# Deva or Aasimar?



## MerricB (Sep 11, 2008)

Simple question, simple poll.

For the record, I detest Aasimar. It's just a failed attempt to get into the dictionary before the Aardvark! 

Cheers!


----------



## Droogie (Sep 11, 2008)

Dunno. I think I like 'aasimar' better. 'Deva' makes me think of 'pop deva', and now I picture the entire race looking like Mariah Carey.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 11, 2008)

Droogie said:


> Dunno. I think I like 'aasimar' better. 'Deva' makes me think of 'pop deva', and now I picture the entire race looking like Mariah Carey.




OTOH, "deva" has the virtue of being

A) A real word,

B) Connotations that actually make sense for the race, and

C) Is pronounceable without sounding like you're trying to curse.  (It's "day-vuh," for the record, not "diva" like Mariah Carey.)

Gee, can we tell how I voted?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 11, 2008)

Y'know, I always pronounced that DEE va, never knew any better. 

And it still didn't bother me.


----------



## Sonny (Sep 11, 2008)

I like Deva much more. I never actually disliked Aasimar, but then again, I never liked it either. For me, this would be one of 4th editions positive changes.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Sep 11, 2008)

Don't really care, as I never liked them as a PC race.  But 'deva' has too many Myth Adventures overtones for me.


----------



## Lackhand (Sep 11, 2008)

Deva, please -- euphonious real word > "ass uh mar" made up word.


----------



## MerricB (Sep 11, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> Gee, can we tell how I voted?




For "Throat-wobbler Mangrove"? Knew I left something off the poll! 

Interesting to see the split in votes - it's very heavily towards Deva at this point; which probably says an awful lot about how real words are generally better than made-up ones.

Cheers!


----------



## Xris Robin (Sep 11, 2008)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> Don't really care, as I never liked them as a PC race.  But 'deva' has too many Myth Adventures overtones for me.




Great, now I'm going to be thinking of the Bazaar through all my 4e games now.


----------



## MerricB (Sep 11, 2008)

Christopher Robin said:


> Great, now I'm going to be thinking of the Bazaar through all my 4e games now.




And is that a bad thing? Certainly, it's more meat for DM's to use on unsuspecting players! 

Cheers!


----------



## Hussar (Sep 11, 2008)

MerricB said:


> For "Throat-wobbler Mangrove"? Knew I left something off the poll!
> 
> Interesting to see the split in votes - it's very heavily towards Deva at this point; which probably says an awful lot about how real words are generally better than made-up ones.
> 
> Cheers!




I'm not sure if you can make that conclusion though.  I'd certainly say that, in this specific case, a made up word that includes the word "ass" in it is likely not going to do as well as some other words might.

After all, Tiefling and Githyanki both seem to be fairly well received.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Sep 11, 2008)

Deva as well here.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Sep 11, 2008)

You forgot the option that says who cares, its just a name.


----------



## Ander00 (Sep 11, 2008)

Not too fond of the name change, but it's not like it's a big deal.


cheers


----------



## doctorhook (Sep 11, 2008)

(As long as you distinguish it from "diva" in your mind, you'll realize that) Deva is simply a better name.


----------



## blargney the second (Sep 11, 2008)

Deva in a heartbeat.


----------



## Derro (Sep 11, 2008)

Personally I don't see either one as a winner. Aasimar is clearly made up and could be anything. Deva on the other hand has actual religious and mythological basis and in all cases is a clearly higher order of being. In Hinduism they are godlings, in Buddhism powerdul spirits or kamis, and in Zoroastrianism they are closer to demons.

I just don't see it. Instead of making up a word (I'm looking at you too, tiefling) or co-opting a name that implies something else why not try make something simple and descriptive? Reincarnation is a big theme, right? How about Everborn or Lightchild. It seems like aasimar/deva are not much more than celestial humans so how about Celestial? Is that already taken?

I don't have much invested in this since I doubt I'll have anything to do with 4e FR but I will say this. 4e really seems to be trying to re-write D&D's history and I wonder if it's really necessary.

Tempest in a teapot really.


