# All about Ardlings



## ClockworkNinja

Quote from the playtest: _"An ardling has a head resembling that of an animal, typically one with virtuous associations. Depending on the animal, the ardling might also have soft fur, downy feathers, or supple bare skin." _

How do you interpret this? A mostly human head with animal ears on top like an Anime catgirl? or a fully animal head from the neck up like an Egyptian god? 

Would having a different mouth shape cause trouble when drinking from a cup, or give them an odd lisp when speaking?

Do we even need ardlings? or are they redundant when we already have Aasimar and Shifters?


----------



## D1Tremere

I thought of them basically as Egyptian god versions.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

I think the idea from WotC is for it to be intentionally vague, so you can be anything from a full-on Furry to the mildest of Catgirls.

That said reading the text I assumed it was "mostly animal with some human".

They're definitely not redundant. Shifters don't really do the same thing at all, or appeal to the same people. In fact, not many people like Shifters at all (I mean, a few, but not many). Aasimar are what needs to get deleted if anything. They somehow manage to have an even worse name than Aardling which is a hell of an achievement (and I say this as a 2E grog).


----------



## MarkB

D1Tremere said:


> I thought of them basically as Egyptian god versions.



Yeah, this is one of the first things I pictured.


----------



## beancounter

I got the impression that they intended 100%


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

ClockworkNinja said:


> How do you interpret this? A mostly human head with animal ears on top like an Anime catgirl? or a fully animal head from the neck up like an Egyptian god?



I think the intention is that the head is fully zoomorphic, but I guess if you use the mixed race "rules" you can dial it back to whatever degree you want.



ClockworkNinja said:


> Do we even need ardlings? or are they redundant when we already have Aasimar and Shifters?




I think Shifters need a refresh, there's really no reason they should be stuck with one inner beast manifestation, they should be able to switch them out like Eladrin switch seasons. Less Tigra, more Vixen.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

I don't know what wotc meant.  I know that @HammerMan got me to search 'skunk woman fantasy art' and I think you will find any combo you want now


----------



## Corinnguard

Do we even need Ardlings? Not really. All we really need to do is to expand the number of celestials an Aasimar can be descended from. If 1D&D is going to have Tieflings descending from devils, demons and yugoloths, it only seems fair for the Aasimar to come from angels, archons and guardinals. If you want to look like an animal-headed Aasimar, just have a guardinal ancestor.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

I think it's important that ardling player can make their character look like whatever % version they prefer.


----------



## Shiroiken

The decision to do Ardlings rather than Aasimar is astounding to me. Tieflings have been core for 2 editions now, but screw you Aasimar... nobody likes you.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Yeah, I'm in the ''Egyptian gods'' camp so: animal head + human body.


----------



## HammerMan

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't know what wotc meant.  I know that @HammerMan got me to search 'skunk woman fantasy art' and I think you will find any combo you want now



Don’t blame me blame the 14 year old girl that wants to play an anthropomorphic skunk swordswoman. And she wanted a tail and non damaging non climbing claws (so just slightly different fingernails) 
I have no idea if this comes from a comic an anime or her own twisted mind.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

HammerMan said:


> Don’t blame me blame the 14 year old girl that wants to play an anthropomorphic skunk swordswoman. And she wanted a tail and non damaging non climbing claws (so just slightly different fingernails)
> I have no idea if this comes from a comic an anime or her own twisted mind.



did she choose medium or small and what linage? I don't see skunk under suggestions


----------



## beancounter

After the Ardling get's integrated into the game for a while, I'd be curious to see how many people (as a percentage of the total) actually choose to use them over the multitude of other species available.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Shiroiken said:


> The decision to do Ardlings rather than Aasimar is astounding to me. Tieflings have been core for 2 editions now, but screw you Aasimar... nobody likes you.



I don't understand why people keep saying "rather than Aasimar" as if Aasimar are cut. They are in MPMotM, which is the book where you find races that are done 1D&D-style already. They were done FIRST - they're not out of the game.

If you're wondering why they're not in the 2024 PHB, well, they could be, they just don't need playtesting because they're already available. (This is true of the dragonborn, too, so I'm not sure why they threw another version in the playtest, but that's it's own problem).


----------



## FitzTheRuke

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't see skunk under suggestions



What difference does that make? The suggestions are just that - suggestions. You can make any animal you like.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

FitzTheRuke said:


> they just don't need playtesting because they're already out. (This is true of the dragonborn, too, so I'm not sure why they threw another version in the playtest, but that's it's own problem).



I'm more worried about dragonborn TBH


----------



## beancounter

OT rant - I'm a bit irked that WoTC keeps on adding more and more species to the  huge list of choices, yet they won't grandfather half elves or half orcs (in their original "form")


----------



## Scribe

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't know what wotc meant.  I know that @HammerMan got me to search 'skunk woman fantasy art' and I think you will find any combo you want now


----------



## GMforPowergamers

FitzTheRuke said:


> What difference does that make? The suggestions are just that - suggestions. You can make any animal you like.



Cause in the other thread about his playtest he says she is new, like never even heard of D&D before seeing it on stranger things... so she went and did what took me 2 or 3 character creations before I could... made it her own and went without using examples... so I was wondering is all.


----------



## HammerMan

GMforPowergamers said:


> did she choose medium or small and what linage? I don't see skunk under suggestions



She just asked “can I be like a..” and she went with th one that gets Thaumaturgy as her cantrip.

Edit: I don’t know if she is small or medium.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Guardinals the original inspiration for Ardlings had a variance between less animal-like or more animal-like. Tony DiTerlizzi who was the first one to draw Guardinals was able to convey Guardinals that were human featured with some subtler animals features. The problem is that just about every artist after Tony DiTerlizzi conveys them as being full on animal like. I know Hound Archons and Warden Archons have always been full-on animal like, and Sword Archon has changed a bunch between editions, but the Guardinals weren't completely.

I'm strongly of the opinion that Ardlings should just be a legacy/lineage of Aasimar. And that PHB Aasimar should have as it's legacies Protector, Ardling and maybe Reincarnate (aka 4e Deva). As for Ardlings themselves, they should probably take more after DiTerlizzi's example for the Guardinals.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

beancounter said:


> OT rant - I'm a bit irked that WoTC keeps on adding more and more species to the  huge list of choices, yet they won't grandfather half elves or half orcs (in their original "form")




We honestly don't know that they won't. As much as _I personally_ don't care, I suspect that this choice won't go down well in playtest feedback and they'll throw them back in. If ANYTHING is truly a "test" to use the playtest to gage player reaction, THIS one is probably it. And the most likely that they already have a plan to walk-back on.

The "half everything else" sidebar should probably be kept. But Half-Elf and Half-Orc should probably stay in the PHB. And probably will.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

GMforPowergamers said:


> Cause in the other thread about his playtest he says she is new, like never even heard of D&D before seeing it on stranger things... so she went and did what took me 2 or 3 character creations before I could... made it her own and went without using examples... so I was wondering is all.



Kids can be really open to that sort of thing. (As can new players). It should be encouraged!


----------



## beancounter

FitzTheRuke said:


> We honestly don't know that they won't. As much as _I personally_ don't care, I suspect that this choice won't go down well in playtest feedback and they'll throw them back in. If ANYTHING is truly a "test" to use the playtest to gage player reaction, THIS one is probably it. And the most likely that they already have a plan to walk-back on.
> 
> The "half everything else" sidebar should probably be kept. But Half-Elf and Half-Orc should probably stay in the PHB. And probably will.



Thanks, I appreciate your encouraging words ,but I get the feeling that petitioning WOTC for half elves and orcs is like petitioning NASA for Pluto


----------



## FitzTheRuke

beancounter said:


> Thanks, I appreciate your encouraging words ,but I get the feeling that petitioning WOTC for half elves and orcs is like petitioning NASA for Pluto



Poor Pluto - though I defend _that_ choice by pointing out that Pluto IS still a planet - it's just a Dwarf Planet, and has a whole lot of company in that category. In a lot of ways, the solar system is just more interesting for the variety. It's not so much that we've got 8 planets instead of 9 now, it's that we have 8 "planets" and 5+ "dwarf planets". 

That doesn't seem like a loss to me.

(This attitude can be applied to D&D, so it's not as much of a tangent as it appears).


----------



## Yaarel

Is it "legal" for an ardling character to have a human head and play it somewhat like an awsimar?

I think it is legal in the sense that a human is an animal (but not a Beast). Thus is a rules-as-written possibility for appearance.

I feel the player can choose any appearance from completely beast to completely human and any transition between.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Yaarel said:


> Is it "legal" for an ardling character to have a human head and play it somewhat like an awsimar?
> 
> I think it is legal in the sense that a human is an animal (but not a Beast). Thus is a rules-as-written possibility for appearance.



Sure, why not?


----------



## Minigiant

First thing I thought was Anubis Grave Clerics.

Full on animal head


----------



## ClockworkNinja

Yaarel said:


> Is it "legal" for an ardling character to have a human head and play it somewhat like an awsimar?



I think so- a half-ardling with human features would work with RAW. 

IMO the mechanical features currently on ardling would be a good start for aasimar anyway. 

If I could suggest a change, I might like to see a staged upgrade to the flight mechanic- eg at low tier you can glide if you fall or jump from a height, at mid teir you have the singe-turn flight currently described in the playtest, and at high tier you can just fly.


----------



## Yaarel

ClockworkNinja said:


> I think so- a half-ardling with human features would work with RAW.
> 
> IMO the mechanical features currently on ardling would be a good start for aasimar anyway.
> 
> If I could suggest a change, I might like to see a staged upgrade to the flight mechanic- eg at low tier you can glide if you fall or jump from a height, at mid teir you have the singe-turn flight currently described in the playtest, and at high tier you can just fly.



Yeah, the flight should improve across tiers. True flight at say level 9 or 13.


----------



## MechaTarrasque

Considering they have managed not to have anything at all about Guardinals in 5e so far, I am just happy they exist.  That being said, I have no doubt that aasimar will show up sooner than later.


----------



## Smackpixi

It’s obviously their attempt to allow whatever animal faced/skinned character you want without taking up half the PHB with them.  It will surely piss off both everyone who hates furries in their games and furries who want a mor terrestrial origin for their character.  It was a nice try.


----------



## MarkB

The only thing I'm not really sold on is the wings. They're a nice enough feature, I just don't think they'll be thematic to every concept people will want to explore with this race. I'd have preferred a small suite of 3-4 minor supernatural abilities to choose from at character creation.


----------



## niklinna

I just wanna know why Lawful Neutral, Neutral Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral folks don't get special outer-planes-infused races. 

And no, I can't imagine what they would be, but there's an obvious gap there!


----------



## MarkB

niklinna said:


> I just wanna know why Lawful Neutral, Neutral Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral folks don't get special outer-planes-infused races.
> 
> And no, I can't imagine what they would be, but there's an obvious gap there!



You can't trust 'em.


----------



## Smackpixi

I think it’s weird all the people taking the race seriously, and arguing about asimars and whatever.  WoTC is clowning you, get over it, it’s not a serious race, it’s a sop to people that want to play animal people.  Why on earth are you missing this not see that.  They forking said it in the video.


----------



## Cadence

Feels like 

"Aasimar are boring, but the symmetry screams at us and we need something opposite Tieflings.  If any of you have any ideas let us know.  

Ok, next topic, what can we do to the people who want an anthropomorphic animal race without filling the book with a billion varieties or leaning too hard into a real world myth or belief?"


----------



## DND_Reborn

ClockworkNinja said:


> Do we even need ardlings?



No. Absolutely not.


----------



## Scribe

Cadence said:


> Ok, next topic, what can we do to the people who want an anthropomorphic animal race without filling the book with a billion varieties or leaning too hard into a real world myth or belief?"



I think ardlings as written are fine? Its not like one MUST pick those base animal types?

This is why Tiefling was (pre 4e) great. It looked how YOU wanted it to look because the beings of the lower planes are vast and diverse.


----------



## Cadence

Scribe said:


> I think ardlings as written are fine? Its not like one MUST pick those base animal types?
> 
> This is why Tiefling was (pre 4e) great. It looked how YOU wanted it to look because the beings of the lower planes are vast and diverse.




I wasn't complaining about them!  I think it's a neat idea and am guessing tons of players will play them. I was just speculating on how it came about


----------



## Malmuria

What's that?  You want more 2e planescape art? No problem...



Spoiler: Guardinals etc


----------



## Umbran

ClockworkNinja said:


> How do you interpret this? A mostly human head with animal ears on top like an Anime catgirl? or a fully animal head from the neck up like an Egyptian god?




The first thing that came to my mind was "Egyptian god".

Mind you, my brain is also telling me that "outsiders with animal heads" is not at all new to D&D - that back around the time that archons came into the game, there were good outsiders of this form introduced as well.  My recollection is that they weren't very powerful, so largely got ignored.

Unfortunately, I haven't found the _source_ for this.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Umbran said:


> The first thing that came to my mind was "Egyptian god".



My first thought was Ganesha, the Hindu elephant-headed goddess. THEN I went to Anubis and all of those.


----------



## NaturalZero

I really don't like ardlings. Anthro races are great but the thing is that each one actually gets unique stuff associated with an animal - tortle with its shell, tabaxi with its cheeta run, loxodon with its trunk, et al. Ardlings poach the furry aesthetic without any of the actual animal stuff while aasimar sit on the sidelines with their wing-trait stolen. You got your mashed potatoes in my peanut butter.

If they really think that aasimar are too boring a counterpoint to tieflings, they could go back to the last time they tried to replace them and give us the devas. They weren't knock-off furries, they had a distinct aesthetic, and they had a much richer and more evocative background than the assimar.


----------



## Parmandur

I actually think the Ardling is pretty great, even if the name is only so-so. I think they might end up being very successful in the surveys.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

ClockworkNinja said:


> Do we even need ardlings? or are they redundant when we already have Aasimar and Shifters?



Expand aasimar to sometimes have animalian features, if they're descended from guardinals, and we don't need ardlings at all. 

If WotC wants to put a new species into the core PHB, warforged seem like a much more obvious choice. Players may love anthropomorphic animals, but they _really_ love their magical robot people.


----------



## Tonguez

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Expand aasimar to sometimes have animalian features, if they're descended from guardinals, and we don't need ardlings at all.
> 
> If WotC wants to put a new species into the core PHB, warforged seem like a much more obvious choice. Players may love anthropomorphic animals, but they _really_ love their magical robot people.



so much this, after Autognome in Spelljammer, I really was expecting the return of a Construct race rather than adding another outsider template.



FitzTheRuke said:


> My first thought was Ganesha, the Hindu elephant-headed goddess. THEN I went to Anubis and all of those.




I thought:
1Ganesha
2Yag-Kosha (of Conan fame) - Winged, elephant headed outsider
3 Furry animal heads plus human boobs
4 Egyptian pantheon (and Tawaret as an example of 3)


----------



## Umbran

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Expand aasimar to sometimes have animalian features, if they're descended from guardinals, and we don't need ardlings at all.




You realize that goes both ways? The aasimar could simply be ardlings when the "animal" is a humanoid?  Then we don't need aasimar at all.

But thank you, the guardinals were probably the outsiders I was thinking of above.



Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> If WotC wants to put a new species into the core PHB, warforged seem like a much more obvious choice.




Except the warforged are hardly new.


----------



## Grogg of the North




----------



## FitzTheRuke

I have to admit, the thing I like least about ardlings is the name. If they're basically guardinals, why not call them that? (Is it to keep them separate from a monster of the same name?

The only other thing that I think is less-than-great about them is the wings thing. I mean, I like it, but it's a bit too much like Aasimar (for one) and not enough like the given animal (for another).

But they're fine, really. Not the worst race to come to D&D (which would probably be 4e's Shardminds - I liked them okay, but most people (IME) DID NOT.)


----------



## CleverNickName

I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference between the 50% and the 75% examples.

I voted 100%, but *this *is more what I had in mind.  Yes, 100% animal head, sure, but the _rest of the body _is also distinctly not human as well: feline hands and feet, feline proportions, feline fur and markings, a tail, etc.






*Not this*, which is what "100%" in the poll seems to be implying.  This is a human with a cat's head, and that's pretty awesome for an ancient Egypt-themed campaign setting--but for my homebrew setting, this doesn't really fit.




And Fitz is right: the worst thing about them is the name.  "Ardling" sounds like a D&D race of aardvark-people that nobody asked for.  But the concept itself is just fine: I much prefer having one single "animal-people" race option in the Player's Handbook, than a menagerie of three-dozen humanoid options that are identical except for whatever animal head they are wearing and ThiS oNe KoOL fEaTuRe.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Corinnguard said:


> Do we even need Ardlings? Not really. All we really need to do is to expand the number of celestials an Aasimar can be descended from. If 1D&D is going to have Tieflings descending from devils, demons and yugoloths, it only seems fair for the Aasimar to come from angels, archons and guardinals. If you want to look like an animal-headed Aasimar, just have a guardinal ancestor.




 In previous editions an Aasimar could be descended from any kind of celestial, Guardinals, Archons, Eldaelrin, Angels, Good Gods, etc... So Ardlings are just functionally a cosmetic choice for Aasimars.

 There is no reason this cosmetic chouce shouldn't be an option for Tieflings and Genasi as well, their are animal headed fiends like Arcanoloths, Ice Devils, Yeeghunee, etc... And Elementals like Salamaders and the Thunder Serpent (I forget his name). 

 And why stop at animal heads, why not a Dragon headed Abashai themed Tiefling, or even a five headed descendant from Tiamat.

 I encourage you all to encouraged WotC in your feedback to make Ardlings a cosmetic feature for all Planetouched races.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

FitzTheRuke said:


> I have to admit, the thing I like least about ardlings is the name. If they're basically guardinals, why not call them that? (Is it to keep them separate from a monster of the same name?
> 
> The only other thing that I think is less-than-great about them is the wings thing. I mean, I like it, but it's a bit too much like Aasimar (for one) and not enough like the given animal (for another).
> 
> But they're fine, really. Not the worst race to come to D&D (which would probably be 4e's Shardminds - I liked them okay, but most people (IME) DID NOT.)




 They ARE Aasimar, the difference between Aasimar and Ardlings lore wise is completely cosmetic as Aasimar could always be descended from Guardinals, Archons, Egyptian/Mulhorabdi Gods, and other animalistic celestials.


----------



## Corinnguard

Henadic Theologian said:


> In previous editions an Aasimar could be descended from any kind of celestial, Guardinals, Archons, Eldaelrin, Angels, Good Gods, etc... So Ardlings are just functionally a cosmetic choice for Aasimars.
> 
> There is no reason this cosmetic chouce shouldn't be an option for Tieflings and Genasi as well, their are animal headed fiends like Arcanoloths, Ice Devils, Yeeghunee, etc... And Elementals like Salamaders and the Thunder Serpent (I forget his name).
> 
> And why stop at animal heads, why not a Dragon headed Abashai themed Tiefling, or even a five headed descendant from Tiamat.
> 
> I encourage you all to encouraged WotC in your feedback to make Ardlings a cosmetic feature for all Planetouched races.



Pathfinder 2nd edition had something like this for it's Genie-kin versatile heritage. Any celestial, fiend or primal dragon that something elemental about them were now capable of being the ancestor of a particular Genie-kin. This made a certain amount of sense even though it began to blur the line between the different kinds of planetouched in that RPG.


----------



## CleverNickName

ClockworkNinja said:


> Do we even need ardlings? or are they redundant when we already have Aasimar and Shifters?



Redundant races, you say?


----------



## Corinnguard

Aasimar Heritages: Agathion-Blooded for D&D 5th Edition  Here is a homebrew attempt to convert PF1's Idyllkin Aasimar to 5e.


