 
> 
> Humans
> ...



 If I were writing my next setting today, it would use these races:

 Humans
 Changelings (Eberron)
 Elan (XPH)
 Kalashtar (Eberron)
 Tieflings (homebrew, human transformational)
 Mojh (homebrew, human transformational, inspired by Arcana Evolved)
 Kobolds (homebrew, created by Mojh)
 Giants (homebrew, human transformational, inspired by Arcana Evolved)

... so basically all "races" could trace themselves back to humanity, including kobolds, each of whom would know which mojh calved it off.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 29, 2007)

Someday, I think it would be interesting to try a game where the only races present were Changelings, Kalashtar, Shifters and Warforged.

What would be really nuts would be to say that the warforged had existed for eons after the fall of the old races, and had created those three, instead of being created by them, hehehe...


----------