----------



## Green Knight (Sep 11, 2008)

How about a choice for neither? I think they're both terrible names. They should've stuck with Celestial. Or gone Biblical and called them Nephilim. Or come up with some other name entirely. But Deva? And to think I thought Aasimar was bad...


----------



## Khaalis (Sep 11, 2008)

Derro said:


> Personally I don't see either one as a winner. Aasimar is clearly made up and could be anything. Deva on the other hand has actual religious and mythological basis and in all cases is a clearly higher order of being. In Hinduism they are godlings, in Buddhism powerdul spirits or kamis, and in Zoroastrianism they are closer to demons.
> 
> I just don't see it. Instead of making up a word (I'm looking at you too, tiefling) or co-opting a name that implies something else why not try make something simple and descriptive? Reincarnation is a big theme, right? How about Everborn or Lightchild. It seems like aasimar/deva are not much more than celestial humans so how about Celestial? Is that already taken?




QFT. I agree here. While not totally keen on Aasimar, it is familiar. However, Deva doesn't fit the race either due to its real world connotations. WotC would have been much better off making up a new name for the race if they didn't want to use Aasimar anymore.


----------



## Khuxan (Sep 11, 2008)

Green Knight said:


> How about a choice for neither? I think they're both terrible names. They should've stuck with Celestial. Or gone Biblical and called them Nephilim. Or come up with some other name entirely. But Deva? And to think I thought Aasimar was bad...




Celestial was the name they originally planned for the race. I'm not sure why they changed.

I kind of like that they've cannabilised each of the celestials now - angels are no longer Lawful Good, archons are elemental-armor-mercenaries, eladrin are fey, and devas are aasimar.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 11, 2008)

Khuxan said:


> Celestial was the name they originally planned for the race. I'm not sure why they changed.
> 
> I kind of like that they've cannabilised each of the celestials now - angels are no longer Lawful Good, archons are elemental-armor-mercenaries, eladrin are fey, and devas are aasimar.




Maybe Celestial will still be used in another context? I can't remember at the moment - what happened to Solar/Planetar?


----------



## Green Knight (Sep 11, 2008)

Khuxan said:


> Celestial was the name they originally planned for the race. I'm not sure why they changed.




I wish they'd kept it. I really liked that name, and was looking forward to playing a "Celestial Paladin".


----------



## Henrix (Sep 11, 2008)

I never liked aasimar either.

Deva is ok. I kinda picture devas as more powerful than just slightly divine mortals, but it does not matter much.

I'm not too keen on 'celestial' anyway. Too much of an adjective.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 11, 2008)

Aasimar. Never had problems with pronounciation, and the double-A look cool.

Plus, even though they're not directly related (thanks, Mouse!), "deva" is still too similar to "devil" for my tastes (I pronounce it "deh-va", rhyming with "let car").


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Sep 11, 2008)

I'm fine with Deva, much better than Aasimar. 

However, in my campaign, they'll be called "Lumaren", as they are filled with an inner divine light.


----------



## mattdm (Sep 11, 2008)

Drkfathr1 said:


> I'm fine with Deva, much better than Aasimar.
> 
> However, in my campaign, they'll be called "Lumaren", as they are filled with an inner divine light.




I can't tell from the context here, but: are you aware that that's what the root word for deva means in the first place?


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 11, 2008)

Voted Deva, but would have preferred "Other."


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Sep 11, 2008)

mattdm said:


> I can't tell from the context here, but: are you aware that that's what the root word for deva means in the first place?




yes...but Deva carries so much "real-world" connotation with it that I wanted something original.


----------



## EATherrian (Sep 11, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> OTOH, "deva" has the virtue of being
> 
> A) A real word,
> 
> ...




But, if you have a long-time world devas already have a place in there.  I didn't vote, because I'd rather not have either name for the concept that is being asked here.  I'd probably call them 'the Blessed' or something like that in my campaign as I call the tieflings 'the Accursed'.


----------



## Krensky (Sep 11, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> OTOH, "deva" has the virtue of being
> 
> A) A real word,
> 
> ...





Except that Devas are godlike, if not actual divinities in both Hinduism and Buddhism. The connotations are all wrong. If you want a real word, Nephilim is a better choice.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 11, 2008)

Krensky said:


> ...connotations...