----------



## Scars Unseen

Henadic Theologian said:


> They ARE Aasimar, the difference between Aasimar and Ardlings lore wise is completely cosmetic as Aasimar could always be descended from Guardinals, Archons, Egyptian/Mulhorabdi Gods, and other animalistic celestials.



I could see it being something of a taxonomy thing, where enough concrete differences are observed in celestial-born planetouched that people start using different names for them.  Kind of like how you have tieflings, fey'ri and tanarukks (though those are divided along the mundane parent race) that all have distinct differences in abilities and appearance.

As for the race itself, I'll repeat what I said on Reddit.  The concept, I like.  The whole Egyptian god vibe is one I can dig for sure.  The particulars of their abilities on the other hand...  there's not really much conceptual meat there.  It's like someone tasked the intern with with a basic celestial template writeup.  Whether the abilities are _useful_ or not is kind of beside the point.  They're just boring.

Personally, I'd look for a more concrete concept than "aasimar, but with animal heads."  The first word that comes to mind when I picture an animal headed human (other than "Egypt") is "mysterious."  We're talking about a race that is hard to get a read on just based on facial expressions.  So I say lean into that.  If aasimar are traditionally about embodying the divine, make ardlings revolve more around mystery.  Make them questors, diviners, judges.  

There are any number of other ways they could go with the race, but damn, "generic holy dude with a horse head" isn't it.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Scars Unseen said:


> I could see it being something of a taxonomy thing, where enough concrete differences are observed in celestial-born planetouched that people start using different names for them.  Kind of like how you have tieflings, fey'ri and tanarukks (though those are divided along the mundane parent race) that all have distinct differences in abilities and appearance.



I'm against Fey'ri and Tanarukk being separate races, they're just Tieflings that have either Elvish or Orcish heritage (and the ones in 3e are more Half-Fiends/Cambions than Planetouched).


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Scars Unseen said:


> I could see it being something of a taxonomy thing, where enough concrete differences are observed in celestial-born planetouched that people start using different names for them.  Kind of like how you have tieflings, fey'ri and tanarukks (though those are divided along the mundane parent race) that all have distinct differences in abilities and appearance.
> 
> As for the race itself, I'll repeat what I said on Reddit.  The concept, I like.  The whole Egyptian god vibe is one I can dig for sure.  The particulars of their abilities on the other hand...  there's not really much conceptual meat there.  It's like someone tasked the intern with with a basic celestial template writeup.  Whether the abilities are _useful_ or not is kind of beside the point.  They're just boring.
> 
> Personally, I'd look for a more concrete concept than "aasimar, but with animal heads."  The first word that comes to mind when I picture an animal headed human (other than "Egypt") is "mysterious."  We're talking about a race that is hard to get a read on just based on facial expressions.  So I say lean into that.  If aasimar are traditionally about embodying the divine, make ardlings revolve more around mystery.  Make them questors, diviners, judges.
> 
> There are any number of other ways they could go with the race, but damn, "generic holy dude with a horse head" isn't it.




 There is nothing in the mechanics that suggests Ardlings are different from Aasimar flavour wise, the heads have no mechanical heft.

 Honestly I like the flavour too, I just see no reason to make it unique to one type of Planetouched when it can fit others. And honest given how they do mix race creatures now you cam basically have Fey'ri, just mix Tieflings with Elves.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Umbran said:


> You realize that goes both ways? The aasimar could simply be ardlings when the "animal" is a humanoid?  Then we don't need aasimar at all.
> 
> But thank you, the guardinals were probably the outsiders I was thinking of above.
> 
> 
> 
> Except the warforged are hardly new.




 The Aasimar has history and lore on it's side, the Ardlng does not.


----------



## Tonguez

Henadic Theologian said:


> In previous editions an Aasimar could be descended from any kind of celestial, Guardinals, Archons, Eldaelrin, Angels, Good Gods, etc... So Ardlings are just functionally a cosmetic choice for Aasimars.
> 
> There is no reason this cosmetic chouce shouldn't be an option for Tieflings and Genasi as well, their are animal headed fiends like Arcanoloths, Ice Devils, Yeeghunee, etc... And Elementals like Salamaders and the Thunder Serpent (I forget his name).
> 
> And why stop at animal heads, why not a Dragon headed Abashai themed Tiefling, or even a five headed descendant from Tiamat.
> 
> I encourage you all to encouraged WotC in your feedback to make Ardlings a cosmetic feature for all Planetouched races.



Absolutely this, just make one “Planetouched Lineage” that covers everying from Aasimar to Tiefling to Guardinal-spawn

and yeah when I first saw the name Ardling my first thought was something small and cute not winged animal-headed outsider


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Henadic Theologian said:


> The Aasimar has history and lore on it's side, the Ardlng does not.



To be fair, Aasimar lore is incredibly thin and uninteresting. They're not like the Daevas or something, who had actual lore, an actual reason to exist and peculiar characterstics. Aasimar are just a weaksauce opposite number to Tieflings, who have nothing to say, and no particular style, with none of the mythological punch of Tieflings. Really Aasimar should have been inspired by tales of Nephilim and Demi-Gods and so on. Instead they're just opposite-day Tieflings, with no real connection to the Upper Planar beings (in every edition after 2E, anyway). Tieflings do have some actual lore, by contrast, even if it's varied a bit.

So all Aasimar really have going for them is "tradition". Though I admit they dodged a bullet because Aardling is just as bad a name as Aasimar, if Aardlings had a significantly better name I feel like Aasimar would almost be on the cutting room floor already lol.


Tonguez said:


> Absolutely this, just make one “Planetouched Lineage” that covers everying from Aasimar to Tiefling to Guardinal-spawn



Except no-one wants that and it would be a huge mess.


----------



## MockingBird

I'd rather them be in a source book not a core book.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Personal preference: kemonomimi (anime style) but I also think 5e tieflings are too devilish.

Writer’s intention? I would guess they look just like guardinials, so full animal head.

As a dm? As much or as little as the player wants.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Ruin Explorer said:


> To be fair, Aasimar lore is incredibly thin and uninteresting. They're not like the Daevas or something, who had actual lore, an actual reason to exist and peculiar characterstics. Aasimar are just a weaksauce opposite number to Tieflings, who have nothing to say, and no particular style, with none of the mythological punch of Tieflings. Really Aasimar should have been inspired by tales of Nephilim and Demi-Gods and so on. Instead they're just opposite-day Tieflings, with no real connection to the Upper Planar beings (in every edition after 2E, anyway). Tieflings do have some actual lore, by contrast, even if it's varied a bit.
> 
> So all Aasimar really have going for them is "tradition". Though I admit they dodged a bullet because Aardling is just as bad a name as Aasimar, if Aardlings had a significantly better name I feel like Aasimar would almost be on the cutting room floor already lol.
> 
> Except no-one wants that and it would be a huge mess.




 The Aasimar do have lore, it's not that thin at all. Is it as much as the Tiefling? No, but it's not a PHB, rank has it's priveldges.

 And Devas and Aasimar ARE the same race as far as FR lore goes, most Aasimar have ties to Mulan Gods, although Planescape style Aasimar exist in FR as well.

 You also have a city of FR Aasimar that is the last surviving ancient Netherese city to survive.

 You have Aasimar in various novels too.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> To be fair, Aasimar lore is incredibly thin and uninteresting. They're not like the Daevas or something, who had actual lore, an actual reason to exist and peculiar characterstics. Aasimar are just a weaksauce opposite number to Tieflings, who have nothing to say, and no particular style, with none of the mythological punch of Tieflings. Really Aasimar should have been inspired by tales of Nephilim and Demi-Gods and so on. Instead they're just opposite-day Tieflings, with no real connection to the Upper Planar beings (in every edition after 2E, anyway). Tieflings do have some actual lore, by contrast, even if it's varied a bit.
> 
> So all Aasimar really have going for them is "tradition". Though I admit they dodged a bullet because Aardling is just as bad a name as Aasimar, if Aardlings had a significantly better name I feel like Aasimar would almost be on the cutting room floor already lol.
> 
> Except no-one wants that and it would be a huge mess.



Well, the Aasmair are in OneD&D already on their own, at any rate, in Monsters of the Multiverse. I thinknthe Egyptian Wingfic furry version is likely to make it through UA to the PHB, though, maybe with a name change.


----------



## Scars Unseen

Henadic Theologian said:


> There is nothing in the mechanics that suggests Ardlings are different from Aasimar flavour wise, the heads have no mechanical heft.
> 
> Honestly I like the flavour too, I just see no reason to make it unique to one type of Planetouched when it can fit others. And honest given how they do mix race creatures now you cam basically have Fey'ri, just mix Tieflings with Elves.



There's no more reason that the heads themselves need to have mechanics attached to them than there is for a dwarf's beard.  They aren't a beast race.  And what I'm suggesting is that there _should_ be a difference between aasimar and ardling flavor-wise.  Pretty much the entire point of my post is that I feel they should vary mechanically from aasimar.  Otherwise they just aren't very interesting, which ostensibly is the justification for their existence:  people thought aasimar weren't interesting.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Henadic Theologian said:


> The Aasimar do have lore, it's not that thin at all. Is it as much as the Tiefling? No, but it's not a PHB, rank has it's priveldges.
> 
> And Devas and Aasimar ARE the same race as far as FR lore goes, most Aasimar have ties to Mulan Gods, although Planescape style Aasimar exist in FR as well.
> 
> You also have a city of FR Aasimar that is the last surviving ancient Netherese city to survive.
> 
> You have Aasimar in various novels too.



Imho, that's not lore that matters or has much value.

That's FR-specific silly business. All of it pretty recent and forgettable and only existing because the FR is the gelatinous cube of settings. It's definitely fair to say that generally speaking, Aasimar lore is extremely thin and inconsistent. They don't reflect part-angels from mythology/fantasy literature (who are approximately a million times spicier than Aasimar) the way Tieflings do reflect part-demons from mythology/fantasy literature, for example.

By Mulan gods are we meaning Mulhorandi? Took me a while to unpick that one.

Honestly I blame 3E. It utterly ruined Aasimar and Tieflings, and only Tieflings really recovered. 4E having Daevas which were so much more interesting than Aasimar doesn't help (and the idea that they're "the same thing" as Aasimar is terrible and whoever thought of that should stop writing lore forever). I believe 4E much later added Aasimar and they were milquetoast as usual.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Ruin Explorer said:


> Really Aasimar should have been inspired by tales of Nephilim and Demi-Gods and so on.



Exactly what they are in my campaign. Worse yet -- they're the result of very icky experiments by long-dead evil wizards, who got a lot more than they expected, which eventually led to their destruction.


----------



## Corinnguard

Ruin Explorer said:


> Imho, that's not lore that matters or has much value.
> 
> That's FR-specific silly business. All of it pretty recent and forgettable and only existing because the FR is the gelatinous cube of settings. It's definitely fair to say that generally speaking, Aasimar lore is extremely thin and inconsistent. They don't reflect part-angels from mythology/fantasy literature (who are approximately a million times spicier than Aasimar) the way Tieflings do reflect part-demons from mythology/fantasy literature, for example.
> 
> By Mulan gods are we meaning Mulhorandi? Took me a while to unpick that one.
> 
> Honestly I blame 3E. It utterly ruined Aasimar and Tieflings, and only Tieflings really recovered. 4E having Daevas which were so much more interesting than Aasimar doesn't help (and the idea that they're "the same thing" as Aasimar is terrible and whoever thought of that should stop writing lore forever). I believe 4E much later added Aasimar and they were milquetoast as usual.



Have you ever checked out the Aasimar and Tieflings from Pathfinder 1st edition? Both of these planetouched races in PF1 were given their own lore books in that RPG. _Blood of Angels _ and _Blood of Fiends. _Sometimes a RPG does a great job portraying a race, and sometimes it doesn't. If it doesn't, homebrew it till you like it. 

As for the Devas, if they were so much more interesting than the Aasimar, why didn't WoTC bring them forward into 5e?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Corinnguard said:


> As for the Devas, if they were so much more interesting than the Aasimar, why didn't WoTC bring them forward into 5e?



Because 4E was largely radioactive with the folks who bounced off it and away to other systems and WotC is only now open to bringing in obvious innovations (arcane, divine and primal power sources is straight out of 4E). Instead, with 5E, they over-corrected, tossing out even many non-controversial elements of 4E.


----------



## Mind of tempest

my complaints are they have dull mechanics not bad just dull.
and I find furry races in general kinda lazy you just get stereotypes of the animal in most cases or a human in a lazy costume better to craft something out of lots of sources to get something truly great but otherwise I do not care never liked any PHB races anyway.
tempted by the jaffa idea.


Corinnguard said:


> Have you ever checked out the Aasimar and Tieflings from Pathfinder 1st edition? Both of these planetouched races in PF1 were given their own lore books in that RPG. _Blood of Angels _ and _Blood of Fiends. _Sometimes a RPG does a great job portraying a race, and sometimes it doesn't. If it doesn't, homebrew it till you like it.
> 
> As for the Devas, if they were so much more interesting than the Aasimar, why didn't WoTC bring them forward into 5e?



this was the apology for 4e edition remember lots of cool stuff got killed to try to get more pathfinder players back.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Corinnguard said:


> As for the Devas, if they were so much more interesting than the Aasimar, why didn't WoTC bring them forward into 5e?



Because 5E is an "apology edition", and they didn't really "bring forwards" much that was new or cool from 4E unless it was insanely good (Feywild for example), and indeed, even where 4E had done a great job, and where the D&D Next playtest had cool ideas, at the very last minute, without a playtest, WotC reverted tons of stuff to be basically 3E-like, including entire classes, like Sorcerer.

Bringing forwards Daeva would have certainly not pleased very people WotC was seeking to "apologise" to. Indeed it's notable that 5E Aasimar revert to the terrible 3E-style lore for Aasimar, not the better 2E lore.

Also 5E or more specifically Volo's just made a lot of bad lore decisions relating to the planes and planar beings early on, not least that Angels only serve Good-aligned gods (so much for making alignment optional!), which, hilariously, left Neutral and Evil gods with zero servants, as Volo's also clarified that converse, demons/devils were NOT the servants of Evil gods, and Neutral gods just had nothing too. Sorry I know that's an off-shoot but Volo's, which reintroduced Aasimar was just a total mess. It also reintroduced horrific racist implications with the Orcs for example, by virtually quoting 1940s racist textbooks in describing Orcs.


----------



## Corinnguard

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Because 4E was largely radioactive with the folks who bounced off it and away to other systems and WotC is only now open to bringing in obvious innovations (arcane, divine, primal power source is straight out of 4E). Instead, with 5E, they over-corrected, tossing out even many non-controversial elements of 4E.



I know. I was one of the folk who bounced off of 4e and straight to Pathfinder 1st edition.


----------



## TheSword

ClockworkNinja said:


> Quote from the playtest: _"An ardling has a head resembling that of an animal, typically one with virtuous associations. Depending on the animal, the ardling might also have soft fur, downy feathers, or supple bare skin." _
> 
> How do you interpret this? A mostly human head with animal ears on top like an Anime catgirl? or a fully animal head from the neck up like an Egyptian god?
> 
> Would having a different mouth shape cause trouble when drinking from a cup, or give them an odd lisp when speaking?
> 
> Do we even need ardlings? or are they redundant when we already have Aasimar and Shifters?
> 
> View attachment 258590



Thundercats are GO!!!


----------



## Ruin Explorer

TheSword said:


> Thundercats are GO!!!
> 
> View attachment 258711



I once considered doing a vaguely Thundercats-themed campaign for D&D but I realized, depending on the mood of my players when I got them to make the PCs, I was going to either get five variants of Lion-o, or five variants of Snarf.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Ruin Explorer said:


> I once considered doing a vaguely Thundercats-themed campaign for D&D but I realized, depending on the mood of my players when I got them to make the PCs, I was going to either get five variants of Lion-o, or five variants of Snarf.



but what about a hybrid lino/snarf for variety?


----------



## Corinnguard

If the Thundercats were brought into 5e, they would be an all Tabaxi team.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Corinnguard said:


> If the Thundercats were brought into 5e, they would be an all Tabaxi team.



nah at least some of them would be the lino folk from MTG


----------



## Corinnguard

Mind of tempest said:


> nah at least some of them would be the lino folk from MTG



Lion-o probably. I was going by the Tabaxi version found in the Monsters of the Multiverse book, who now resemble anthropomorphic versions of the Big Cats and Domesticated Cats.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Corinnguard said:


> If the Thundercats were brought into 5e, they would be an all Tabaxi team.




 Leonin actually, Lions, Tigers, etc..., but given they mostly look hunan Shifters would make more sense, they even have a kind of shifting effect when summoned by the Sword of Omens


----------



## Parmandur

Henadic Theologian said:


> Leonin actually, Lions, Tigers, etc...



In OneD&D, they would be Tabaxi. See Monsters of the Multiverse, Tabaxi jow include Luon, Tiger, domestic cat, any sort of cat person.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Parmandur said:


> In OneD&D, they would be Tabaxi. See Monsters of the Multiverse, Tabaxi jow include Luon, Tiger, domestic cat, any sort of cat person.




  The Thundercats are like 90% human looking, 10% cat, so Shifters are a better fit, except Snarf. The Thundercats even have a shifting like effect when summoned by the sword of omens.


----------



## Corinnguard

Henadic Theologian said:


> The Thundercats are like 90% human looking, 10% cat, so Shifters are a better fit, except Snarf. The Thundercats even have a shifting like effect when summoned by the sword of omens.



True. However, while their Shifter-like appearance in the remake was an ode to the original Thundercats setting, it made them stick out like a sore thumb compared to the other anthropomorphic races.


----------



## BookTenTiger

I like the ardlings! They remind me of an angel from an old JLA comic I read as a kid. (I can't believe I was able to find this on Google.)


----------



## Kobold Avenger

As for Tieflings having animal heads because some fiends do, I think it might be more of the nature of fiendish blood that makes that rarer in Tieflings, mortal blood attampts to rejects the Fiendish corruption. And I think for example in the case of a Tiefling of Glabrezu-heritage they far more likely to have an extra set of vestigial arms than look like a dog, because I think vestigial arms are simply more interesting.

For Guardinals, Cerdivals are often depicted as being Satyr-like they've generally been shown as the most Human looking of all Guardinals. Avorals have usually been shown as Humans with beak-like noses and feathers for hair. I don't see there being a good reason that the mortal descendant of an Avoral has an eagle head when many Avoral's don't have eagle heads, unless the Ardling/Aasimar was of Aarockocra, Owlin or Kenku descent.

As for how an Aardling or Aasimar, of Celestial Eladrin (aka Azata) background I feel they would look more fey-like and elemental (though I know that touches on actual Fey races and the Genasi), though maybe some plant-like features could be added in.


----------



## Tonguez

BookTenTiger said:


> I like the ardlings! They remind me of an angel from an old JLA comic I read as a kid. (I can't believe I was able to find this on Google.)
> 
> snip



Based of course on the Cherubim of Semitic* myth - which is one of the funny things about Ardlings of course is that Angels are already Aasimar. Maybe they should change the name Aardling to Kerub and make the link explicit
*I say Semitic rather than Hebrew myth as the Akkadian Lammasu derive from the same bases, the Akkadian term Karibu means one who blesses.
DnD Lammasu and Shedu could be directly ancestral perhaps - lets lean into the mythology


----------



## Cadence

TheSword said:


> Thundercats are GO!!! *HO!*
> 
> View attachment 258711




FTFY


----------



## MechaTarrasque

I am all for exotic races, but I think a "martial sorcerer" class where you hit harder because your daddy was a god or an angel or your grandma was a giant or a demon would be a better way to fill the concept (we already have the sorcerer to deal with "your dad was a {fill in the blank}, so you can cast spells in a special way").