I don't think that word means what you think it means.

("connotes" <> "=". It literally means "to imply other loosely related or associated meanings, _in addition to_ the literal meaning). 

Sorry, feeling pedantic this morning...


----------



## CleverNickName (Sep 11, 2008)

"Aasimar" makes me think of "Lord of the Flies," which is an awesome novel.  "Deva" makes me think of Mariah Carey or Celine Dion, who annoy me to no end.  So I'm going to have to go with Aasimar.

The whole issue is just change for the sake of change, as far as my campaign goes...we won't use them no matter what they are called...so take my vote with a grain of salt.


----------



## Green Knight (Sep 11, 2008)

CleverNickName said:


> "Deva" makes me think of Mariah Carey or Celine Dion, who annoy me to no end.




Heh, and someone on another board thought I was crazy for thinking that anybody else would start thinking of divas because of the name. But then I come here and I see several posters making those self-same comments. And yep, first time I saw the name the first thing that sprang to mind was Diana Ross and Aretha Franklin. 

Gets even worse if you play a Deva who's a member of a Divine class. Just begging for someone to start singing "Say a Little Prayer for You" whenever you use a power. Maybe I have an overactive imagination, but I suspect we might see scenes similar to this repeat themselves at game tables all over. 

DM: So what're you playing? 

PLAYER 1: I'm playing a Deva Paladin. 

PLAYER 2: Wait, you're playing a Diva? 

PLAYER 1: No, Deva. Dey-va. 

PLAYER 3: Watch out, Diana Ross just joined the party. 

PLAYER 1: Deva, not diva. 

PLAYER 2: What's the matter? Not getting enough R-E-S-P-E-C-T? 

PLAYER 3: And a Paladin, too! Is your character the son of a preacher, man? 

PLAYER 2: I'm a Deva, and honey, I'm DI-VINE! 

PLAYER 1: I hate my life...


----------



## Jack Colby (Sep 11, 2008)

I actually don't like either name, although in this day and age, deva is way too close to diva, as people have already said. Not that 4E is full of monsters with great names!


----------



## Jack Colby (Sep 11, 2008)

Krensky said:


> Except that Devas are godlike, if not actual divinities in both Hinduism and Buddhism. The connotations are all wrong. If you want a real word, Nephilim is a better choice.





I agree, and would vote Nephilim if it was a choice.


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 11, 2008)

Derro said:


> I just don't see it. Instead of making up a word (I'm looking at you too, tiefling) or co-opting a name that implies something else why not try make something simple and descriptive? Reincarnation is a big theme, right? How about Everborn or Lightchild.




Yick.  That's what WotC does most of the time, mashing nouns together, and I usually can't stand the results.  I'm glad they went with "deva" instead.  With a little work, they ought to be able to justify the associations - perhaps FR devas actually are a higher order of being, but bound to mortal life for some reason.

Though I'd be cool with nephilim as well.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Sep 11, 2008)

Khuxan said:


> Celestial was the name they originally planned for the race. I'm not sure why they changed.
> 
> I kind of like that they've cannabilised each of the celestials now - angels are no longer Lawful Good, archons are elemental-armor-mercenaries, eladrin are fey, and devas are aasimar.



They haven't cannibalized Guardinals just yet.  And this is even after I came up with an idea that they should be tribes of nature spirits in the natural world, who look almost human.

Though with Aasimar being Devas, I wonder if it's appropriate to call a female Aasimar a Devi?


----------



## JeffB (Sep 11, 2008)

How about the "I use/like neither creature"  option?  

FWIW, I think Aasimar is the better name. Deva is silly-especially because it so commonly used as slang here in the US (as noted by many posters- Diva)


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 11, 2008)

JeffB said:


> Deva is silly-especially because it so commonly used as slang here in the US (as noted by many posters- Diva)




Deva (pronounced DAY-VA) is not slang in the US.

Saying it's silly just because you don't pronounce it correctly, and thus associate it with an entirely different word with an entirely different root, is silly.


----------



## JeffB (Sep 11, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Deva (pronounced DAY-VA) is not slang in the US.
> 
> Saying it's silly just because you don't pronounce it correctly, and thus associate it with an entirely different word with an entirely different root, is silly.




I in fact DO pronounce it correctly. Unfortunately most others do not. I've yet to hear a D&D player say it correctly let alone a non-D&D player.

Please get off the high horse (again) mourn.


----------



## Arnwyn (Sep 11, 2008)

Aasimar, since it's related to aasimon.

2e flavor rules. That's right - I said it.


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 11, 2008)

JeffB said:


> I in fact DO pronounce it correctly.




Yet you say it makes you think of the word "diva," despite you knowing that it is pronounced entirely differently and means something different.



> Unfortunately most others do not. I've yet to hear a D&D player say it correctly let alone a non-D&D player.




So, it's a silly choice because a bunch of people can't be bothered to learn to pronounce it correctly? How about instead of giving in to their lack of knowledge and saying it should be discarded because they mangle it, you try educating them instead? Or maybe we should just drop all words from D&D that some people might not pronounce correctly?



> Please get off the high horse (again) mourn.




Please get off the "It makes me think of Mariah Carey because people can't be bothered to educate themselves about pronunciation" bandwagon.


----------



## Green Knight (Sep 11, 2008)

> Or maybe we should just drop all words from D&D that some people might not pronounce correctly?




Isn't that why they're getting rid of the name Aasimar?


----------



## doctorhook (Sep 11, 2008)

Green Knight said:


> Isn't that why they're getting rid of the name Aasimar?



_Deva_ is a lot easier to guess the correct pronunciation of than "aasimar" is.

Also, I don't understand how people can oppose the word "deva" because it has real-world religious connotations, and then suggest "nephilim", which is harder to spell, harder to pronounce, and has much more specific real-world religious connotations than "deva".


----------



## Green Knight (Sep 11, 2008)

Is it? I imagine a lot of people, when first confronted by the word, would pronounce it "diva".


----------



## Set (Sep 11, 2008)

Green Knight said:


> Is it? I imagine a lot of people, when first confronted by the word, would pronounce it "diva".




I'm pretty well-edumacated on ancient religion and I still pronounce it 'diva' 'cause that's the way it looks. If I were going to pronounce it the other way, I'd spell it Daeva, which has also been used as a spelling for the term, and would be more intuitive.

And if it conjures the vision of a celestial in a little black dress singing 'Queen of the Night,' so be it. I still like it better than Aasimar, which has one too many 'a's in it for my liking.

Deva, all the way. And it fits that 2e flavor, as well, since they had Astral, Monadic and Movanic _Devas_ back then.


----------



## Larrin (Sep 11, 2008)

I really like the name Aasimar.  Its a good name.

It just really doesn't say "half-divine" to me.  If you said that name to me and asked me to figure out what kind of race i'd associate with it i'd probably pick our some half-effreet or maybe a cat person or something.   It took me a long time to accept it as meaning "decended from divine", and about 5 seconds to forget i'd accepted it.  Deva works, it makes the right connections in my brain.  Its not half as cool of a word as Aasimar, but its a better word for the job.


----------



## Estlor (Sep 11, 2008)

I'd go with neither, but I don't like tiefling all that much either.

I'd much rather they be Luminoth and Diabolis.


----------



## Green Knight (Sep 11, 2008)

> And if it conjures the vision of a celestial in a little black dress singing 'Queen of the Night,' so be it.




LOL! Guess we'll have to differ, as I'd rather be an ass-smear than a Queen of the Night.  



> I still like it better than Aasimar, which has one too many 'a's in it for my liking.




My issue with this argument is that Aasimar and Deva aren't the only two words that can be used as a name for this race. It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition if WotC doesn't want it to be. They could've stuck to Races & Classes and called them Celestials. Or they could've called them Nephilim. Or used some other mythological name. Or come up with something new altogether. It isn't a given that they _must_ be called Aasimar _or_ Deva, and that no other names can be considered.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 11, 2008)

Aasimar.  It fits, it's what I got used to from 2e, and change for the sake of change is never a good idea.  Especially if you change it because "it's too easy to pronounce as buttocks" and then immidiately make it into something even EASIER to pronounce as "Diva"


----------



## Arashi Ravenblade (Sep 11, 2008)

Krensky said:


> Except that Devas are godlike, if not actual divinities in both Hinduism and Buddhism. The connotations are all wrong. If you want a real word, Nephilim is a better choice.