----------



## CrashFiend82

I feel like like the ardlings maybe a stealth test of adding Aasimar to the PHB. It wouldn't be the first time WOTC used a term or name that changed upon publication and it might be a great way to test a new theme or ruleset without the baggage of lore and decrying of not my Aasimar. I think that might be similar to reprinting the old rules for Dragonborn to gather data over the Fizban's changes and see if people really prefer them or if the new rules went to far.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

CrashFiend82 said:


> I feel like like the ardlings maybe a stealth test of adding Aasimar to the PHB. It wouldn't be the first time WOTC used a term or name that changed upon publication and it might be a great way to test a new theme or ruleset without the baggage of lore and decrying of not my Aasimar. I think that might be similar to reprinting the old rules for Dragonborn to gather data over the Fizban's changes and see if people really prefer them or if the new rules went to far.




 That makes a lot of sense.


----------



## TheSword

Cadence said:


> FTFY



Well it was kind of a joke…

Though I don’t there’s a need to throw that kind of name calling about. 

… anything could happen in the next half hour!


----------



## Raith5

I really prefer the idea that races have an ongoing cultural and historical presence in the world rather than a lineage. That is why I prefer the 4e style dragonborn, tieflings, and devas to the individual/isolated planetouched narrative. The 4e races least tried to have stories and animosities - especially between fallen dragonborn and cursed tieflings that could echo the old Dwarf - Elf axis and almost feel somewhat real rather than forced. 

The forced symmetry of different tiefling and ardling sub races also feels so incurably fake. 

Sure there must be the option for a specific story of creating a plane touched individual - I am currently playing with one - but I dont see how these isolated individuals are world building tool.


----------



## glass

ClockworkNinja said:


> How do you interpret this? A mostly human head with animal ears on top like an Anime catgirl? or a fully animal head from the neck up like an Egyptian god?



I cannot see any compelling reason why the answer to this should not be "yes". Ardlings in the world could run the full gamut, and the player could choose whichever they like for their character.



ClockworkNinja said:


> Would having a different mouth shape cause trouble when drinking from a cup, or give them an odd lisp when speaking?



No. That way would lies madness at the table (well maybe not madness, but it would be annoying and probably ableist).



ClockworkNinja said:


> Do we even need ardlings? or are they redundant when we already have Aasimar and Shifters?



"Need" is a strong word for a tabletop RPG (a luxury good). We do not "need" anything, but that does not mean they should not be included if a non-trivial people are likely to find them fun, which I believe is the case here.



Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Corinnguard said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the Devas, if they were so much more interesting than the Aasimar, why didn't WoTC bring them forward into 5e?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because 4E was largely radioactive with the folks who bounced off it
Click to expand...


Especially since Mike Mearls was one of them.



Ruin Explorer said:


> Indeed it's notable that 5E Aasimar revert to the terrible 3E-style lore for Aasimar, not the better 2E lore.



Is there a convenient summary of the 2e and 3e/5e versions of aasimar lore available anywhere?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

glass said:


> Is there a convenient summary of the 2e and 3e/5e versions of aasimar lore available anywhere?



Not that I'm aware of. The Forgotten Realms wiki has the art from the editions, but I think everything else is fixed to the 5E take. It also incorrectly says Aasimar first appear in the Planescape Campaign Setting, when in fact they appear in The Planewalkers Handbook.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Ruin Explorer said:


> Not that I'm aware of. The Forgotten Realms wiki has the art from the editions, but I think everything else is fixed to the 5E take. It also incorrectly says Aasimar first appear in the Planescape Campaign Setting, when in fact they appear in The Planewalkers Handbook.



The Forgotten Realms wiki is _eccentric_, to put it mildly. (Everything being past tense is a pretty interesting editorial decision, for instance, as though this wiki is written many years after the events of the D&D game.)


----------



## Lojaan

Ardlings don't sit right with me, but aasimar also need something more. Maybe combine the two somehow?


----------



## Corinnguard

Lojaan said:


> Ardlings don't sit right with me, but aasimar also need something more. Maybe combine the two somehow?



1D&D has three celestial legacies- Exalted, Heavenly and Idyllic for their new Ardling race. I would use these three legacies for the Aasimar instead. The Idyllic legacy should be for the those Aasimar who are the descendants of the Guardinals (In PF1, there's the Idyllkin Aasimar). The Heavenly legacy should be for those who are the descendants of the Archons (who are from the Seven Heavens   ). And lastly, the Exalted legacy should be for those who are the descendants of the Angels.

The problem with the Aasimar in 5e is that they are too angel-centric. Which is strange because angels aren't the only kind of Celestial in 5e. 

Would this count as something more?


----------



## Argyle King

I voted for "mostly human," but I think the idea of animal heads is winning me over.

That would give me a reason to mix some Egyptian mythology into my D&D.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Corinnguard said:


> 1D&D has three celestial legacies- Exalted, Heavenly and Idyllic for their new Ardling race. I would use these three legacies for the Aasimar instead. The Idyllic legacy should be for the those Aasimar who are the descendants of the Guardinals (In PF1, there's the Idyllkin Aasimar). The Heavenly legacy should be for those who are the descendants of the Archons (who are from the Seven Heavens   ). And lastly, the Exalted legacy should be for those who are the descendants of the Angels.
> 
> The problem with the Aasimar in 5e is that they are too angel-centric. Which is strange because angels aren't the only kind of Celestial in 5e.



I think they're only starting to consider other Celestials because Planescape is on the way.

I think somewhere in 2e, the metallic/alchemy-themed Rilmani of the Outlands have also been considered as possible ancestors of some Aasimar. If they return in 5e they'd probably be of the Celestial creature type.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Corinnguard said:


> 1D&D has three celestial legacies- Exalted, Heavenly and Idyllic for their new Ardling race. I would use these three legacies for the Aasimar instead. The Idyllic legacy should be for the those Aasimar who are the descendants of the Guardinals (In PF1, there's the Idyllkin Aasimar). The Heavenly legacy should be for those who are the descendants of the Archons (who are from the Seven Heavens   ). And lastly, the Exalted legacy should be for those who are the descendants of the Angels.
> 
> The problem with the Aasimar in 5e is that they are too angel-centric. Which is strange because angels aren't the only kind of Celestial in 5e.
> 
> Would this count as something more?



Along those lines, I might suggest splitting the Celestial language into Exalted, Heavenly and Idyllic, similar to WotC needing to drop the pretense with Primordial. (The only creature in the Monster Manual that speaks "Primordial" is the Night Hag, which suggests that even the company's designers don't think of it as a single language.)


----------



## Malmuria

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Along those lines, I might suggest splitting the Celestial language into Exalted, Heavenly and Idyllic, similar to WotC needing to drop the pretense with Primordial. (The only creature in the Monster Manual that speaks "Primordial" is the Night Hag, which suggests that even the company's designers don't think of it as a single language.)



Elementals all speak types of primordial


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Malmuria said:


> Elementals all speak types of primordial



"Types" of Primordial is a huge cop-out.

Either Primordial is a language, or it's an umbrella term for four different ones. Given that _one_ monster speaks "Primordial," I don't think the designers really believe it's a single language.

What does "four dialects" of Primordial mean? Is it a dialect in the same way that Indians and Australians speak English, but with different accents and vocabularies? No one would say either group is not speaking English (obviously, there are hundreds of languages spoken in India; I'm just talking about Indian English).

And what benefit, except to a handful of PCs, is there in salamanders and dao theoretically speaking the same language?


----------



## Yaarel

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> "Types" of Primordial is a huge cop-out.
> 
> Either Primordial is a language, or it's an umbrella term for four different ones. Given that _one_ monster speaks "Primordial," I don't think the designers really believe it's a single language.
> 
> What does "four dialects" of Primordial mean? Is it a dialect in the same way that Indians and Australians speak English, but with different accents and vocabularies? No one would say either group is not speaking English (obviously, there are hundreds of languages spoken in India; I'm just talking about Indian English).



Primordial can be a single language.

Each element can have its own recognizable "dialect", but be mutually intelligible.





Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> And what benefit, except to a handful of PCs, is there in salamanders and dao theoretically speaking the same language?



Perhaps selecting a specific dialect of Primordial comes with an ancestry or background that exhibits affinity with a specific element.


----------



## Yaarel

I am less fond of the term "Idyllic", relating to NG, the Elysian plane, and ardlings.

How about "Paradisal" (or Paradisiac, Paradisaic, etcetera) relating to Paradise?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Yaarel said:


> Primordial can be a single language.
> 
> Each element can have its own recognizable "dialect", but be mutually intelligible.



What makes it a dialect? An accent? A few distinct vocabulary words?

If Primordial is truly a language, why isn't anyone speaking it?


----------



## Yaarel

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> What makes it a dialect? An accent? A few distinct vocabulary words?



Yes. An accent (pronunciation) as well as occasionally divergent vocabulary. Also slight differences in grammar.




Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> If Primordial is truly a language, why isn't anyone speaking it?



People should be speaking Primordial with elementals.

I propose Primordial is also the language of the True Neutral astral dominion, the Outlands.

Perhaps Primordial is even the trade language of Sigil.

The Outlands and the Elemental Chaos can be identical. Thus Sigil is actually in the Elemental Chaos.


----------



## Parmandur

So, sitting on this all a bit longer, I think thst I really like the Egyptian mythos vibe this option brings. The Aasamir, in addition to having an even sillier name, are frankly somewhat bland. Playing a Paladin who looks like Horua, a Cleric who looks like Isis, a Figher who looks like Ganesh? That's got style.

Also, weird realization: the new hybrid rules mean that the core rules would encourage any PC, of any Rave whatsoever, to be an anthropomorphic animal version. Dog headed Orcs, Rabbit headed Gnomes, Frog headed Halflings, etc...


----------



## Corinnguard

Parmandur said:


> So, sitting on this all a bit longer, I think thst I really like the Egyptian mythos vibe this option brings. The Aasamir, in addition to having an even sillier name, are frankly somewhat bland. Playing a Paladin who looks like Horua, a Cleric who looks like Isis, a Figher who looks like Ganesh? That's got style.
> 
> Also, weird realization: the new hybrid rules mean that the core rules would encourage any PC, of any Rave whatsoever, to be an anthropomorphic animal version. Dog headed Orcs, Rabbit headed Gnomes, Frog headed Halflings, etc...



This is only one place on the entire continent of Faerun that is like Egypt, Mulhorand. So does this mean the Ardlings hail from there? It would make sense if they did. Then they could get a proper Mulhorandi name instead of what they have now as a placeholder.   

I do agree with you on the Aasimar being bland in 5e. PF1 did a much better job of presenting them. But you could get a Paladin who looks like Horus by having an Aarakocra Paladin, and a Fighter who looks Ganesh by having a Loxodon Fighter.


----------



## MarkB

Yaarel said:


> I am less fond of the term "Idyllic", relating to NG, the Elysian plane, and ardlings.
> 
> How about "Paradisal" (or Paradisiac, Paradisaic, etcetera) relating to Paradise?



Paradise seems like it'd be a pretty idyllic place.


----------



## Yaarel

MarkB said:


> Paradise seems like it'd be a pretty idyllic place.



For me, "idyllic" means quaint and lazy and anti-technologically luddite.

It comes from an "idyl", a short poem.

It isnt what True Good is about.


----------



## Parmandur

Corinnguard said:


> This is only one place on the entire continent of Faerun that is like Egypt, Mulhorand. So does this mean the Ardlings hail from there? It would make sense if they did. Then they could get a proper Mulhorandi name instead of what they have now as a placeholder.
> 
> I do agree with you on the Aasimar being bland in 5e. PF1 did a much better job of presenting them. But you could get a Paladin who looks like Horus by having an Aarakocra Paladin, and a Fighter who looks Ganesh by having a Loxodon Fighter.



SCAG suggests thst Mulan Tieflings might be Egyptian style animal headed people, particularly if they are Aristoc4ats. The Pharoh of Mulhorand is easily reinterpreted as an Ardling,  UT let's be teal, once they are in the PHB theybwill be all over rthe FR.


----------



## Parmandur

Yaarel said:


> For me, "idyllic" means quaint and lazy and anti-technologically luddite.
> 
> It comes from an "idyl", a short poem.
> 
> It isnt what True Good is about.



That's really not how the word is used in English normally...?


----------



## Yaarel

Parmandur said:


> That's really not how the word is used in English normally...?



It kinda is how "idyllic" gets used in English normally.

At best it means, "rural" and "charming".

But quaint and luddite are its connotations.

The word has its place. But it isnt what an existential realm of platonic Good is about.

"Paradise" works better − both perfect Good and even has the connotation of a sensorial "garden". But it is a sophisticated and cultivated "ideal" garden. It is more industrial and industrious.


----------



## MarkB

Yaarel said:


> It kinda is how "idyllic" gets used in English normally.
> 
> At best it means, "rural" and "charming".
> 
> But quaint and luddite are its connotations.
> 
> The word has its place. But it isnt what an existential realm of platonic Good is about.
> 
> "Paradise" works better − both perfect Good and even has the connotation of a sensorial "garden". But it is a sophisticated and cultivated "ideal" garden. It is more industrial and industrious.



I admit I'm no expert on the planes, but "industrial and industrious" is not a description I associate with the plane of absolute heavenly goodness.


----------



## Parmandur

Yaarel said:


> It kinda is how "idyllic" gets used in English normally.
> 
> At best it means, "rural" and "charming".
> 
> But quaint and luddite are its connotations.
> 
> The word has its place. But it isnt what an existential realm of platonic Good is about.
> 
> "Paradise" works better − both perfect Good and even has the connotation of a sensorial "garden". But it is a sophisticated and cultivated "ideal" garden. It is more industrial and industrious.



Yeah, I've never heard the word used with that connotation: "extremely happy, peaceful, or picturesque" is what comes up in the dictionary.


----------



## Yaarel

MarkB said:


> I admit I'm no expert on the planes, but "industrial and industrious" is not a description I associate with the plane of absolute heavenly goodness.



It takes effort to make the world a better place.

Even in the biblical archetype, divinity commanded the humanity to "work" the garden of Eden, namely paradise comes from effort.


----------



## MarkB

Yaarel said:


> It takes effort to make the world a better place.
> 
> Even in the biblical archetype, divinity commanded the humanity to "work" the garden of Eden, namely paradise comes from effort.



Yeah, but I'm guessing that Adam and Eve didn't clear-cut the Garden of Eden and set up a lumber mill to recycle the Tree of Knowledge into a quaint cottage.


----------



## Parmandur

MarkB said:


> Yeah, but I'm guessing that Adam and Eve didn't clear-cut the Garden of Eden and set up a lumber mill to recycle the Tree of Knowledge into a quaint cottage.



That's why they got kicked out, violat3d the HOA agreement


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Yaarel said:


> It kinda is how "idyllic" gets used in English normally.
> 
> At best it means, "rural" and "charming".
> 
> But quaint and luddite are its connotations.



No?

I mean, not in British-English real-world usage.

As someone who has been using that word since I was a kid, and hearing it used, I have never once, in British-English, heard it used imply "quaint", "backwards", "anti-technology", let alone "luddite" (as in active machine smashing). I heard it used just last week about a place I was staying (not by me), which was anything but "luddite" - great wife, modern kitchen, modern utilities etc. in general.

If there's a book or something where you remember it being used that way, I'd be fascinated to know what that is.

Idyllic means basic "quiet and beautiful" in typical British English usage. Usually there's the implication of natural beauty. Somewhere you could chillax. Like seriously chillax. A idyll. Now, a "rural idyll" which is a common phrase does obviously imply rural because the word is literally there, and rural can imply quaint/backwards but absolutely does not imply luddism.


----------



## Yaarel

Ruin Explorer said:


> No?
> 
> I mean, not in British-English real-world usage.
> 
> As someone who has been using that word since I was a kid, and hearing it used, I have never once, in British-English, heard it used imply "quaint", "backwards", "anti-technology", let alone "luddite" (as in active machine smashing). I heard it used just last week about a place I was staying (not by me), which was anything but "luddite" - great wife, modern kitchen, modern utilities etc. in general.
> 
> If there's a book or something where you remember it being used that way, I'd be fascinated to know what that is.
> 
> Idyllic means basic "quiet and beautiful" in typical British English usage. Usually there's the implication of natural beauty. Somewhere you could chillax. Like seriously chillax. A idyll. Now, a "rural idyll" which is a common phrase does obviously imply rural because the word is literally there, and rural can imply quaint/backwards but absolutely does not imply luddism.



Paradise isnt "quiet".


----------



## Yaarel

MarkB said:


> Yeah, but I'm guessing that Adam and Eve didn't clear-cut the Garden of Eden and set up a lumber mill to recycle the Tree of Knowledge into a quaint cottage.



The concept of a "paradise" is a sacred orchard, a kind of shrine made out of an exquisitely cultivated garden.

The practice constructing a sacred orchard is important across southwest Asia. The concept and even the practice continues on today in various cultures.

The phrase "Gan Eden" literally means a "pleasure garden", in the sense of a botanical garden, an orchard of different kinds of trees.

Possibly, Asgard too, if relating to Troy in Turkey is a kind of sacred pleasure garden, where the nornir cultivate the cosmic tree Yggdrasil.

Paradise is "ideal" but it is the fruit of human work and maintenance. It is a cosmic sacred work.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Yaarel said:


> Paradise isnt "quiet".



You keep saying this, but that's not what most people believe. You seem to have like some kind of awesome take on the Garden of Eden that may be correct (it's an interesting reading), but like:

A) That's not the only paradise.

B) Everyone else thinks paradise is quiet, and this is typically reflected in, oh I dunno, 90-95% of Western and frankly Eastern literature, film, TV, and just media in general depictions of paradise.


----------



## Yaarel

Ruin Explorer said:


> You keep saying this, but that's not what most people believe. You seem to have like some kind of awesome take on the Garden of Eden that may be correct (it's an interesting reading), but like:
> 
> A) That's not the only paradise.
> 
> B) Everyone else thinks paradise is quiet, and this is typically reflected in, oh I dunno, 90-95% of Western and frankly Eastern literature, film, TV, and just media in general depictions of paradise.



I think most people associate paradise with a "perfection" that includes "sensuality", even sexuality.

Paradise is sensorially vibrant and active, even while divinely blissful.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Yaarel said:


> Paradise is "ideal" but it is the fruit of human work and maintenance. It is a cosmic sacred work.



This is not a view anywhere near as common as you are suggesting, and even where I can think of Western examples of it being true, it's very light kind of "off-screen" cultivation. The view of England as a paradise, a "green and pleasant land", "new Jerusalem" is absolutely one that includes some cultivation, but it's not cultivation that we're meant to think about, it's cultivation that "other people" do. Maybe you do a little pruning or whatever, lazily do some weeding, but it's not some sort of high-effort industrious gardening like at Kew Gardens or something - it's more like you're a visitor at Kew Gardens than an employee of Kew Gardens.

Also, you're just wrong re: Idyllic whether you acknowledge it or not. It has nothing to do with luddism or anti-tech.


----------



## Yaarel

Ruin Explorer said:


> This is not a view anywhere near as common as you are suggesting, and even where I can think of Western examples of it being true, it's very light kind of "off-screen" cultivation. The view of England as a paradise, a "green and pleasant land", "new Jerusalem" is absolutely one that includes some cultivation, but it's not cultivation that we're meant to think about, it's cultivation that "other people" do. Maybe you do a little pruning or whatever, lazily do some weeding, but it's not some sort of high-effort industrious gardening like at Kew Gardens or something - it's more like you're a visitor at Kew Gardens than an employee of Kew Gardens.
> 
> Also, you're just wrong re: Idyllic whether you acknowledge it or not. It has nothing to do with luddism or anti-tech.