Another reason Deva is totally wrong for the new name of the Aasimar. 
Like it or not if your going to change the lore of something have some cool reason why. Like maybe some ancient enemy of the Deva killed them all and their divine energies went into all the Aasimar, creating their new status.


----------



## radferth (Sep 11, 2008)

Put me down for Nephilim as well.  I'd prefer the name Deva over Aasimar for any sort of actual celestial, but not for human with celestial ancestry.

Oh, and I must ask, did the name Aasimar/Aasimon come from the fact that the original illustration of a Solar looked a lot like Isaac Aasimov?


----------



## heirodule (Sep 11, 2008)

Krensky said:


> Except that Devas are godlike, if not actual divinities in both Hinduism and Buddhism. The connotations are all wrong. If you want a real word, Nephilim is a better choice.




Gygax said something about "theosophists" when he penned the original Deva article (as a substitute for "angels")

What are devas in Theosophy (of the Blavatsky school, one assumes)


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 11, 2008)

Arashi Ravenblade said:


> Another reason Deva is totally wrong for the new name of the Aasimar.




Deva's root actually means a lot more than just deity as we understand it. It's most basic meaning is "celestial being" which is wholly appropriate for a race that people say should have just been called Celestials.


----------



## love.christine (Sep 11, 2008)

I'd rather they continue to be called aasimar. Seriously, what is with all these name changes? Are they really all that necessary?


----------



## Umbran (Sep 11, 2008)

JeffB said:


> Please get off the high horse (again) mourn.






The Little Raven said:


> Please get off the "It makes me think of Mariah Carey because people can't be bothered to educate themselves about pronunciation" bandwagon.





Please, both of you, stop being rude.  If you see a bad situation/post, your first response should be, "I shouldn't make this situation worse".  Please exert the self-control necessary to not blatantly get in another person's face.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Sep 11, 2008)

I much prefer "deva."  It has a stronger place in D&D lore than aasimar does.

I tend to pronounce it "deh-va".  I guess that's not right.


----------



## Arnwyn (Sep 11, 2008)

Set said:


> And it fits that 2e flavor, as well,



Not AFAIC.


----------



## CleverNickName (Sep 11, 2008)

Green Knight said:


> Heh, and someone on another board thought I was crazy for thinking that anybody else would start thinking of divas because of the name. But then I come here and I see several posters making those self-same comments. And yep, first time I saw the name the first thing that sprang to mind was Diana Ross and Aretha Franklin.
> 
> Gets even worse if you play a Deva who's a member of a Divine class. Just begging for someone to start singing "Say a Little Prayer for You" whenever you use a power. Maybe I have an overactive imagination, but I suspect we might see scenes similar to this repeat themselves at game tables all over.
> 
> ...



I can't wait to see what Order of the Stick does to this new development.


----------



## doctorhook (Sep 11, 2008)

Set said:


> I'm pretty well-edumacated on ancient religion and I still pronounce it 'diva' 'cause that's the way it looks. If I were going to pronounce it the other way, I'd spell it Daeva, which has also been used as a spelling for the term, and would be more intuitive.
> 
> And if it conjures the vision of a celestial in a little black dress singing 'Queen of the Night,' so be it. I still like it better than Aasimar, which has one too many 'a's in it for my liking.
> 
> Deva, all the way. And it fits that 2e flavor, as well, since they had Astral, Monadic and Movanic _Devas_ back then.



Whoa! They shoulda spelled it like that: *DAEVA*.

That truly rocks! (And Aasimar is still a bad name, no matter which way things are sliced.)


----------



## blargney the second (Sep 11, 2008)

If aasimar suffers from one too many a's, then I think same probably applies to daeva. 

Honestly though, I really don't care what it's called as long as it's fun to play.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Sep 11, 2008)

doctorhook said:


> Whoa! They shoulda spelled it like that: *DAEVA*.



If they did, they would have gotten crap from people about how they're stealing from White Wolf.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 11, 2008)

Deva?

Diva?