In paradise − the gardeners and the visitors of the Kew Gardens are the very same people.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Yaarel said:


> I think most people associate paradise with a "perfection" that includes "sensuality", even sexuality.
> 
> It is sensorially vibrant, even while divinely blissful.



I absolutely agree.

That doesn't imply work, or that the perfection is man-made. It is natural, or of god or the gods.

You can have paradises that are man-made, but guess what? The people who see them as paradises, are not the people who maintain them, not the people who work on them.



Yaarel said:


> In paradise − the gardeners and the visitors of the Kew Gardens are the very same people.



Examples. And don't give me the Garden of Eden because that's interesting reading but it's not a mainstream one.


----------



## MarkB

Yaarel said:


> The concept of a "paradise" is a sacred orchard, a kind of shrine made out of an exquisitely cultivated garden.
> 
> The practice constructing a sacred orchard is important across southwest Asia. The concept and even the practice continues on today in various cultures.
> 
> The phrase "Gan Eden" literally means a "pleasure garden", in the sense of a botanical garden, an orchard of different kinds of trees.
> 
> Possibly, Asgard too, if relating to Troy in Turkey is a kind of sacred pleasure garden, where the nornir cultivate the cosmic tree Yggdrasil.
> 
> Paradise is "ideal" but it is the fruit of human work and maintenance. It is a cosmic sacred work.


----------



## Corinnguard

Parmandur said:


> SCAG suggests thst Mulan Tieflings might be Egyptian style animal headed people, particularly if they are Aristoc4ats. The Pharoh of Mulhorand is easily reinterpreted as an Ardling,  UT let's be teal, once they are in the PHB theybwill be all over rthe FR.



True. If the Ardlings survive the playtesting process as is. We do have a year and a half before 1D&D officially comes out. A lot can happen between now and then.


----------



## Yaarel

@MarkB, @Ruin Explorer 

"They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."

Yeah, important point. Paradise requires harmony with nature. It can orchestrate nature, but cannot violate nature. Paradise benefits from nature. It is a human symbiosis with the rest of nature. 

Paradise requires effort. Traditions in various monotheisms include the sense of doing the hard work in this world and benefiting from the fruits of ones labor in the world to come.

Saliently, paradise is a place of "luxury". People create different kinds of luxuries to enjoy. This creativity for clever exquisite things is where the connotations of effort, industriousness, and technologies come in.


----------



## WarDriveWorley

Yaarel said:


> Yeah, important point. Paradise requires harmony with nature. It can orchestrate nature, but cannot violate nature. Paradise benefits from nature. It is a human symbiosis with the rest of nature.



Given that the definition of paradise is "an ideal or idyllic place or state" and every person's ideal varies I think it's short sighted to claim paradise cannot "violate nature" and requires harmony with nature. There are people who find lack of nature appealing and even ideal for a peaceful existence.  If there is a metaphysical paradise I'm sure there are as many variations of it as there people that have lived, some of which may be bereft of what you may consider as harmony with nature.


----------



## Yaarel

WarDriveWorley said:


> Given that the definition of paradise is "an ideal or idyllic place or state" and every person's ideal varies I think it's short sighted to claim paradise cannot "violate nature" and requires harmony with nature. There are people who find lack of nature appealing and even ideal for a peaceful existence.  If there is a metaphysical paradise I'm sure there are as many variations of it as there people that have lived, some of which may be bereft of what you may consider as harmony with nature.



The terms "ideal" and "idyllic" derive from different etymologies and − in use − mean different things.

Idyllic literally means briefly poetic.

Ideal means perfect and essential.



Re the concept and connotation of paradise, it includes both natural sensuality and artificial luxury. Both nature and technology.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

WarDriveWorley said:


> Given that the definition of paradise is "an ideal or idyllic place or state" and every person's ideal varies I think it's short sighted to claim paradise cannot "violate nature" and requires harmony with nature. There are people who find lack of nature appealing and even ideal for a peaceful existence.  If there is a metaphysical paradise I'm sure there are as many variations of it as there people that have lived, some of which may be bereft of what you may consider as harmony with nature.



This is true but it's equally fair to note that throughout history, with depictions of paradises, whether from deep mythology, or modern literature or other media, it is pretty rare to see a paradise or attempted paradise that isn't at least in harmony with nature, if not actively a product of nature. Certainly I think most humans have a conception of paradise that centers around the natural. Generally those whose idea of paradise is something like a flat endless white plane, or a never-ending empty city or the like are depicted as adversaries of humanity as whole, or other alienated from humanity. Perhaps that's unfair and perhaps it'll change but I think it holds for the foreseeable future.


----------



## WarDriveWorley

Yaarel said:


> The terms "ideal" and "idyllic" derive from different etymologies and − in use − mean different things.
> 
> Idyllic literally means briefly poetic.
> 
> Ideal means perfect and essential.
> 
> 
> 
> Re the concept and connotation of paradise, it includes both natural sensuality and artificial luxury. Both nature and technology.



I am familiar with both words thank you. While Idyllic can mean "related to an idyll" which is a simple poem, it also means "pleasing or picturesque in natural simplicity" as well, but none of the definitions I'm finding say it literally means "briefly poetic". 

You also reiterated that "it includes both natural sensuality and artificial luxury. Both nature and technology" which I still contend that not all beings would consider both nature and technology as an ideal. There are beings that will be less favorable towards nature and those that will be less favorable towards technology.

I still think it's shortsighted to try and pigeonhole paradise.


----------



## Yaarel

WarDriveWorley said:


> I am familiar with both words thank you. While Idyllic can mean "related to an idyll" which is a simple poem, it also means "pleasing or picturesque in natural simplicity" as well, but none of the definitions I'm finding say it literally means "briefly poetic".



An "idyl" is a "brief poem". Sketchy, simple, picturesque.



WarDriveWorley said:


> You also reiterated that "it includes both natural sensuality and artificial luxury. Both nature and technology" which I still contend that not all beings would consider both nature and technology as an ideal. There are beings that will be less favorable towards nature and those that will be less favorable towards technology.
> 
> I still think it's shortsighted to try and pigeonhole paradise.



There can indeed be different preferences about what one considers "perfect".

At the same time, "paradise" (a pleasure garden) is a preference that includes nature as well as ingenuity.

The ancient Greek term "paradeisos" comes from Old Iranian "pairi- daêza-" to "build around", in the sense of walls around a sacred garden.

Paradise cultivates both nature and technology.


----------



## WarDriveWorley

Ruin Explorer said:


> This is true but it's equally fair to note that throughout history, with depictions of paradises, whether from deep mythology, or modern literature or other media, it is pretty rare to see a paradise or attempted paradise that isn't at least in harmony with nature, if not actively a product of nature. Certainly I think most humans have a conception of paradise that centers around the natural. Generally those whose idea of paradise is something like a flat endless white plane, or a never-ending empty city or the like are depicted as adversaries of humanity as whole, or other alienated from humanity. Perhaps that's unfair and perhaps it'll change but I think it holds for the foreseeable future.



Oh I agree that the standard stereotypes most people are familiar with from history and literature definitely portray that aspect. I've read a few books/seen a few movies that portray it differently, but the overall theme throughout history is definitely that of a perfect world that blends all the best aspects of nature/technology/humanity. 

Personally though my idea of paradise wouldn't carry much if any nature as part of it.


----------



## Parmandur

Yaarel said:


> The terms "ideal" and "idyllic" derive from different etymologies and − in use − mean different things.



You are right about the etymology, but wrong about how the words are used in American English. I hear the traditional form of idyllic used in speech, but I more frequently hear it used as an adjective form of ideal ("the job site had idyllic work conditions"). That's just how people use the term.


----------



## Parmandur

Corinnguard said:


> True. If the Ardlings survive the playtesting process as is. We do have a year and a half before 1D&D officially comes out. A lot can happen between now and then.



I think the Ardlings odds are very strong, they are more well targeted towards the game's core audience than many in the forums seem to realize.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Parmandur said:


> I hear the traditional form of idyllic used in speech, but I more frequently hear it used as an adjective form of ideal ("the job site had idyllic work conditions"). That's just how people use the term.



That's an interesting cultural titbit. I've never heard someone using British English use it that way, but a lot of American English word usage involves repurposing words that sort of way - there's another example of the tip of my tongue. Like it's not dictionary correct, and maybe is slightly irritating to the word-nerd in you, but also you know what they're saying.


----------



## Corinnguard

Parmandur said:


> I think the Ardlings odds are very strong, they are more well targeted towards the game's core audience than many in the forums seem to realize.



Not the whole core audience, mind you. Each member of the audience has their own
 share of likes and dislikes.


----------



## Yaarel

Parmandur said:


> You are right about the etymology, but wrong about how the words are used in American English. I hear the traditional form of idyllic used in speech, but I more frequently hear it used as an adjective form of ideal ("the job site had idyllic work conditions"). That's just how people use the term.



In my ears, "idyllic work conditions" means LEISURELY, nonstressful, and uncomplicated work environment.

Heh, "idyllic work" is almost an oxymoron.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Corinnguard said:


> 1D&D has three celestial legacies- Exalted, Heavenly and Idyllic for their new Ardling race. I would use these three legacies for the Aasimar instead. The Idyllic legacy should be for the those Aasimar who are the descendants of the Guardinals (In PF1, there's the Idyllkin Aasimar). The Heavenly legacy should be for those who are the descendants of the Archons (who are from the Seven Heavens   ). And lastly, the Exalted legacy should be for those who are the descendants of the Angels.
> 
> The problem with the Aasimar in 5e is that they are too angel-centric. Which is strange because angels aren't the only kind of Celestial in 5e.
> 
> Would this count as something more?




 As I've said just make the Aasimar and making the Ardling animal head a cosmetic option on a side bar. Spread the word.


----------



## Scars Unseen

Corinnguard said:


> This is only one place on the entire continent of Faerun that is like Egypt, Mulhorand. So does this mean the Ardlings hail from there? It would make sense if they did. Then they could get a proper Mulhorandi name instead of what they have now as a placeholder.
> 
> I do agree with you on the Aasimar being bland in 5e. PF1 did a much better job of presenting them. But you could get a Paladin who looks like Horus by having an Aarakocra Paladin, and a Fighter who looks Ganesh by having a Loxodon Fighter.



Just going off the stripped down descriptions of races in the write-up, I'm not 100% certain they are going with Forgotten Realms as the core setting in One D&D, and frankly, I'd be glad if they didn't.  So much of what went wrong with WotC's stewardship of the setting can be traced back to WotC insisting that the Realms not just include but embody whatever design elements and philosophy they're running with at the moment.  I'd rather there be no core setting at all or a minimalist one like they were heading towards with Nentir Vale.

So I'm not sure that Forgotten Realms needs to suddenly have a migration of ardlings just because (and if) they are included with the core races in the new PHB.  But yeah, that wouldn't be the worst origin point for them.




Henadic Theologian said:


> As I've said just make the Aasimar and making the Ardling animal head a cosmetic option on a side bar. Spread the word.




I still dislike this because I think that having the sole major distinction between aasimar and ardlings being cosmetic is a lazy and uninteresting move.  I say give them different enough concepts to justify their separate inclusion instead.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

This argument about the proper nature of Paradise is going to end with one poster stomping off to Hell and claiming it for their own, isn't it?


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Scars Unseen said:


> Just going off the stripped down descriptions of races in the write-up, I'm not 100% certain they are going with Forgotten Realms as the core setting in One D&D, and frankly, I'd be glad if they didn't.  So much of what went wrong with WotC's stewardship of the setting can be traced back to WotC insisting that the Realms not just include but embody whatever design elements and philosophy they're running with at the moment.  I'd rather there be no core setting at all or a minimalist one like they were heading towards with Nentir Vale.
> 
> So I'm not sure that Forgotten Realms needs to suddenly have a migration of ardlings just because (and if) they are included with the core races in the new PHB.  But yeah, that wouldn't be the worst origin point for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still dislike this because I think that having the sole major distinction between aasimar and ardlings being cosmetic is a lazy and uninteresting move.  I say give them different enough concepts to justify their separate inclusion instead.




 If Ardlings end up in the PHB they will end up in the Realms whether its treated as default or it, I promise you thank. Heck there is a huge chance they will end up in FR if Ardlings end up in Planescape instead.


----------



## Scars Unseen

Henadic Theologian said:


> If Ardlings end up in the PHB they will end up in the Realms whether its treated as default or it, I promise you thank. Heck there is a huge chance they will end up in FR if Ardlings end up in Planescape instead.



Oh sure, probably.  I _did_ express a negative view of WotC's handling of the setting, so I'm not especially confident they'd do a 180° on that suddenly.  That said, demoting FR from _the_ setting to just _a_ setting would at least pave the way for better handling in the future, so I'm still for it.


----------



## SkidAce

Yaarel said:


> Paradise isnt "quiet".



You dont have grandkids do you?


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> That's an interesting cultural titbit. I've never heard someone using British English use it that way, but a lot of American English word usage involves repurposing words that sort of way - there's another example of the tip of my tongue. Like it's not dictionary correct, and maybe is slightly irritating to the word-nerd in you, but also you know what they're saying.



Indeed! Happily for me, my word nerdery has always been descriptive, rahttham prescriptive.


----------



## Yaarel

Henadic Theologian said:


> As I've said just make the Aasimar and making the Ardling animal head a cosmetic option on a side bar. Spread the word.



Maybe the other way around. Have the ardling cater to the humanimal fans, but also allow a fully human or partially human head, for the humanocentric fans. So, awsimar is a subset of ardling.

Similarly, the tiefling also represents various Evil alignment planes, including devilish and demonic.


----------



## Parmandur

Corinnguard said:


> Not the whole core audience, mind you. Each member of the audience has their own
> share of likes and dislikes.



Well, sure, obviously: but the number ofn12-24 year opds whonwant a furry Wingfield option is maybe greater than you might imagine.


----------



## Parmandur

Yaarel said:


> In my ears, "idyllic work conditions" means LEISURELY, nonstressful, and uncomplicated work environment.
> 
> Heh, "idyllic work" is almost an oxymoron.



Not necessarily, in practice it just means "ideal." Yes, etymologically confused, but lexicially it works.


----------



## Yaarel

Parmandur said:


> Not necessarily, in practice it just means "ideal." Yes, etymologically confused, but lexicially it works.



If you want to describe the True Good plane by the word "ideal", that can work, in the sense of a platonic ideal as well as idealism, a cause to rally around.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Parmandur said:


> Indeed! Happily for me, my word nerdery has always been descriptive, rahttham prescriptive.



I sometimes feel protective of rarely-used words, myself (of which I feel idyllic is one, I mean, it's not super-rare, but ain't common) being changed in mean, particularly if it's to a very every day meaning which other common words already cover, because it seems like we end with fewer words and less ability to communicate complex stuff that way, but I really love fancy words probably too much (and love learning new ones).


----------



## Kobold Avenger

One of the thing I feel about fully animal headed Ardlings, to paraphrase Kirk Lazarus is, "Never go full furry."


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> I sometimes feel protective of rarely-used words, myself (of which I feel idyllic is one, I mean, it's not super-rare, but ain't common) being changed in mean, particularly if it's to a very every day meaning which other common words already cover, because it seems like we end with fewer words and less ability to communicate complex stuff that way, but I really love fancy words probably too much (and love learning new ones).



One of the benefits of having studied Medieval literature and language in College is that I see every word being pretty heavily abused that way, essentially.


----------



## Cadence

<ignore>


----------



## Corinnguard

Parmandur said:


> Well, sure, obviously: but the number ofn12-24 year opds whonwant a furry Wingfield option is maybe greater than you might imagine.



5e already has a number of anthropomorphic animal races in it to satisfy quite a number of furries.   

1. Dragonborn
2. Aarakocra
3. Harengon
4. Kenku
5. Locathah
6. Owlin
7. Tabaxi
8. Tortle
9. Kobold
10. Lizardfolk
11. Minotaur
12. Giff
13. Hadozee
14. Thri-kreen. 
15. Aven (MtG)
16. Khenra (MtG)
17. Naga (MtG)
18. Loxodon (MtG)
19. Leonin (MtG)

If the Ardlings were Aasimar of Guardinal descent, I would be happy.


----------



## Parmandur

Corinnguard said:


> 5e already has a number of anthropomorphic animal races in it to satisfy quite a number of furries.
> 
> 1. Dragonborn
> 2. Aarakocra
> 3. Harengon
> 4. Kenku
> 5. Locathah
> 6. Owlin
> 7. Tabaxi
> 8. Tortle
> 9. Kobold
> 10. Lizardfolk
> 11. Minotaur
> 12. Giff
> 13. Hadozee
> 14. Thri-kreen.
> 15. Aven (MtG)
> 16. Khenra (MtG)
> 17. Naga (MtG)
> 18. Loxodon (MtG)
> 19. Leonin (MtG)
> 
> If the Ardlings were Aasimar of Guardinal descent, I would be happy.



Yes, but this offers a unified furry option to cover anything, amd scratches the wingfic itch to boot. I think the survey results will be positive.


----------



## Yaarel

Corinnguard said:


> 5e already has a number of anthropomorphic animal races in it to satisfy quite a number of furries.
> 
> 1. Dragonborn
> 2. Aarakocra
> 3. Harengon
> 4. Kenku
> 5. Locathah
> 6. Owlin
> 7. Tabaxi
> 8. Tortle
> 9. Kobold
> 10. Lizardfolk
> 11. Minotaur
> 12. Giff
> 13. Hadozee
> 14. Thri-kreen.
> 15. Aven (MtG)
> 16. Khenra (MtG)
> 17. Naga (MtG)
> 18. Loxodon (MtG)
> 19. Leonin (MtG)
> 
> If the Ardlings were Aasimar of Guardinal descent, I would be happy.



Each of these is a small percent, but if the ardling can tap into all of them, it might be on par with other core races.

I still hope I can also use the ardling as an awsimar or deva with a human head.


----------



## Corinnguard

Parmandur said:


> Yes, but this offers a unified furry option to cover anything, amd scratches the wingfic itch to boot. I think the survey results will be positive.



Unified in what way? _curious_


----------



## jmartkdr2

Corinnguard said:


> Unified in what way? _curious_



One set of mechanics for any animal you like. Without such, you would need racial traits for every kind of animal.

Note that aardlings exist _in addition to_ all those other options.


----------



## Parmandur

Corinnguard said:


> Unified in what way? _curious_



A single option that they can put in the PHB, without adding 30 races to that one book. All those other options are still in Monsters of the Multiverse, which is a OneD&D supplement already.


----------



## Corinnguard

jmartkdr2 said:


> One set of mechanics for any animal you like. Without such, you would need racial traits for every kind of animal.
> 
> Note that aardlings exist _in addition to_ all those other options.



Not every animal you like, just any animal that represents a 'virtuous association'. Throughout human history, certain animals were associated with a particular virtue (any trait or quality that is deemed to be morally good). So it's likely that the number of animals with virtuous associations is going to be small in number.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Corinnguard said:


> Not every animal you like, just any animal that represents a 'virtuous association'. Throughout human history, certain animals were associated with a particular virtue (any trait or quality that is deemed to be morally good). So it's likely that the number of animals with virtuous associations is going to be small in number.



I would say the opposite- I can’t think of any animal offhand that doesn’t have a virtuous association in some culture somewhere, especially if we include fantasy cultures.