How 'bout Divynils*?





*- does that show my age or what?


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 11, 2008)

Klaus said:


> Deva?
> 
> Diva?
> 
> ...




just don't start singing their only US hit...

_"When I think about you..."_


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 11, 2008)

Klaus said:


> How 'bout Divynils*?



Yeah, nobody can pronounce that either.


----------



## doctorhook (Sep 12, 2008)

Jonathan Moyer said:


> doctorhook said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, it's still pretty easy to spell, and it's got a clear pronunciation. Win-win, as far as I can see!


----------



## MerricB (Sep 12, 2008)

doctorhook said:


> Well, it's still pretty easy to spell, and it's got a clear pronunciation. Win-win, as far as I can see!




Not quite.

It looks like "daemon" to me, which is pronounced exactly the same as "demon".

Cheers!


----------



## doctorhook (Sep 12, 2008)

MerricB said:


> Not quite.
> 
> It looks like "daemon" to me, which is pronounced exactly the same as "demon".
> 
> Cheers!



lol Aren't you supposed to be the "Official ENWorld Optimist?" 

Either way, Deva's still not bad either.


----------



## Serendipity (Sep 12, 2008)

How about Asimar?  No idea what the designers had in mind when they changed it so I can't judge the name change on those merits.  If it's basically the same race as in 3e and before then why change the name?   
If they're changing the fluff (as they did with the core tiefling) then what's the big deal?    Not that many people are going to use the fluff background straight without some mods anyway.....


----------



## Shroomy (Sep 12, 2008)

Triskaidekafile said:


> How about Asimar?  No idea what the designers had in mind when they changed it so I can't judge the name change on those merits.  If it's basically the same race as in 3e and before then why change the name?
> If they're changing the fluff (as they did with the core tiefling) then what's the big deal?    Not that many people are going to use the fluff background straight without some mods anyway.....




I do think that the 4e aasimar/deva will be somewhat different from earlier editions (like the reincarnation stuff), but I can guess what the designers were thinking.  Aasimar seems to be a somewhat unpopular and hard to pronounce name; since the aasimon/angels were reconceptualized, the word deva was just lying around waiting to also be repurposed.


----------



## Serendipity (Sep 12, 2008)

Shroomy said:


> I do think that the 4e aasimar/deva will be somewhat different from earlier editions (like the reincarnation stuff), but I can guess what the designers were thinking.  Aasimar seems to be a somewhat unpopular and hard to pronounce name; since the aasimon/angels were reconceptualized, the word deva was just lying around waiting to also be repurposed.




*nodnod*  
It just seems odd to me - I've never in decades of playing met anyone who mispronounced Aasimar....or Deva for that matter. 
Digging what little I've heard about the new Aasimar flavor/fluff so far, much more than the Tiefling.


----------



## Derro (Sep 12, 2008)

What was the aasimar's first appearance? I remember the tiefling from 2e Planescape but not the aasimar. Were they added in 3e or was it some 2e supplement that I never bothered with?


----------



## Shroomy (Sep 12, 2008)

Derro said:


> What was the aasimar's first appearance? I remember the tiefling from 2e Planescape but not the aasimar. Were they added in 3e or was it some 2e supplement that I never bothered with?




I'm pretty sure they first appeared in the Planescape MC Vol 2.


----------



## Serendipity (Sep 12, 2008)

Derro said:


> What was the aasimar's first appearance? I remember the tiefling from 2e Planescape but not the aasimar. Were they added in 3e or was it some 2e supplement that I never bothered with?




Planewalker's Handbook IIRC - I know they were in other 2e (Planescape) products but that's the earliest that springs to mind.


----------



## caudor (Sep 12, 2008)

"Dee-va" is the sound that came to my mind when I first saw the word.  Images from the movie 'The Fifth Element' immediately came to mind.

Of course, now I know to pronounce it as day-va after reading this thread.

I still have no idea have to pronounce tiefling.  Tie-fling or Teaf-ling?  Who knows.

Anyway, I'm drifting.  I like deva better than aasimar.  Aasimar just sounded...made up.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Sep 12, 2008)

Krensky said:


> Except that Devas are godlike, if not actual divinities in both Hinduism and Buddhism. The connotations are all wrong. If you want a real word, Nephilim is a better choice.




maybe that is what they wanted...divine beings...divinities...Devas.

I am just saying


----------



## Green Knight (Sep 12, 2008)

> "Dee-va" is the sound that came to my mind when I first saw the word. Images from the movie 'The Fifth Element' immediately came to mind.




Heh, I'm gonna make a blue-skinned Deva Bard named Plavalaguna.  

Anyway, what stats do people think they should have? Personally I'd like to see them closer to their 2E versions, with Str +2, Wis +2 as opposed to their 3E versions, with Wis +2, Cha +2. Agree? Disagree? Think they should have some other bonus?


----------



## That One Guy (Sep 12, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> C) Is pronounceable without sounding like you're trying to curse.  (It's "day-vuh," for the record, not "diva" like Mariah Carey.)



I actually pronounced it however I wanted to at the moment. I used to say 'diva'. Then for a while I said it correctly. Somewhere around reading Aspirin I started saying Deva like the word Devil. I didn't like how that rolled, so I ended up back w/ the (evidentially) correct way! Huzzah me!

As far as the poll goes, I really couldn't care. Celestial-touched things never really interested me. Unless they were hounds.


----------



## Mighty Veil (Sep 12, 2008)

I like Maiar or even more Valar, but I understand why those LotR copyrighted names can't be used. I actually like aasimar more than tiefling (don't like the name tiefling). I like aasimar more than deva, even though I don't know the names background. Was it a play on another word?


----------



## Green Knight (Sep 12, 2008)

Aasimon were the name of angels in 2E. Aasimar was based off of that.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 12, 2008)

Shroomy said:


> I'm pretty sure they first appeared in the Planescape MC Vol 2.



Yep. With a nice DiTerlizzi illo to go with it.


----------



## Trickstergod (Sep 12, 2008)

Krensky said:


> Except that Devas are godlike, if not actual divinities in both Hinduism and Buddhism. The connotations are all wrong. If you want a real word, Nephilim is a better choice.




This. 

At least one of the things that irks me about 4th edition is the rather arbitrary, unnecessary name swaps - particularly when a new or renamed monster is taking the name that some other monster had. I like the eladrin, but was it really necessary to call them eladrin? 

The same here with aasimar. The original name was fine, the name change was completely unnecessary, and if the name was going to be changed? Nephilim. It's a real word and it's more accurate.


----------



## Alzrius (Sep 12, 2008)

Trickstergod said:


> This.
> 
> At least one of the things that irks me about 4th edition is the rather arbitrary, unnecessary name swaps - particularly when a new or renamed monster is taking the name that some other monster had. I like the eladrin, but was it really necessary to call them eladrin?
> 
> The same here with aasimar. The original name was fine, the name change was completely unnecessary, and if the name was going to be changed? Nephilim. It's a real word and it's more accurate.




Quoted for truth. 

Changing something to make an actual improvement is something I can understand, even if I don't agree with it. But changing something simply for the sake of changing it? To me that's, as they say on teh intert00bs, "made of fail."

Seriously, why play musical chairs with the names of the celestial races? It doesn't seem to accomplish anything in terms of making 4E a better game.


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 12, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> But changing something simply for the sake of changing it?




People refusing to accept other people's reasons to make changes as legitimate does not make them "change for change's sake."


----------



## Khairn (Sep 12, 2008)

Aasimar is far from favorite name, but Deva is worse.  Blah.  Change for the sake of change without any actual improvement.

Change the spelling of Aasimar (as has already been suggested) if folks have a problem with a "AA" celestial race.


----------



## Alzrius (Sep 12, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> People refusing to accept other people's reasons to make changes as legitimate does not make them "change for change's sake."




I find it amusing that you're talking about "refusing to accept other people's reasons," when in fact I didn't say anything about the validity of what other people think; I was just saying what I, myself, thought. In effect, you're ranting against the very behavior that you yourself are displaying in your post. 

Now, fly away, little raven, fly away.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 12, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> Changing something to make an actual improvement is something I can understand, even if I don't agree with it. But changing something simply for the sake of changing it? To me that's, as they say on teh intert00bs, "made of fail."