----------



## Parmandur

Corinnguard said:


> Not every animal you like, just any animal that represents a 'virtuous association'. Throughout human history, certain animals were associated with a particular virtue (any trait or quality that is deemed to be morally good). So it's likely that the number of animals with virtuous associations is going to be small in number.



It's phrased in an extremely open-ended fashion, which leaves room for anyone who wants to make their case. Looking across human cultures, a case can be made for any animal a person wants.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Corinnguard said:


> Not every animal you like, just any animal that represents a 'virtuous association'.



That is a meaningless qualifier. Every animal may well have been heralded as some sort of virtuous at some point somewhere.

If there's something to pick a fight over, it's at WotC going 'here's an animal head, now you don't need any beast races with mechanics that would actually have something to do with the animal in question'.


----------



## Mind of tempest

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> That is a meaningless qualifier. Every animal may well have been heralded as some sort of virtuous at some point somewhere.
> 
> If there's something to pick a fight over, it's at WotC going 'here's an animal head, now you don't need any beast races with mechanics that would actually have something to do with the animal in question'.



given that they are made for the furry demographic that is unlikely to bother them in the slightest as they are not particularly bothered about biological accuracy


----------



## Scars Unseen

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> If there's something to pick a fight over, it's at WotC going 'here's an animal head, now you don't need any beast races with mechanics that would actually have something to do with the animal in question'.




And I still disagree that this meant to be that.  Between the existence of guardinals, the similarities to real mythological figures, and... well, the text of the entry itself, it's pretty clear that the ardlings' connection to animals is symbolic, not representative.  This isn't an anthropomorphic animal race, and its existence doesn't preclude the _existence_ of an animal race.  In fact, there are multiple such races that _already_ exist.  

Is it possible that there won't be an animal race in the new PHB?  Sure.  There wasn't one in the last once unless you count dragonborn.  There also wasn't a giant race or any number of racial wants someone might prefer.  That doesn't mean that the ardling is somehow the thing that is holding WotC back from making that inclusion, nor does it mean that the ardling needs to be changed so that it _is_ that race.  In fact, I'd very much rather it wasn't.


----------



## Cadence

I just want an option besides flying...


----------



## MarkB

Cadence said:


> I just want an option besides flying...



Since it's not sustained flight, I'd probably characterise it as a prodigious leap if I wanted to get away from the angelic connotations.


But I'd also welcome some alternate features.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

And if it is flight, why does it have to be wings?


----------



## MarkB

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> And if it is flight, why does it have to be wings?
> 
> View attachment 259112



Man, that's spooky. I was literally just watching a video about Journey to the West on Youtube, then clicked back here and this showed up.


----------



## Parmandur

Cadence said:


> I just want an option besides flying...
> 
> View attachment 259103



I'll point again to those hybrid guidelines: a Lion headed Halfling or Donkey headed Dwarf are perfectly normal options in this RAW, the animal people lovers aren't limited by anything.

This could usher in a new Golden Age in Tumblr


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

MarkB said:


> Man, that's spooky. I was literally just watching a video about Journey to the West on Youtube, then clicked back here and this showed up.



Was it the Overly Sarcastic Productions one?


----------



## MarkB

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Was it the Overly Sarcastic Productions one?



Yes indeed. I discovered their content a few weeks ago, and have been basically watching their videos at random ever since. The Journey to the West series was a highlight.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

MarkB said:


> Yes indeed. I discovered their content a few weeks ago, and have been basically watching their videos at random ever since. The Journey to the West series was a highlight.



Their content is great, especially the animated book summaries/myths and the Trope Talks. A Sun Wukong-inspired Hadozee or Monkey-Headed Ardling Monk would be awesome.


----------



## Corinnguard

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> That is a meaningless qualifier. Every animal may well have been heralded as some sort of virtuous at some point somewhere.
> 
> If there's something to pick a fight over, it's at WotC going 'here's an animal head, now you don't need any beast races with mechanics that would actually have something to do with the animal in question'.



Exactly. My issue with WoTC regarding the Ardlings is that they are IMO overlooking the Aasimar, who have been the Tiefling's counterpart since 2e Planescape. I have heard that 1D&D might keep them along with the Ardlings. But if you wanted a furry planetouched individual, you really don't need to look farther than the Guardinals as their planar ancestor.


----------



## Corinnguard

Speaking of Guardinals, I hope they are somewhat like their Agathion counterparts in Pathfinder 1st Edition: 
_Agathions are a race of beast-aspect outsiders native to the plane of Nirvana, a realm of pure good unconcerned with the dogma of law (represented by Heaven) or chaos (represented by Elysium). Though Nirvana is a place of rest where blessed souls seek enlightenment, agathions are aggressive and interventionist in the mortal world when it comes to dealing with evil. Created from the souls of good mortals who have managed to achieve the enlightenment they sought in life (or in some cases, after death), agathions embody the principles of a peaceable kingdom while marshaling their strength to defend that kingdom from any who would despoil it. Because they strike an ethical balance between the chaotic, feylike azatas and the lawful, rigid process of the archons, agathions are often liaisons between the celestial races, soothing hot tempers and working toward mutual goals of vanquishing evil and protecting good.

All agathions have an animal-like aspect. Some are more humanoid in appearance, while others spend their entire existence in a form nearly identical to that of a true animal. Each type of agathion serves a particular role in Nirvana, and their duties on other planes echo these responsibilities: leonals watch over Nirvana’s portals and have a guardian-like aspect in other worlds, draconals carry the wisdom of the ages and observe and guide exceptional mortals, vulpinals are bards and messengers and bear important news to celestial generals and mortal heroes, and so on. Agathions are proud of their feral aspects and don’t take kindly to the suggestion that they are cursed folk like lycanthropes or nothing more than magical talking beasts. Every agathion was once a mortal who aspired to goodness and was rewarded in the afterlife with a form suiting her talents and personality; suggesting that an agathion’s form is a kind of punishment is a terrible insult.   _


----------



## MechaTarrasque

Paizo made agathions that way to differentiate them from guardinals.  I don't see WotC encroaching on Paizo's turf for that (although there will be a Pathfinder Kingmaker Bestiary for 5e {Pathfinder Kingmaker Bestiary (Fifth Edition) (5e): Corff, Jeremy, Grady, Robert J, Hitchcock, Tim, Ibach, Jeff, Jaczko, Victoria, Kimmel, Matt, Lee, Jeff, Neale, Julian, Perrin, Chris, Phillips, Tom, Riggs, Alex: 9781640784369: Amazon.com: Books}, so potentially there could be agathions in 5e, just not from WotC [although Paizo seems to like angels more for NG]).

Just brainstorming here, but I think they liked the Magic the Gathering archons because they were more (lawfully) neutral (and thus PC's were more likely to fight them) and because you could fit most of the traditional archons into "cosmic knight riding a winged beast"--your dog-headed knight could ride a winged dire wolf and still transform into a dog (maybe even a winged dog); sorry lantern archons unless you are a tiny celestial riding a firefly.  Thus, I suspect the guardinals will lean into the guarding thing, since this gives the PC's a reason to fight them.  They could be the subtle guardians, instead of flashy ones like sphinxes and nagas.  Is that elf whose face makes you think of a lion, just an elf or could he be a celestial watching over a well with a cursed magic ring at the bottom that the Powers of Goodness hope no mortal will ever think to look for?  Potentially they could be more subtle patrons than a Ky-rin or a metallic dragon.  But we won't know until they show up.


----------



## Parmandur

Corinnguard said:


> Exactly. My issue with WoTC regarding the Ardlings is that they are IMO overlooking the Aasimar, who have been the Tiefling's counterpart since 2e Planescape. I have heard that 1D&D might keep them along with the Ardlings. But if you wanted a furry planetouched individual, you really don't need to look farther than the Guardinals as their planar ancestor.



The Aasamir are in Monsters of the Multiverse, which is a OneD&D book. The Ardling is doing a different thing, filling a gap for players that WotC feels is PHB worthy.


----------



## Mad_Jack

HammerMan said:


> Don’t blame me blame the 14 year old girl that wants to play an anthropomorphic skunk swordswoman. And she wanted a tail and non damaging non climbing claws (so just slightly different fingernails)
> I have no idea if this comes from a comic an anime or her own twisted mind.




14yr-old?  Probably a variation on Marvel Comics' Squirrel Girl... She's hugely popular right now.






Although there is also another older Marvel character named Hepzibah (a member of the Starjammers) who's literally an alien anthropomorphic skunk who does sometimes use a sword...


----------



## Temporalgod

Cool with Ardlings, I can make a knock off Monkey King or at least his descendant.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Perfect example of a Ardling Tiefling.



			https://spirit.scene7.com/is/image/Spirit/01588037-a?$Detail$


----------



## Mind of tempest

Henadic Theologian said:


> Perfect example of a Ardling Tiefling.
> 
> 
> 
> https://spirit.scene7.com/is/image/Spirit/01588037-a?$Detail$



the thing I hate about that is those simply do not inherently mean that and it bugs me.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Mind of tempest said:


> the thing I hate about that is those simply do not inherently mean that and it bugs me.




 You could have a Ardling Tiefling that looked like that, what is the issue?


----------



## Mind of tempest

Henadic Theologian said:


> You could have a Ardling Tiefling that looked like that, what is the issue?



the symbol I meant the symbols on the robe.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Mind of tempest said:


> the symbol I meant the symbols on the robe.




 What d







Mind of tempest said:


> the symbol I meant the symbols on the robe.




 Okay I know that an upside down pentagram can have a variety of meanings beyond satanic, like the Horned God and the dominance of the material world over the spiritual for example, but what's your issue with the other symbols?


----------



## Yaarel

Henadic Theologian said:


> Okay I know that an upside down pentagram can have a variety of meanings beyond satanic, like the Horned God and the dominance of the material world over the spiritual for example,





Henadic Theologian said:


> but what's your issue with the other symbols?




The upside down pentagram star pointing downward essentially means the four elements of nature (air, earth, fire, water) oriented away from spirituality (ether) and toward materiality without spirituality.

The upside down cross is actually the symbol of Peter, the student of Jesus. Early Church tradition stated that the Romans crucified Peter upside down.

The double-cross over infinity is the chemical symbol for sulfur. Any reuse of the sulfur symbol is idiosyncratic and anecdotal, such as for the socalled Leviathan Cross or Cross of the Satan.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Yaarel said:


> The upside down pentagram star pointing downward essentially means the four elements of nature (air, earth, fire, water) oriented away from spirituality (ether) and toward materiality without spirituality.
> 
> The upside down cross is actually the symbol of Peter, the student of Jesus. Early Church tradition stated that the Romans crucified Peter upside down.
> 
> The double-cross over infinity is the chemical symbol for sulfur. Any reuse of the sulfur symbol is idiosyncratic and anecdotal, such as for the socalled Leviathan Cross or Cross of the Satan.




 Very interesting stuff. The Leviathan Cross does work on multiple levels, as a symbol of Sulphur the smell of sulphur is linked to the infernal in a lot of fiction, the Leviathan Cross is also created by te Knights Templar who were accused (most likely unfairly) of worshipping Baphomet, and the Church of Satan borrowed the symbol. I can see why they'd use the symbol, fairly or unfairly.

 Also the Cross of Peter is interesting, although most none Catholics or Orthodox Christians wouldn't know about that accociation, only about the Church of Satan one.

The Leviathan Cross


----------



## Yaarel

Henadic Theologian said:


> Very interesting stuff. The Leviathan Cross does work on multiple levels, as a symbol of Sulphur the smell of sulphur is linked to the infernal in a lot of fiction, the Leviathan Cross is also created by the Knights Templar who were accused (most likely unfairly) of worshipping Baphomet, and the Church of Satan borrowed the symbol. I can see why they'd use the symbol, fairly or unfairly.
> 
> The Leviathan Cross



Heh, be careful to distinguish historical accuracy from wild pop culture legends.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Yaarel said:


> Heh, be careful to distinguish historical accuracy from wild pop culture legends.




 I'm just going by the link, I'm not an expert in the Knights Templar.


----------



## Tonguez

Henadic Theologian said:


> I'm just going by the link, I'm not an expert in the Knights Templar.



Yeah the the arrest of the Templars was pushed by King Philip IV of France who was in debt to the Templars as they had financed his war with England. This was during the era of the French Popes and he was able to find a witness who claimed that the Templars forced recruits to spit on the Cross, worshipped idols in the form of a mummified head (possibly that of John the Baptist) and encouraged homosexual practices - pretty much the same accusations used against Jews, Witches and other heretics during that era. The whole Templar trialtorture was political in nature.

Relevantly though, the LeVay co-opting of alchemical or Catholic symbols and tying them to the regressive humanism of the Church of Satan should not be misconstrued as a connect to the infernal


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Tonguez said:


> Yeah the the arrest of the Templars was pushed by King Philip IV of France who was in debt to the Templars as they had financed his war with England. This was during the era of the French Popes and he was able to find a witness who claimed that the Templars forced recruits to spit on the Cross, worshipped idols in the form of a mummified head (possibly that of John the Baptist) and encouraged homosexual practices - pretty much the same accusations used against Jews, Witches and other heretics during that era. The whole Templar trial was political in nature.
> 
> Relevantly though, the LeVay co-opting of alchemical or Catholic symbols and tying them to the regressive humanism of the Church of Satan should not be misconstrued as a connect to the infernal




 Honestly Spirit Hallow is just a Halloween Store (though oddly no candy),  it really doesn't care about history accuracy, I mean have you seen their Nun customers? I'm pretty sure Nuns historically haven't shown enough skin to make sex worker blush. There Ancient Empires section isn't any better for Historical accuracy. Man I love Spirit Halloween.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Getting back to Ardlings... they are built for GRAPPLING.

Unarmed attack to grab someone, bonus action fly 15 feet up with them, your Angelic Flight ends, you both fall, you both take 1d6 damage, you both automatically end up prone if you took damage from a fall, it's still your turn so you use half your movement to stand back up. You are now in the optimal grappling position!

This is the easiest way to get a grapple build going right at lv1. It does cost you 1d6 damage (half if raging! half if you can convince your GM to apply Tasha's falling-onto-creature rules!), but still!

_insert furry wrestling league picture here, I am not googling that_


----------



## roger semerad

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Getting back to Ardlings... they are built for GRAPPLING.
> 
> Unarmed attack to grab someone, bonus action fly 15 feet up with them, your Angelic Flight ends, you both fall, you both take 1d6 damage, you both automatically end up prone if you took damage from a fall, it's still your turn so you use half your movement to stand back up. You are now in the optimal grappling position!
> 
> This is the easiest way to get a grapple build going right at lv1. It does cost you 1d6 damage (half if raging! half if you can convince your GM to apply Tasha's falling-onto-creature rules!), but still!
> 
> _insert furry wrestling league picture here, I am not googling that_




ask and you shall receive.


----------



## Perun

I'd prefer if ardlings were folded into aasimar. I'd actually prefer if they went back to the 2e Planescape Complete Planewalker's Guide version, and provide a table of abilities for both aasimar and tieflings (separate for each race) that you could chose from (e.g. pick a cantrip from list A, at 3d level pick a 1st-level spell from liste B, at 5th level, pick a 2nd-level spell from list C, pick energy resistance option from list D and a proficiency bonus from list E, flavour appearance accoding to taste). 
I'd also prefer to see the return of bariaurs as a playable race, but I think I'm in the extreme minority there, so...


----------



## Corinnguard

Perun said:


> I'd prefer if ardlings were folded into aasimar. I'd actually prefer if they went back to the 2e Planescape Complete Planewalker's Guide version, and provide a table of abilities for both aasimar and tieflings (separate for each race) that you could chose from (e.g. pick a cantrip from list A, at 3d level pick a 1st-level spell from liste B, at 5th level, pick a 2nd-level spell from list C, pick energy resistance option from list D and a proficiency bonus from list E, flavour appearance accoding to taste).
> I'd also prefer to see the return of bariaurs as a playable race, but I think I'm in the extreme minority there, so...



Aasimar (15 RP) – d20PFSRD Tiefling (13 RP) – d20PFSRD 

While the variant abilities in both links were made for Pathfinder 1st edition, I could see them being converted over to 5e. Having their variant physical features in 5e would also be a nice touch.


----------



## Scars Unseen

Perun said:


> I'd prefer if ardlings were folded into aasimar. I'd actually prefer if they went back to the 2e Planescape Complete Planewalker's Guide version, and provide a table of abilities for both aasimar and tieflings (separate for each race) that you could chose from (e.g. pick a cantrip from list A, at 3d level pick a 1st-level spell from liste B, at 5th level, pick a 2nd-level spell from list C, pick energy resistance option from list D and a proficiency bonus from list E, flavour appearance accoding to taste).
> I'd also prefer to see the return of bariaurs as a playable race, but I think I'm in the extreme minority there, so...



Honestly, I'd go further than that and instead of just having features that you pick from at character creation, you pick features and then expand upon them as your character grows in level, with choices made well beyond 1st level.  Then I'd do that with every other race too.  Go full 2E "Complete Handbook" style of dedication to each race (only better written and more consistent) with mechanics, potential cultural hooks, etc.

Pretty much the opposite of the current regime's barebones, "don't do anything interesting for fear of stepping on the DM's toes" approach.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Scars Unseen said:


> Honestly, I'd go further than that and instead of just having features that you pick from at character creation, you pick features and then expand upon them as your character grows in level, with choices made well beyond 1st level.



Pathfinder2 does that... Each ancestry has its own levelled feats list.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Honestly, I just was compiling changes to all my DnD stuff, and looked back over Aasimar. 

It is rather trivial to reflavor them to fit to this three-fold method. It just requires losing the goth aesthetic of the Necrotic shroud. Once you do that...

Beastlands and Ysgard -> Necrotic (Bestial) Shroud -> Fear my Glory!

Arcadia and Elysium -> Radiant Soul -> Winged Angel Compassion

Mount Celestia and Bytopia -> Radiant Consumption -> Burn in the Light of Justice!


and more interesting than the spells


----------



## Marandahir

None of the above.

This is not a Tabaxi or Loxodon or Minotaur or Giff or Tortle or Lizardfolk or Aarakocra or Locathah, etc (bipedal talking animal that acts something like a Human but with some alien mindsets). 

Nor is it an anime dog or cat girl / furry - a humanoid being with a tail and animal ears on their head to tweak and say Osuwari! (Sit Boy!) to. 

This is a fully humanoid body with a fully animal head. Many mythologies, not just Egyptian, have this sort of being. I think of how Raven is depicted in many Northwest First Nations stories, for example. 

I also think of the Aztec and Mayan deities, and many animal-headed Japanese Kami too. 

My first thought was to have a class of 12 Guardinals/Archons based the Chinese Zodiac, each with their own descendant Ardlings walking the Earth and representing them. 

Aasimar are descendants of Angels and Humanoids. Ardlings are descended from the other Celestial alignment representatives. Angels don’t have an alignment other than good. Archons are LG (Heavenly), Guardinals are NG (Idyllic), and Pre-4e Eladrin we’re CG Outsiders (Exalted). 

Given that we have Glitchlings in the other UA representing LN and Mechanus, and Tieflings of the three lower plane alignments, I imagine they’re (1) going to create a CN equivalent of Ardlings, Tieflings, and Glitchlings that come from Limbo (or just say that’s the Plasmoids in Planescape!!); (2) create a new CG Celestial people to represent Arborea, Ysgard, and the Beastlands and replace Eladrin; and (3) create an overarching evil Fiendish being that parallels Angels and isn’t necessarily Infernal, Abyssal, or Cthonic. Maybe even creating a parallel to Aasimar in the process (Rakshashas and Rakaastas, perhaps? I know they MIGHT be Arcanoloths, but… oh, or what about Clowns?! ;D)


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

For all of the instant hook that egyptian deities give Ardlings, they can also have 'soft fur or downy feathers', so you are full within the provided racial description to just make things as furry as you want.

Or pick a dragon as your animal, sprinkle some scales in, learn Draconic and bluff that you're just your everyday Dragonborn.


----------



## Marandahir

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> For all of the instant hook that egyptian deities give Ardlings, they can also have 'soft fur or downy feathers', so you are full within the provided racial description to just make things as furry as you want.



Fair enough. Tieflings are also no longer locked into being red skinned with devil horns and a non-prehensile tail whose ancestry is from the nobility of Bael Turath. There SHOULD be room for flexibility.

And to your point (and against mine), Guardinals were more Furry than the Egyptian Godlike Hound Archons.


----------



## Parmandur

Marandahir said:


> None of the above.
> 
> This is not a Tabaxi or Loxodon or Minotaur or Giff or Tortle or Lizardfolk or Aarakocra or Locathah, etc (bipedal talking animal that acts something like a Human but with some alien mindsets).
> 
> Nor is it an anime dog or cat girl / furry - a humanoid being with a tail and animal ears on their head to tweak and say Osuwari! (Sit Boy!) to.
> 
> This is a fully humanoid body with a fully animal head. Many mythologies, not just Egyptian, have this sort of being. I think of how Raven is depicted in many Northwest First Nations stories, for example.
> 
> I also think of the Aztec and Mayan deities, and many animal-headed Japanese Kami too.
> 
> My first thought was to have a class of 12 Guardinals/Archons based the Chinese Zodiac, each with their own descendant Ardlings walking the Earth and representing them.
> 
> Aasimar are descendants of Angels and Humanoids. Ardlings are descended from the other Celestial alignment representatives. Angels don’t have an alignment other than good. Archons are LG (Heavenly), Guardinals are NG (Idyllic), and Pre-4e Eladrin we’re CG Outsiders (Exalted).
> 
> Given that we have Glitchlings in the other UA representing LN and Mechanus, and Tieflings of the three lower plane alignments, I imagine they’re (1) going to create a CN equivalent of Ardlings, Tieflings, and Glitchlings that come from Limbo (or just say that’s the Plasmoids in Planescape!!); (2) create a new CG Celestial people to represent Arborea, Ysgard, and the Beastlands and replace Eladrin; and (3) create an overarching evil Fiendish being that parallels Angels and isn’t necessarily Infernal, Abyssal, or Cthonic. Maybe even creating a parallel to Aasimar in the process (Rakshashas and Rakaastas, perhaps? I know they MIGHT be Arcanoloths, but… oh, or what about Clowns?! ;D)



I'm personally not a furry, but the idea of Egyptian god style animal headed people immediately struck me as aestheticly interesting and distinctive.


----------



## MechaTarrasque

From what I recall of the pictures of the guardinals in 2e, they were more "that guy makes me think of a lion" in the same way that people resemble their pets than "that guy literally has a dog head for a head", which always worked with how I saw NG.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Guardinals varied in how animal-like they appear, I'll bring up again for Equinals (the Horse Guardinals), about how some Equinals look like Bojack Horseman, and how other Equinals look like Sarah Jessica Parker.


----------



## Corinnguard

Parmandur said:


> I'm personally not a furry, but the idea of Egyptian god style animal headed people immediately struck me as aestheticly interesting and distinctive.



The Egyptian gods were certainly that.   However, a furry would find them more appealing if they looked decidedly more anthropomorphic.  

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/cc/52/ad/cc52ad23d0405905df2c711934af52ea.jpg   Kind of like these guys.


----------



## Marandahir

Corinnguard said:


> The Egyptian gods were certainly that.   However, a furry would find them more appealing if they looked decidedly more anthropomorphic.
> 
> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/cc/52/ad/cc52ad23d0405905df2c711934af52ea.jpg   Kind of like these guys.



Is that from Amonkhet? Magic artwork keeps on giving…


----------



## Corinnguard

Marandahir said:


> Is that from Amonkhet? Magic artwork keeps on giving…



No, it's from a computer game called _Smite_. In this game, you get to play a deity fighting against other deities and their minions.  

  Here's the YouTube clip that has Horus in it.


----------



## Marandahir

Corinnguard said:


> No, it's from a computer game called _Smite_. In this game, you get to play a deity fighting against other deities and their minions.
> 
> Here's the YouTube clip that has Horus in it.



Oh! That sparks! Darn cool.


----------



## Dausuul

I would be fine with ardlings portrayed as any of the above; it should be up to the player. For me personally, if I were playing an ardling, I would pick either 70% or 100% animal, depending on the character concept.

(Somewhat off topic, I wish they had come up with a different name for them. Something about the "-ling" suffix feels like it's signaling "small" or "less than" to me. It's obviously meant to parallel "tiefling," and I got used to "tiefling" back in the day, so I'll get used to "ardling" now, but it's definitely not the name I would have gone with.)


----------



## Marandahir

Dausuul said:


> (Somewhat off topic, I wish they had come up with a different name for them. Something about the "-ling" suffix feels like it's signaling "small" or "less than" to me. It's obviously meant to parallel "tiefling," and I got used to "tiefling" back in the day, so I'll get used to "ardling" now, but it's definitely not the name I would have gone with.)



Also parallels Glitchling, from the recent UA. I agree that it always makes me think small; besides Halflings you have Gelflings, and probably a bunch of other hobbit or gnome-like beings from other fiction that end in -ling.

In some fiction - I think Shannara? - Halfling instead means someone who is half one lineage and half another. So an Elf-Human Halfling would be what we usually call a Half-elf. I can see how -ling can refer to someone that is a partial descendant of what it's modifying. Ardlings are descendants of ARchons or GuARDinals, presumably. But then what are Tieflings? Fiendling would almost be better, but Tiefling sounds so much cooler. And Glitchlings are descendents of Glitches in the Matrix Mechanus. 

Weirder to me is that while Ardling and Tiefling can now be small, Glitchling cannot. And there's no Chaosling for Limbo (maybe that's just the Plasmoid come Planescape, but then its name doesn't match the formatting). And why are Dwarves not able to be small, but humans can be? I mean, isn't that the definition of a Dwarf as opposed to a human? Most mythological creatures we associate with Gnomes or Halflings in D&D have names that actually mean something more along the lines of Dwarf, after all, and the whole point of Dwarves were that they were small mining fey. I get that they don't want to overlap too much between Rock Gnome and Dwarf (and Svirfneblin and Duergar), but it just comes off as distinctly odd to me.


----------



## Raith5

Having thought about this I dont like the Ardlings - it seems a forced combination of several ideas rather than a distinct thing. And I dont like the idea of flying race in PHB.

I much prefer the Shifter idea for andromorphic races (a connection to lycanthropes or a cursed people). I like the Deva and Aasamir to be separate.


----------



## Temporalgod

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Getting back to Ardlings... they are built for GRAPPLING.
> 
> Unarmed attack to grab someone, bonus action fly 15 feet up with them, your Angelic Flight ends, you both fall, you both take 1d6 damage, you both automatically end up prone if you took damage from a fall, it's still your turn so you use half your movement to stand back up. You are now in the optimal grappling position!
> 
> This is the easiest way to get a grapple build going right at lv1. It does cost you 1d6 damage (half if raging! half if you can convince your GM to apply Tasha's falling-onto-creature rules!), but still!
> 
> _insert furry wrestling league picture here, I am not googling that_



Cool so I can Choke Slam people like the Undertaker.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Temporalgod said:


> Cool so I can Choke Slam people like the Undertaker.



Game mechanics tell us how the world works, and this is _clearly_ how Ardlings conduct their business.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Raith5 said:


> Having thought about this I dont like the Ardlings - it seems a forced combination of several ideas rather than a distinct thing. And I dont like the idea of flying race in PHB.



I raised that question in my feedback survey: What problem is this solving? If it's a heavenly counterpart to the tiefling, why aren't they just elevating the aasimar? If it's an anthro race, what's with the magical wings? This feels like a senior designer's pet idea that they won't let go of, rather than something that organically arose from a need during the design process.


----------



## Mecheon

I do understand it on the "Aasimar, despite being as stuck onto the game as they are at the moment, have really failed to get a fanbase and stand out as much as Tieflings, so let's go back to the drawing board and try again" and "Generic Furry Race to give that widespread option for folks coming into it new"

but, they're just trying to hit two different targets. They're certainly Interesting and I wouldn't mind them hanging around, but I don't think they're hitting either of their goals particularly well (Not that I think WotC could ever pull off a Generic Furry Race as something like that would require a heap of optional things to chose from, which isn't how 1D&D is being set up)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Mecheon said:


> but, they're just trying to hit two different targets. They're certainly Interesting and I wouldn't mind them hanging around, but I don't think they're hitting either of their goals particularly well (Not that I think WotC could ever pull off a Generic Furry Race as something like that would require a heap of optional things to chose from, which isn't how 1D&D is being set up)



Well, but look at how they're doing the half-races this time around. It wouldn't be hard to come up with an animal people race (much better name needed, of course), give them Keen Senses, a choice of a land, air or sea movement ability, and maybe another simple ability or two. That would encompass everything from the lupin to the rakasta without each of them needing their own write-up later on.

I do think there's a large market for such a race. I just don't think it should be merged with celestials, any more than it should be made a Shadowfel or fey race.


----------



## Yaarel

A setting that has humanimals can easily have hundreds of different kinds to choose from. For ardling to be a single race that can accommodate all of them is a win.

Notice how the tiefling can represent different kinds of fiends: devil, demon, yugaloth.

Likewise, the ardling should be able to represent different kinds of celestials: including guardinals with animal heads and aasimon with human heads. In other words, an aasimar is one of the options for an ardling character.


----------



## Parmandur

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I raised that question in my feedback survey: What problem is this solving? If it's a heavenly counterpart to the tiefling, why aren't they just elevating the aasimar? If it's an anthro race, what's with the magical wings? This feels like a senior designer's pet idea that they won't let go of, rather than something that organically arose from a need during the design process.



I think the Venm diagram overlap between younger audience members who like wingfic and animal people is very high. Seems grounded in market research has aimed at younger kids and making cool toys for a multimedia push.


----------



## Raith5

Yaarel said:


> A setting that has humanimals can easily have hundreds of different kinds to choose from. For ardling to be a single race that can accommodate all of them is a win.
> 
> Notice how the tiefling can represent different kinds of fiends: devil, demon, yugaloth.




I dont see the overlap as a benefit. Id rather these races point a real cultural being that has a place in the world rather than being a signifier of a rare individual. Race is such an important anchor point to the world. For eg, the difference between high elves and woods elves is that these are different cultural groups in the world not just a resource for PCs or being a rare individual. Id like any race to have a sense of depth


----------



## Yaarel

Raith5 said:


> Race is such an important anchor point to the world. For eg, the difference between high elves and woods elves is that these are different cultural groups in the world not just a resource for PCs or being a rare individual. Id like any race to have a sense of depth.



I agree the story of the setting must give narrative depth to a particular species or culture. Different settings will tell different stories about them.

Generally, except for a "kitchen sink" setting, only one or a few sapient species will exist in a setting.

The features of a player character and the tropes of a particular setting need to inform each other.



Raith5 said:


> For eg, the difference between high elves and woods elves is that these are different cultural groups in the world not just a resource for PCs or being a rare individual. Id like any race to have a sense of depth.



Regarding the elf, I tend to focus the High culture on themes relating to sky and politicking, and Wood culture to earth and vegetation. But both are equally about fate, magic, and beauty.

I dont think I have ever seen a Sea elven culture in any D&D campaign, but I have seen nixie and noviere eladrin. In my mind all of these are narratively identical, regardless of stats. I even think twice before considering triton or merfolk as separate creatures from the other sea folk.

In any case, each setting may or may not include any of these particular cultures.



Raith5 said:


> I dont see the overlap as a benefit.



Regarding the ardling and tiefling, I view the overlap of options beneficial. The tiefling can be various Types of fiend. So the player has freedom to visulize the character in different ways, with different kinds of horns or other fiendish characteristics.

Likewise, ardling with various types of celestial to choose from can give the player freedom to visualize the character, whether animalistic or human. Also, giving celestial traits like wings to the animalistic features, helps make the ardling more appealing to players who like tropes like Egyptian gods without being into "furry" per se. But ardling can be fullon furry, and like the trope of "winged catkids".

That said. Maybe the ardling and the tiefling should have a note that when choosing a specific appearance, to think about whether the character is unique or typical of a specific community, and to consult with the DM about where such a community might be and ones connection to it.


----------



## Raith5

Yaarel said:


> Regarding the ardling and tiefling, I view the overlap of options beneficial. The tiefling can be various Types of fiend. So the player has freedom to visulize the character in different ways, with different kinds of horns or other fiendish characteristics.




I think this is important. I like the idea of playing tiefling that is a result of  a union between a mortal and demon or devil - and the rules should certainly support that individual and the customisation that comes with that.

And there is a cranky old man in me that says get these damn furries of my lawn! So I think either the race will be supported by a younger demographic - so my views will be irrelevant and/or there is something more substantial added to the race that will sell the race to a broader demo.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Yaarel said:


> Regarding the ardling and tiefling, I view the overlap of options beneficial. The tiefling can be various Types of fiend. So the player has freedom to visulize the character in different ways, with different kinds of horns or other fiendish characteristics.
> 
> Likewise, ardling with various types of celestial to choose from can give the player freedom to visualize the character, whether animalistic or human. Also, giving celestial traits like wings to the animalistic features, helps make the ardling more appealing to players who like tropes like Egyptian gods without being into "furry" per se. But ardling can be fullon furry, and like the trope of "winged catkids".
> 
> That said. Maybe the ardling and the tiefling should have a note that when choosing a specific appearance, to think about whether the character is unique or typical of a specific community, and to consult with the DM about where such a community might be and ones connection to it.




The thing is, I'm perfectly fine with "divine furries" as some people have called them, but they can just be trivially rolled into Aasimar. Allow Aasimar and Tieflings the aesthetic of having animal features or animal heads based on their progenitor and... done. That's it. You want wings? Aasimar Radiant Guardian has wings, as does the Necrotic Shroud. 

It is such a bizarrely simple fix, I don't see why there needed to be a second race.


----------



## Yaarel

Chaosmancer said:


> The thing is, I'm perfectly fine with "divine furries" as some people have called them, but they can just be trivially rolled into Aasimar. Allow Aasimar and Tieflings the aesthetic of having animal features or animal heads based on their progenitor and... done. That's it. You want wings? Aasimar Radiant Guardian has wings, as does the Necrotic Shroud.
> 
> It is such a bizarrely simple fix, I don't see why there needed to be a second race.



I agree, the aasimar and ardling are moreorless the same race.


----------



## Mecheon

I can understand it from a design perspective. Aasimar got the "You've got a guardian angel" thing this round, and they've never really leaned into that. Just the "You can have an animal head if you want idk" for Aasimars really doesn't give a strong art direction, compared to tieflings who have a very stylistic "This is a Tiefling" that makes them easy to slot into pictures. Consider Aasimar. If you threw one into an action scene in the background, could you tell they were specifically an Aasimar from the ways described? And folks probably wouldn't be happy with Aasimar being changed in such a way to give them A Consistent Visual Theme, so the new race was the choice to go with

but also this is my "They're trying to come up with a celestial race that actually has even a fraction of the tiefling's popularity" theory and not the equally valid "They wanted a generic beastfolk race and gave it an angel background to explain why they didn't have a heap of different options" theory


----------



## Parmandur

Mecheon said:


> but also this is my "They're trying to come up with a celestial race that actually has even a fraction of the tiefling's popularity" theory and not the equally valid "They wanted a generic beastfolk race and gave it an angel background to explain why they didn't have a heap of different options" theory



Two birds with one stone is my theory.


----------



## SkidAce

Dausuul said:


> I would be fine with ardlings portrayed as any of the above; it should be up to the player. For me personally, if I were playing an ardling, I would pick either 70% or 100% animal, depending on the character concept.
> 
> (Somewhat off topic, I wish they had come up with a different name for them. Something about the "-ling" suffix feels like it's signaling "small" or "less than" to me. It's obviously meant to parallel "tiefling," and I got used to "tiefling" back in the day, so I'll get used to "ardling" now, but it's definitely not the name I would have gone with.)



Not going to use "ardling", will come up with something else.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Mecheon said:


> I can understand it from a design perspective. Aasimar got the "You've got a guardian angel" thing this round, and they've never really leaned into that. Just the "You can have an animal head if you want idk" for Aasimars really doesn't give a strong art direction, compared to tieflings who have a very stylistic "This is a Tiefling" that makes them easy to slot into pictures. Consider Aasimar. If you threw one into an action scene in the background, could you tell they were specifically an Aasimar from the ways described? And folks probably wouldn't be happy with Aasimar being changed in such a way to give them A Consistent Visual Theme, so the new race was the choice to go with




To note, the guardian angel ability is gone as of Monsters of the Multiverse. Now they have features like other similar races. Things like having a ghostly halo, or metal freckles. 

I agree they don't have a strong visual identity, but I also don't see how giving them a strong visual cue with the animal heads is a bad way to go. It can be made perfectly clear that the Aasimar appearance is a choice, without it needing to be a new race entirely.


----------



## Yaarel

For a distinctive look?

Maybe the eyes of an awsimar-ardling glow, maybe a full-on aura with halo around head.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

I can see why they didn't use aasimars. It's because no-one has ever cared about aasimars.

I have no idea how they ended up thinking ardlings is a good name... was angemanimals taken?


----------



## Parmandur

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> I can see why they didn't use aasimars. It's because no-one has ever cared about aasimars.
> 
> I have no idea how they ended up thinking ardlings is a good name... was angemanimals taken?



The only.good thing about Ardling as a name.is that it isn't Aasimar.


----------



## Yaarel

Parmandur said:


> The only.good thing about Ardling as a name.is that it isn't Aasimar.



Sadly because of Aasimar and aardvarks, I find myself spelling the name Aardlings.


----------



## Cadence

Yaarel said:


> Sadly because of Aasimar and aardvarks, I find myself spelling the name Aardlings.



And now I want a pirate crew of them and a few more r's instead of a's.


----------



## Corinnguard

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> I can see why they didn't use aasimars. It's because no-one has ever cared about aasimars.
> 
> I have no idea how they ended up thinking ardlings is a good name... was angemanimals taken?



The only RPG that I know of that really seemed to care about the Aasimar was Pathfinder 1st Edition. Paizo came out with the book _Blood of Angels_ to describe what they were like in their Golarion setting.


----------



## glass

Yaarel said:


> Sadly because of Aasimar and aardvarks, I find myself spelling the name Aardlings.



But Aasimar is a different initial vowel sound from Aardvarks and Ardlings, isn't it? Or have I been pronouncing it differently-than-intended for decades? (Not "wrong", because my way is better. Even if they intended to pronounce it "arse-i-mar", they shouldn't have.)



Corinnguard said:


> The only RPG that I know of that really seemed to care about the Aasimar was Pathfinder 1st Edition. Paizo came out with the book _Blood of Angels_ to describe what they were like in their Golarion setting.



An excellent book! I keep meaning to rework it (and its tiefling counterpart, _Blood of Fiends_) for my hombrew setting (which has a different mix of "outsiders" compared with Golarion).


----------



## Corinnguard

glass said:


> But Aasimar is a different initial vowel sound from Aardvarks and Ardlings, isn't it? Or have I been pronouncing it differently-than-intended for decades? (Not "wrong", because my way is better. Even if they intended to pronounce it "arse-i-mar", they shouldn't have.)
> 
> 
> An excellent book! I keep meaning to rework it (and its tiefling counterpart, _Blood of Fiends_) for my hombrew setting (which has a different mix of "outsiders" compared with Golarion).



_Blood of Angels_ and _Blood of Fiends_ set the bar high for Paizo's racial background books in Pathfinder 1st edition.


----------



## Yaarel

glass said:


> But Aasimar is a different initial vowel sound from Aardvarks and Ardlings, isn't it? Or have I been pronouncing it differently-than-intended for decades?



True. Heh, but when I write ardling, I think aasimar, and then aardvark happens.



I pronounce the name: "awesome-ar".

I assume the element _aas-_ derives from Norse _ás-_, as in _æsir_.

(The "awsimar" are kinda like Marvel Universe "asgardians".)

So if _ás-_, the double-a, "aa", is a digraph relating to Norwegian å, sounding similar to awe. Hence, "awsimar".


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

glass said:


> But Aasimar is a different initial vowel sound from Aardvarks and Ardlings, isn't it?



For english speakers, that's a safe bet, because there's at least 7 different, completely random, ways to pronounce an A in a word...


----------



## glass

Yaarel said:


> _æsir_.



In other news, I have apparently also been pronouncing this wrongly as well.... _EDIT: Although having gone to half a dozen websites they give three different pronunciations. Some of which match mine, none of which match @Yaarel's. But if I went through the next half dozen I'd probably find a few more...._


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

glass said:


> In other news, I have apparently also been pronouncing this wrongly as well....



There's multiple ways to pronounce æ. Most common would be like ää or ee... which is not helpful at all to say in writing but I just cannot


----------



## Yaarel

glass said:


> In other news, I have apparently also been pronouncing this wrongly as well.... _EDIT: Although having gone to half a dozen websites they give three different pronunciations. Some of which match mine, none of which match @Yaarel's. But if I went through the next half dozen I'd probably find a few more...._



The very first link I went to, pronounces aasimar the same way I do:

"awesome-ar"









						Aasimar Pronunciation
					

How to say Aasimar in English? Pronunciation of Aasimar with 2 audio pronunciations, 1 translation and more for Aasimar.




					www.howtopronounce.com


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Yaarel said:


> The very first link I went to, pronounces aasimar the same way I do: "awesome-ar"



...that link just uses the basic aaa sound...

Can you google 'pronounce awesome' next? Because... this is kind of wild, and it feels like I'm in a bit.


----------



## Yaarel

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> ...that link just uses the basic aaa sound...
> 
> Can you google 'pronounce awesome' next? Because... this is kind of wild, and it feels like I'm in a bit.



If you know IPA:

awesome ['ɔ.səm]

aasimar ['ɔ.səm.ar]



Here is a recording of "awesome"








						awesome
					

Definition, Synonyms, Translations of awesome by The Free Dictionary




					www.thefreedictionary.com
				




Here is a recording of "awesome-ar"








						Aasimar Pronunciation
					

How to say Aasimar in English? Pronunciation of Aasimar with 2 audio pronunciations, 1 translation and more for Aasimar.




					www.howtopronounce.com


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Yaarel said:


> If you know IPA:
> awesome ['ɔ.səm]
> aasimar ['ɔ.səm.ar]



Yes, but your link clearly says aasimar with [a: ]

[a: ] is the way A is said, yes. Using awesome as an example of that is... not [a: ], hence confusion.


----------



## Yaarel

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Yes, but your link clearly says it with [a: ]
> 
> [a: ] is the way A is said, yes. Using awesome as an example of that is... not [a: ]



There are two recordings.

The first is [ɔ].

The second is [ɛ].


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Yaarel said:


> The first is [ɔ].



Highly disagree, but you do you. As long as your ard's in the right place.


----------



## Yaarel

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Highly disagree, but you do you. As long as your ard's in the right place.



Heh.

It is the "a" as in "all" [ɔl].


----------



## Cadence

Yaarel said:


> If you know IPA:
> 
> awesome ['ɔ.səm]
> 
> aasimar ['ɔ.səm.ar]
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a recording of "awesome"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> awesome
> 
> 
> Definition, Synonyms, Translations of awesome by The Free Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thefreedictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a recording of "awesome-ar"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aasimar Pronunciation
> 
> 
> How to say Aasimar in English? Pronunciation of Aasimar with 2 audio pronunciations, 1 translation and more for Aasimar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.howtopronounce.com



So I googled Aesir and the top two pronunciations disagreed!  What is correct?


----------



## Yaarel

Cadence said:


> So I googled Aesir and the top two pronunciations disagreed!  What is correct?



English often pronounces aesir as "ay sir" or "acer".

Heh, but that is hard on my ears!

It should be more like "as ear".


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Cadence said:


> So I googled Aesir and the top two pronunciations disagreed!  What is correct?



Pick whatever your heart tells you.


----------



## Cadence

Yaarel said:


> English often pronounces aesir as "ay sir" or "acer".
> 
> Heh, but that is hard on my ears!



How do you guess the Norse of a millennia ago have pronounced it?


----------



## glass

Yaarel said:


> Here is a recording of "awesome"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> awesome
> 
> 
> Definition, Synonyms, Translations of awesome by The Free Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thefreedictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a recording of "awesome-ar"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aasimar Pronunciation
> 
> 
> How to say Aasimar in English? Pronunciation of Aasimar with 2 audio pronunciations, 1 translation and more for Aasimar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.howtopronounce.com



Interestingly, my initial reaction was "those are completely different", but having listened a couple of times I can sorta hear a similarity. They are still definitely not _the same_ vowel sound, though.

For the record, I pronounce "awesome" pretty-much as per the first link. The second link is the pronunciation of "aasimar" that I specifically reject, even if it was what the designers intended (too much like arse-i-mar). I have always pronounced it AY-si-mar, which I always assumed was what they intended - but if not, it is better than intended!


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Cadence said:


> How do you guess the Norse of a millennia ago have pronounced it?



'ass-ear'

Seriously.


----------



## Cadence

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> 'ass-ear'
> 
> Seriously.



So, now I'm picturing a donkey Ardling.  Ack!


----------



## Yaarel

Cadence said:


> How do you guess the Norse of a millennia ago have pronounced it?



Dont forget there are different dialects of Old Norse.

Earlier on the initial æ was nasalized, like in French.

The r is similar to an American r, but closer to the top of the mouth, a bit more like rzh.

[ɛ̃:.siɹ̝]


----------



## Yaarel

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> 'ass-ear'
> 
> Seriously.



Yup.

But to be kinder, the Old Norse is a bit closer to:

"ess-ear".


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Cadence said:


> So, now I'm picturing a donkey Ardling.  Ack!



Firbolgs now have floppy cow ears because of Critical Role. This is mythology at work.


----------



## Yaarel

@glass

They are the same vowel, but in "awesome" it lengthens.

More narrowly, according to the speakers in the recordings:

awesome [ˈɔː.sə̆m] − almost saying "awsm"

aasimar [ˈɔ.sɪm.ˌaɹ] − aw sim ar


----------



## Mind of tempest

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Firbolgs now have floppy cow ears because of Critical Role. This is mythology at work.



why, we have minotaurs for cow people?


----------



## Gorck

Mind of tempest said:


> why, we have minotaurs for cow people?



Yeah, I never got that interpretation.  Based on the written lore in VGM and real world Celtic mythology, at my table I consider them more as a Half-Elf/Half-Giant.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Gorck said:


> Yeah, I never got that interpretation.  Based on the written lore in VGM and real world Celtic mythology, at my table I consider them more as a Half-Elf/Half-Giant.



honestly, I still fail to get why they are giants other than by size giant does not feel like a real category.


----------



## Gorck

Mind of tempest said:


> honestly, I still fail to get why they are giants other than by size giant does not feel like a real category.



I once read that, in Irish folklore, they were giants.  But looking at the Wikipedia page, the only reference to giants is the last paragraph in the Analysis section where a couple scholars suggest they are disguised Formorians (another supernatural race in Irish folklore that "are often portrayed as hostile and monstrous beings. Originally they were said to come from under the sea or the earth. Later, they were portrayed as sea raiders and giants.")


----------



## Mecheon

Mind of tempest said:


> why, we have minotaurs for cow people?



Because Firbolg art has kind of been lacking a consistent theme and there's never really been a standard stereotypical This Is A Firbolg to catch people's minds, unlike elves being an easy comparison point for the Tuatha De (mind I liked 4E's version of firbolgs, but 3E and 2E's Just A Big Dude were always sort of meh), so when Critical Role described them with a cow-like nose once, what with CR being Incredibly Popular, folks went with that cow idea because it gave the firbolg a consistent visual theme that became recognisable

which also ties into why I think a big part of Ardlings is "Aasimar don't have that Consistent Visual Theme"


----------



## MechaTarrasque

I like the "pestered by your guardian angel" bit for aasimar in 5e, but I have to admit, it could easily be made a little more generic ("pestered by a guardian angel/your ancestors/some weird thing from the Far Realm/a fey that your parents owned a debt to/tempting fiend") and made into a background.


----------



## Temporalgod

Chaosmancer said:


> The thing is, I'm perfectly fine with "divine furries" as some people have called them, but they can just be trivially rolled into Aasimar. Allow Aasimar and Tieflings the aesthetic of having animal features or animal heads based on their progenitor and... done. That's it. You want wings? Aasimar Radiant Guardian has wings, as does the Necrotic Shroud.
> 
> It is such a bizarrely simple fix, I don't see why there needed to be a second race.



Only animal Tieflings I know of are Rakshasa spawn which is only way for playable tiger folk.


----------



## Temporalgod

Cadence said:


> So, now I'm picturing a donkey Ardling.  Ack!



Could make him a horny bard that loves waffles, dragons and annoying half-orcs and ogres, who also refuses to "Get Outta of Muh Swamp!"


----------



## Temporalgod

Hear me out let's make Llama Ardlings named Carl


----------



## Chaosmancer

Temporalgod said:


> Only animal Tieflings I know of are Rakshasa spawn which is only way for playable tiger folk.




Maybe officially, but it wouldn't be hard to imagine Tieflings descended from or related to Vrocks, Glabrezu, Hezrou, Bulezau, Goristro, Balgura, ect ect ect.


----------



## Parmandur

Temporalgod said:


> Only animal Tieflings I know of are Rakshasa spawn which is only way for playable tiger folk.



Theybare deacribed in the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, as Mulan aristocracy descended from the Pharonoc gods.


----------



## aco175

Not a good video of the scene, but most will get it.


----------



## aco175

Forgot about this pronunciation from the TV show.


----------



## humble minion

Mecheon said:


> which also ties into why I think a big part of Ardlings is "Aasimar don't have that Consistent Visual Theme"



Wasn't the reason that tieflings became all uniform in appearance (roughly in the 4e era) because WotC wanted them trademarkable (or copyright, or whatever, IANAL), and they were told by the legal department that they couldn't do this with the old Planescape tieflings that could look like absolutely anything?

Bit strange they'd be introducing a new race that's widely varied in appearance, in that light i would have thought.


----------



## Corinnguard

humble minion said:


> Wasn't the reason that tieflings became all uniform in appearance (roughly in the 4e era) because WotC wanted them trademarkable (or copyright, or whatever, IANAL), and they were told by the legal department that they couldn't do this with the old Planescape tieflings that could look like absolutely anything?
> 
> Bit strange they'd be introducing a new race that's widely varied in appearance, in that light i would have thought.



Their uniform appearance was more or less due to their common origin in 4e. From Wikipedia: 

_In the setting of Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition, the tieflings trace their origins to the ancient human Empire of Bael Turath. In the Empire, the noble class was completely obsessed with preserving and gaining power. Rumors of their schemes and obsession with power reached a realm called the Nine Hells, located around the Astral Sea. The devils that resided in the Nine Hells gave the ruling classes of Bael Turath visions while they slept, containing the directions for a grisly, month-long ritual that would extend their rule into eternity. The details of the ritual have been left unclear in the books from the Player's Handbook series describing the events, though it is described as being very horrible. As the ritual demanded the participation of every noble house, those that refused were wholly slaughtered. Once this was done, the ruling class began their ritual. Afterwards, devils from the Nine Hells began to appear, and the nobles gladly made pacts with them. These pacts gave power to the nobles and their descendants forever, but also gave them the devilish features of horns, non-prehensile tails, sharp teeth, and red skin. From that point forward, the former humans were the race known as the tieflings._

_In 5th edition, the overlord of the Nine Hells, Asmodeus, is cited as the ancestral source of their devilish features._ 

The Aasimar or Devas as they were called in 4e also had something of a common origin. By 5th edition they were essentially the product of angels (even though there were other kinds of Celestials in D&D).


----------



## humble minion

Corinnguard said:


> Their uniform appearance was more or less due to their common origin in 4e.



That was the in-universe explanation, sure, but the underlying reason for both the uniform appearance and common origin was the desire to make them a more easily defendable IP.


----------



## Yaarel

humble minion said:


> That was the in-universe explanation, sure, but the underlying reason for both the uniform appearance and common origin was the desire to make them a more easily defendable IP.



It is entirely about the IP, including "brand name recognition", for licensing.

However, when imposing the IP too heavyhandedly, it impedes DM worldbuilding and homebrewing.

There needs to be ways to move the IP details into the official setting guides, while leaving the core rules as open as possible. The DM needs to use the core rules easily − for the homebrew setting too.


----------



## Corinnguard

humble minion said:


> That was the in-universe explanation, sure, but the underlying reason for both the uniform appearance and common origin was the desire to make them a more easily defendable IP.



What is IP? _curious_


----------



## humble minion

Corinnguard said:


> What is IP? _curious_



Intellectual Property, sorry.

Basically, WotC wanted to make their tieflings visually distinct so they were unique enough to stake a legal claim on them as creative property.


----------



## Corinnguard

humble minion said:


> Intellectual Property, sorry.
> 
> Basically, WotC wanted to make their tieflings visually distinct so they were unique enough to stake a legal claim on them as creative property.



It's cool. The Tieflings in 4e and 5e are certainly distinctive with regards to their appearance. So is WoTC bringing in the Ardlings into 1D&D for the sole purpose of making them IP too? 

This bit of news makes me appreciate the Aasimar and the Tieflings even more in Pathfinder 1st edition.  As you could play a generic Aasimar or Tiefling, or you could play as one from specific heritage in that RPG.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

I think the descriptions in the playtest document of Tieflings, the look of the Tiefling Druid in the D&D movie, and the 2e Tiefling NPC Rhys appearing in Tasha's Cauldron with an non-updated appearance, are signs that WoTC are moving away from the distinctive uniform appearance of Tieflings from 4e.


----------



## Temporalgod

Corinnguard said:


> Their uniform appearance was more or less due to their common origin in 4e. From Wikipedia:
> 
> _In the setting of Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition, the tieflings trace their origins to the ancient human Empire of Bael Turath. In the Empire, the noble class was completely obsessed with preserving and gaining power. Rumors of their schemes and obsession with power reached a realm called the Nine Hells, located around the Astral Sea. The devils that resided in the Nine Hells gave the ruling classes of Bael Turath visions while they slept, containing the directions for a grisly, month-long ritual that would extend their rule into eternity. The details of the ritual have been left unclear in the books from the Player's Handbook series describing the events, though it is described as being very horrible. As the ritual demanded the participation of every noble house, those that refused were wholly slaughtered. Once this was done, the ruling class began their ritual. Afterwards, devils from the Nine Hells began to appear, and the nobles gladly made pacts with them. These pacts gave power to the nobles and their descendants forever, but also gave them the devilish features of horns, non-prehensile tails, sharp teeth, and red skin. From that point forward, the former humans were the race known as the tieflings.
> 
> In 5th edition, the overlord of the Nine Hells, Asmodeus, is cited as the ancestral source of their devilish features._
> 
> The Aasimar or Devas as they were called in 4e also had something of a common origin. By 5th edition they were essentially the product of angels (even though there were other kinds of Celestials in D&D).



Personally I just ignored that part, I prefer the parent is a Cambion origin more and instead of the ugly red Tieflings, My Tieflings are hot, hornless, white haired and have human skin tones, think like if Dante or Vergil from Devil may Cry fused with the X-Man Nightcrawler, the demonic features are still there but less obvious, at a distance they could pass for an elf or an aasimar with a tail but close up the demonic features are much more prominent around the face, hands and feet areas with the glowing eyes, pointy ears, the fangs, tail and claws.


----------



## Scars Unseen

Yaarel said:


> There needs to be ways to move the IP details into the official setting guides, while leaving the core rules as open as possible. The DM needs to use the core rules easily − for the homebrew setting too.



At the same time, even without a setting, worldbuilding elements need _some_ fluff to spark the imagination.  Otherwise there's no point to it at all, and we should just have a toolkit to build whatever you want mechanically.  The playtest material was laughably uninspiring in it's descriptions.  And yeah, I get that it's just a playtest document, but especially when introducing an entirely new race, there really should be more effort put into it.  Fluff may be the easiest thing for a DM to replace, but the inspiration some well written fluff can induce has immense value.


----------



## Yaarel

Scars Unseen said:


> At the same time, even without a setting, worldbuilding elements need _some_ fluff to spark the imagination.  Otherwise there's no point to it at all, and we should just have a toolkit to build whatever you want mechanically.  The playtest material was laughably uninspiring in it's descriptions.  And yeah, I get that it's just a playtest document, but especially when introducing an entirely new race, there really should be more effort put into it.  Fluff may be the easiest thing for a DM to replace, but the inspiration some well written fluff can induce has immense value.



The "default" flavor of core can be simple:
• Magic exists
• Culture is vaguely medievalesque
• Humans only!
• A note can mention the DM might add other races.

To select nonhuman races for a particular setting is an important way to create the tropes, themes, and tone of the specific setting.

I feel each setting should present its own assemblage of races.

Of course, a DM can plug in a race from one setting into an other setting.

Make the Forgotten Realms Guide a separate core book. It is an official setting that details the Forgotten Realms setting assumptions including specific races, cultures, religions, and planes. The Player Handbook doesnt go into these kinds of setting assumptions.

The Players Handbook is a rule book with all of the rules that are necessary to play the game, including combat and skills. Pretty much every setting will need to use the Players Handbook. But not every setting with use the content in the Forgotten Realms Guide.


----------



## Scars Unseen

Yaarel said:


> The "default" flavor of core can be simple:
> • Magic exists
> • Culture is vaguely medievalesque
> • Humans only!
> • A note can mention the DM might add other races.
> 
> To select nonhuman races for a particular setting is an important way to create the tropes, themes, and tone of the specific setting.
> 
> I feel each setting should present its own assemblage of races.
> 
> Of course, a DM can plug in a race from one setting into an other setting.
> 
> Make the Forgotten Realms Guide a separate core book. It is an official setting that details the Forgotten Realms setting assumptions including specific races, cultures, religions, and planes. The Player Handbook doesnt go into these kinds of setting assumptions.
> 
> The Players Handbook is a rule book with all of the rules that are necessary to play the game, including combat and skills. Pretty much every setting will need to use the Players Handbook. But not every setting with use the content in the Forgotten Realms Guide.



I would not buy that book.  Are you seriously advocating the idea of a human only PHB?  Would never happen.


----------



## ersatzphil

Scars Unseen said:


> I would not buy that book.  Are you seriously advocating the idea of a human only PHB?  Would never happen.



What would you say to one that just had humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, and half-elves?


----------



## jmartkdr2

ersatzphil said:


> What would you say to one that just had humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, and half-elves?



Different person, but I wouldn’t want that either. Why would I pay money for fewer options, especially if the goal seemed to be to excise my favorite option in favor of blandness?


----------



## Yaarel

Scars Unseen said:


> I would not buy that book.  Are you seriously advocating the idea of a human only PHB?  Would never happen.



Yup. The book that has all the rules, only stats humans.

At the same time, the Forgotten Realms setting guide is also one of the core books and goes into more detail about a specific setting, including which races the setting has.

Not every setting will have halflings. Not every setting will have ardlings. Not every setting will have dragonborns. Not every setting will have elves.

The Forgotten Realms setting has many races. So this setting specifically needs to go into detail about which races, their features, and the various cultures, relating to them. There will be elf culture backgrounds in Forgotten Realms that wont exist in Eberron. And so on.

The existence of any race depends 100% on the setting.

The only default that one can assume is that most settings will have the human race. Even if a setting lacks the human race, the rulebook needs to have a human so that players can relate to the human, and get a sense of how the rules work. The human race is the measuring unit by which to measure and compare other races.


----------



## Temporalgod

Yaarel said:


> The "default" flavor of core can be simple:
> • Magic exists
> • Culture is vaguely medievalesque
> • Humans only!
> • A note can mention the DM might add other races.
> 
> To select nonhuman races for a particular setting is an important way to create the tropes, themes, and tone of the specific setting.
> 
> I feel each setting should present its own assemblage of races.
> 
> Of course, a DM can plug in a race from one setting into an other setting.
> 
> Make the Forgotten Realms Guide a separate core book. It is an official setting that details the Forgotten Realms setting assumptions including specific races, cultures, religions, and planes. The Player Handbook doesnt go into these kinds of setting assumptions.
> 
> The Players Handbook is a rule book with all of the rules that are necessary to play the game, including combat and skills. Pretty much every setting will need to use the Players Handbook. But not every setting with use the content in the Forgotten Realms Guide.






Scars Unseen said:


> I would not buy that book.  Are you seriously advocating the idea of a human only PHB?  Would never happen.



Personally I would ban Humans entirely if I had my way, lorewise Humans in D&D aren't even part of Toril's local wildlife, they're an invasive species from a hellish plane of existence called Earth.


----------



## ersatzphil

jmartkdr2 said:


> Different person, but I wouldn’t want that either. Why would I pay money for fewer options, especially if the goal seemed to be to excise my favorite option in favor of blandness?



I ask because that was the lineup for the 2e PHB - 3e had the same lineup, but adding the half-orc.

Which is your favorite option?


----------



## Yaarel

Temporalgod said:


> Personally I would ban Humans entirely if I had my way, lorewise Humans in D&D aren't even part of Toril's local wildlife, they're an invasive species from a hellish plane of existence called Earth.



The proposed Players Handbook has all the rules, with the human to illustrate the rules. It is mostly setting neutral, except magic exists and is medievalesque.

So it is easy to write a specific setting with various races without ever mentioning the human race at all.


----------



## Corinnguard

Yaarel said:


> Yup. The book that has all the rules, only stats humans.
> 
> At the same time, the Forgotten Realms setting guide is also one of the core books and goes into more detail about a specific setting, including which races the setting has.
> 
> Not every setting will have halflings. Not every setting will have ardlings. Not every setting will have dragonborns. Not every setting will have elves.
> 
> The Forgotten Realms setting has many races. So this setting specifically needs to go into detail about which races, their features, and the various cultures, relating to them. There will be elf culture backgrounds in Forgotten Realms that wont exist in Eberron. And so on.
> 
> The existence of any race depends 100% on the setting.
> 
> The only default that one can assume is that most settings will have the human race. Even if a setting lacks the human race, the rulebook needs to have a human so that players can relate to the human, and get a sense of how the rules work. The human race is the measuring unit by which to measure and compare other races.



Which human stats do you propose the players should be using? The core rulebook for 5e provides two sets of stats for humans- the bland version which I have heard no one really wants to play, or the variant human who starts the game with a 1st level bonus feat? 

In other words, a world-neutral PHB that provides the right amount of crunch and fluff for the players and the DM. Something like the PHB back in 3.0/3.5 and PF1. And then each setting gets their own campaign setting book that covers the stuff not found in the first PHB. 3.0/3.5 did that too. 

Metric humans? No such thing. We're all different. Each and every one of us.


----------



## jmartkdr2

ersatzphil said:


> I ask because that was the lineup for the 2e PHB - 3e had the same lineup, but adding the half-orc.
> 
> Which is your favorite?



Dragonborn, personally. Tieflings are a close second.

Statistically, dragonborn are more popular than dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and half-orcs.


----------



## Corinnguard

ersatzphil said:


> I ask because that was the lineup for the 2e PHB - 3e had the same lineup, but adding the half-orc.
> 
> Which is your favorite option?



Dragonborn and Genasi


----------



## ersatzphil

jmartkdr2 said:


> Dragonborn, personally. Tieflings are a close second.
> 
> Statistically, dragonborn are more popular than dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and half-orcs.



Fair - I didn't mean to imply that they shouldn't be in the game, but rather whether they should be in the PHB vs. an expansion or setting-specific book.
I'm personally a fan of tieflings, but have mixed feelings about them being in the PHB as a 'standard' race, rather than a planar-game-specific one.


----------



## Yaarel

Corinnguard said:


> Which human stats do you propose the players should be using? The core rulebook for 5e provides two sets of stats for humans- the bland version which I have heard no one really wants to play, or the variant human who starts the game with a 1st level bonus feat?
> 
> In other words, a world-neutral PHB that provides the right amount of crunch and fluff for the players and the DM. Something like the PHB back in 3.0/3.5 and PF1. And then each setting gets their own campaign setting book that covers the stuff not found in the first PHB. 3.0/3.5 did that too.
> 
> Metric humans? No such thing. We're all different. Each and every one of us.



The human is an example of how to use abilities, skills, backgrounds, feats, and when taking classes, how to use weapons and spells.

The human race is excellent to illustrate how D&D rules work.


----------



## Corinnguard

Yaarel said:


> The human is an example of how to use abilities, skills, backgrounds, feats, and when taking classes, how to use weapons and spells.
> 
> The human race is excellent to illustrate how D&D rules work.



How to use abilities, skills, backgrounds, feats, class features, combat and magic have been written up before without the need to use a particular race as an example.


----------



## Yaarel

Corinnguard said:


> How to use abilities, skills, backgrounds, feats, class features, combat and magic have been written up before without the need to use a particular race as an example.



We players are human in reallife. So using the human race as an example of how to use these gaming mechanics is grounding. So the Players Handbook as a rulebook for how to play D&D benefits from featuring the human race.

But a setting guide has a different purpose.


----------



## Scars Unseen

ersatzphil said:


> What would you say to one that just had humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, and half-elves?



I would throw in orcs as well; they may not have been a race as long as the ones you've mentioned, but they've been a core part of D&D at least as long.  Then I'd put out a race book - call it "Beings of Myth and Legend" or something - and that's where I'd lay out races like dragonborn, the planar races, etc.  

I'd do it like that for two reasons.  First, while I'm not on board with Yaarel's idea of a bare bones stripped down core book, I _do_ think that a "classic D&D" approach to the core is a good idea.  The difference is that I think that the core should be less bare bones, and more like a good soup stock: flavorful, but not too exotic.  It shouldn't just be "hey, here are the rules of D&D," but "hey, _this is D&D._" Now, arguably dragonborn at least, and possibly tieflings as well have become _part_ of what younger players consider the core of the D&D races, but that brings me to my second reason.

Races like dragonborn, and definitely the planar races are varied enough in possible origin and configuration that I feel they really need more room than the PHB can afford to do them justice.  If I had my way, there would be a revisiting of the "Complete" series concept from 2E, giving every major race their own book filled with potential lore, adventure ideas and player options.  Alas, it's not an idea that would sell well enough for today's WotC.  But I still think that at least having a race specific book could give enough real estate in the book for the more exotic races to get the kind of options and imagination fuel they need.  I'd give multiple potential origins for groups to consider, each with at least as much text as the race would get as a whole if it were in the PHB.  I'd take the barebones approach the playtest is suggesting will be the status quo and give multiple advancement paths for players that want their character's race to play a bigger role mechanically.  In the case of races with varying potential appearances like the planetouched, I'd dedicate a page to ideas for players to use to imagine how _their_ character would look, potentially with tables for those that want a little help in that department.  

Basically, I'd give let the PHB be D&D comfort food, and then put out a recipe book for those that want _more._


----------



## ersatzphil

Scars Unseen said:


> Basically, I'd give let the PHB be D&D comfort food, and then put out a recipe book for those that want _more._



I think we’re in agreement - make the PHB the baseline; let expansions and settings get weird with it.


----------



## Yaarel

The top four races (as of 2019) are:

*1*: Human
*2*: Elf / Half-Elf
*3*: Tiefling
*4*: Dragonborn

So, a "comfort food" setting should at least mention the above four.



A top seven would extend to:

*5* Dwarf
*6* Orc / Half Orc
*7* Goliath

And a top ten would extend to:

*8* Halfling
*9* Genasi
*10* Gnome

And a top thirteen are : aasimar, aarakockra, and changeling. The fourteenth is tabaxi. If ardling merges with aasimar, it should prove popular enough.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Scars Unseen said:


> I would throw in orcs as well; they may not have been a race as long as the ones you've mentioned, but they've been a core part of D&D at least as long.  Then I'd put out a race book - call it "Beings of Myth and Legend" or something - and that's where I'd lay out races like dragonborn, the planar races, etc.
> 
> I'd do it like that for two reasons.  First, while I'm not on board with Yaarel's idea of a bare bones stripped down core book, I _do_ think that a "classic D&D" approach to the core is a good idea.  The difference is that I think that the core should be less bare bones, and more like a good soup stock: flavorful, but not too exotic.  It shouldn't just be "hey, here are the rules of D&D," but "hey, _this is D&D._" Now, arguably dragonborn at least, and possibly tieflings as well have become _part_ of what younger players consider the core of the D&D races, but that brings me to my second reason.
> 
> Races like dragonborn, and definitely the planar races are varied enough in possible origin and configuration that I feel they really need more room than the PHB can afford to do them justice.  If I had my way, there would be a revisiting of the "Complete" series concept from 2E, giving every major race their own book filled with potential lore, adventure ideas and player options.  Alas, it's not an idea that would sell well enough for today's WotC.  But I still think that at least having a race specific book could give enough real estate in the book for the more exotic races to get the kind of options and imagination fuel they need.  I'd give multiple potential origins for groups to consider, each with at least as much text as the race would get as a whole if it were in the PHB.  I'd take the barebones approach the playtest is suggesting will be the status quo and give multiple advancement paths for players that want their character's race to play a bigger role mechanically.  In the case of races with varying potential appearances like the planetouched, I'd dedicate a page to ideas for players to use to imagine how _their_ character would look, potentially with tables for those that want a little help in that department.
> 
> Basically, I'd give let the PHB be D&D comfort food, and then put out a recipe book for those that want _more._



I think if you want to save page count you’d get more from removing subraces, especially from dwarves and halflings and such. Dragonborn got popular on the 2014 phb version, which just has you pick a damage type, so that’s fine for a core version.

I agree tieflings call for more variety and they (or maybe planetouched generally) should get an expanding supplement early on - but a template of when they get spells plus a sidebar saying “or pick different spells to customize your character” is enough to get started.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Yaarel said:


> Yup. The book that has all the rules, only stats humans.
> 
> At the same time, the Forgotten Realms setting guide is also one of the core books and goes into more detail about a specific setting, including which races the setting has.
> 
> Not every setting will have halflings. Not every setting will have ardlings. Not every setting will have dragonborns. Not every setting will have elves.
> 
> The Forgotten Realms setting has many races. So this setting specifically needs to go into detail about which races, their features, and the various cultures, relating to them. There will be elf culture backgrounds in Forgotten Realms that wont exist in Eberron. And so on.
> 
> The existence of any race depends 100% on the setting.
> 
> The only default that one can assume is that most settings will have the human race. Even if a setting lacks the human race, the rulebook needs to have a human so that players can relate to the human, and get a sense of how the rules work. The human race is the measuring unit by which to measure and compare other races.




This is honestly one of the single worst ideas I've ever read. The day DnD does this, the game is dead. 

Sure, maybe Toril doesn't have every race. But most games are homebrew. Most games aren't playing in Toril. Taking away every single option then demanding we buy setting books to get things as basic as elves and dwarves? 

Utter madness.


----------



## ersatzphil

jmartkdr2 said:


> I agree tieflings call for more variety and they (or maybe planetouched generally) should get an expanding supplement early on - but a template of when they get spells plus a sidebar saying “or pick different spells to customize your character” is enough to get started.



I’d be perfectly happy seeing tieflings, aasimar, and genasi covered as racial options in the rerelease of Planescape. At least in my mind, they kind of make more sense there anyway.


----------



## jmartkdr2

ersatzphil said:


> I’d be perfectly happy seeing tieflings, aasimar, and genasi covered as racial options in the rerelease of Planescape. At least in my mind, they kind of make more sense there anyway.



I was thinking there or a new Manual of the Planes, since planetouched give that book a lot of player-facing content (something that drives sales and that such a book would otherwise lack). You could easily write 30 pages on planetouched.

Though I still say tieflings and aasimar should be present in the PHB, even if they don’t get the full treatment until a little later.


----------



## Temporalgod

Corinnguard said:


> Which human stats do you propose the players should be using? The core rulebook for 5e provides two sets of stats for humans- the bland version which I have heard no one really wants to play, or the variant human who starts the game with a 1st level bonus feat?
> 
> In other words, a world-neutral PHB that provides the right amount of crunch and fluff for the players and the DM. Something like the PHB back in 3.0/3.5 and PF1. And then each setting gets their own campaign setting book that covers the stuff not found in the first PHB. 3.0/3.5 did that too.
> 
> Metric humans? No such thing. We're all different. Each and every one of us.



Right like nobody would make human characters if Variant humans weren't a thing, take away variant humans with their bonus feat and humans would end up as the least played race.


----------



## Temporalgod

Yaarel said:


> The top four races (as of 2019) are:
> 
> *1*: Human
> *2*: Elf / Half-Elf
> *3*: Tiefling
> *4*: Dragonborn
> 
> So, a "comfort food" setting should at least mention the above four.
> 
> 
> 
> A top seven would extend to:
> 
> *5* Dwarf
> *6* Orc / Half Orc
> *7* Goliath
> 
> And a top ten would extend to:
> 
> *8* Halfling
> *9* Genasi
> *10* Gnome
> 
> And a top thirteen are : aasimar, aarakockra, and changeling. The fourteenth is tabaxi. If ardling merges with aasimar, it should prove popular enough.



2 Elves, 3 Tielfings, 4 Dragonborns & 6 Orcs/Half-Orcs are usually the races I pick to play as, 11 Aasimar is something I play occasionally just not as often as the first four and I'm kind of interested in playing 9 Genasi & 13 Changeling, only way I'll ever play a Dwarf aka number 5 is if I can be a Duergar, also besides Goblins not really a fan of small races.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Temporalgod said:


> Right like nobody would make human characters if Variant humans weren't a thing, take away variant humans with their bonus feat and humans would end up as the least played race.



people will play human because they like humans you have less faith than I do and I trust nothing.


----------



## ersatzphil

Mind of tempest said:


> people will play human because they like humans you have less faith than I do and I trust nothing.



3 of the 4 5e PCs I've played have been nonvariant humans - we're out here.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

If people have played the PHB Dragonborn this much, clearly mechanical advantages aren't the determining factor in race choice.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Sure, people will play humans. But, let's just imagine for a moment. Let us say that a truly massive 50% of all players prefer to play human. 

That means a human-only PHB is leaving 50% of the player base in the cold. And unless they are doing it intentionally, you will rarely see an all-human party. A party with at least one human? Sure, that's the majority of parties, but that still leaves a lot of other races being picked for those other party members.


----------



## Temporalgod

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> If people have played the PHB Dragonborn this much, clearly mechanical advantages aren't the determining factor in race choice.



You're literal a Dragon Person that alone is more then enough, One of my Favorite Dragonborn characters was a blue one named Zeus, I wasn't very good at naming characters back then so I had to borrow names from Greek mythology, hell my First TTRPG character was a Tiefling named after the Titan Cronus, I'm getting off topic but honestly Dragonborn rule just off their design alone.


----------



## Temporalgod

I might play a human character if I can be a cannibal named Shia LaBeouf.


----------



## Temporalgod

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> And if it is flight, why does it have to be wings?
> 
> View attachment 259112






Temporalgod said:


> Cool with Ardlings, I can make a knock off Monkey King or at least his descendant.



We're getting off topic people, derailing thread we should get back to talking about Ardlings Specifically Monkey Ardlings, did you know that Egyptian, Mayan, Hindu and Chinese pantheons all have Monkey deities, it's pretty cool TBH, Personally Monkey  Ardlings should be a thing and be aligned as CG.


----------



## ersatzphil

Temporalgod said:


> We're getting off topic people, derailing thread we should get back to talking about Ardlings Specifically Monkey Ardlings, did you know that Egyptian, Mayan, Hindu and Chinese pantheons all have Monkey deities, it's pretty cool TBH, Personally Monkey  Ardlings should be a thing and be aligned as CG.



I mean, we're all going to have our own cultural touchstones for what 'people with animal heads' ought to act like.


----------



## Mind of tempest

ersatzphil said:


> I mean, we're all going to have our own cultural touchstones for what 'people with animal heads' ought to act like.
> View attachment 261438
> View attachment 261439



what on earth is this?


----------



## ersatzphil

Mind of tempest said:


> what on earth is this?



'Danger 5', an Australian tv show. It was sort of a pulpy, surrealist, 'swinging 60s' depiction of WW2, where animals can talk and the Nazis did things like steal the Eiffel Tower and unleash dinosaurs with machine guns mounted on them on Europe. The colonel who gives the titular team their missions had an eagle head; it's never addressed. I believe it's all on YouTube: I danced for Hitler!


----------



## Puddles

Reading through the UA yesterday, I am not really sold on Ardlings. Firstly, I’m not a fan of the name, does anyone know it’s etymology? “Ard” to me makes me think of “hard”, like the Orc ‘Ardboyz of Warhammer.

Secondly the spectral wings feel at odds with a lot of the animals (e.g. a Toad).

Lastly, having all the sub-races being different flavors of heaven seems a bit heavy handed on the worldbuilding. I would have liked if one of the options was a curse, like in Porco Rosso (where the main character is cursed to look like a pig), and maybe another where it was mysterious and unknown. It seems the race has been created to be a very versatile option to cover any idea the player has for an animorphic humanoid, but then the lore attached to them is super specific.


----------



## Corinnguard

Puddles said:


> Reading through the UA yesterday, I am not really sold on Ardlings. Firstly, I’m not a fan of the name, does anyone know it’s etymology? “Ard” to me makes me think of “hard”, like the Orc ‘Ardboyz of Warhammer.
> 
> Secondly the spectral wings feel at odds with a lot of the animals (e.g. a Toad).
> 
> Lastly, having all the sub-races being different flavors of heaven seems a bit heavy handed on the worldbuilding. I would have liked if one of the options was a curse, like in Porco Rosso (where the main character is cursed to look like a pig), and maybe another where it was mysterious and unknown. It seems the race has been created to be a very versatile option to cover any idea the player has for an animorphic humanoid, but then the lore attached to them is super specific.



Agreed. A number of people on this thread aren't sold on the idea of them being the good-aligned counterparts of the Tieflings. Not when you have had the Aasimar around for several editions. 

The subraces really need to reflect the different kinds of Celestials in 5e. Especially since one group of Celestials already resemble anthropomorphic animals.


----------