*blink*

This is nonsensical, Alz.

Nobody makes a change "just because." Creative changes like this happen because the creative team believes it's for the better. You may disagree, but that's the motivation behind it.

To then turn around and say that it's "change for change's sake"--when you _just said_ that you could understand changes _even if you disagree with them_--makes no sense.


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 12, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> I find it amusing that you're talking about "refusing to accept other people's reasons," when in fact I didn't say anything about the validity of what other people think; I was just saying what I, myself, thought.




I never said you were saying anything about the validity of what other people thought. I'm just pointing out the prevailing attitude that "change I don't like" = "change for no reason but change," and your post just happened to be the latest to invoke the "change for change's sake" mantra.



> In effect, you're ranting against the very behavior that you yourself are displaying in your post.




...did you just call a calm, 20-word post that has no emotional weight to it a rant? Methinks you should check the definition of rant again.

Secondly, I pointed out that refusal to accept reasons for change doesn't make those reasons invalid or nonexistent. I didn't point at any change and refer to them as "change for change's sake," so I am definitely not displaying that attitude in my post.


----------



## Wormwood (Sep 12, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> People refusing to accept other people's reasons to make changes as legitimate does not make them "change for change's sake."



Three months ago, I'd have .sigged this.

Today, I'll just agree.


----------



## Nyaricus (Sep 12, 2008)

CleverNickName said:


> I can't wait to see what Order of the Stick does to this new development.



The OotS guy said he wasn't planning on upgrading anything to 4e though, last time I checked (and yeesh, when was the last time I read that strip?!)

----------------
Now playing: Quo Vadis - In Contempt
via FoxyTunes


----------



## Alzrius (Sep 12, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> *blink*
> 
> This is nonsensical, Alz.
> 
> ...




Ari, I disagree with you here.

Accepting the premise that people want to make a change because it's for the better is assumed. But the idea is that the change actually makes things substantively better, rather than just making them seem that way.

In that sense, the burden of proof is then on the design team. They're the ones who need to explain precisely how changing "aasimar" to "deva" improves that part of the game (or, more ideally, the improvement will be self-evident). So far, that hasn't happened - there doesn't seem to be any substantive improvement.

My statement regarding "understanding changes that I disagreed with" was predicated on the idea that the changes are substantive. This one isn't, it's a change with no force or effect, and neither improves nor worsens anything. That is change for the sake of change, and that's something I personally don't care for.



			
				The Little Raven said:
			
		

> I never said you were saying anything about the validity of what other people thought. I'm just pointing out the prevailing attitude that "change I don't like" = "change for no reason but change," and your post just happened to be the latest to invoke the "change for change's sake" mantra.




So when you said "People refusing to accept other people's reasons to make changes" you weren't referring to me? Because when people quote my post and say that "people" refuse to accept other people's reasons, I assume that they're referring to me.

This isn't about the quality of the change, here. This is about whether or not the change being made as any impact at all; I don't think it does, and that leaves the only reason for changing it as being for the sake of making the change. If you think that there is a clear and objective improvement to making "aasimars" be "devas," by all means tell me.



> _...did you just call a calm, 20-word post that has no emotional weight to it a rant? Methinks you should check the definition of rant again._




It's not the length of the post, nor the emotional weight to it that I was commenting on. Rather, it's the insulting, condescending tone that your post had (like many others you've posted lately) that I was referring to. Being rude is being rude, even if done in a stiff, succinct manner.



> _Secondly, I pointed out that refusal to accept reasons for change doesn't make those reasons invalid or nonexistent. I didn't point at any change and refer to them as "change for change's sake," so I am definitely not displaying that attitude in my post._




On the contrary. You're assuming that the people who are naming this as "change for change's sake" are necessarily negating the opinions of people who disagree with them - they're "refusing to accept reasons" that other people have said. This isn't true, first because other people are just expressing their own opinions, not laying out design decisions for changing the name, and secondly because people who think this is change for the sake of change are not necessarily negating other people's opinions - they're just expressing their own. 

The irony is that, in your sweeping assumption that the people who think this is change for change's sake are "refusing to accept" the reasons of other people, you yourself are refusing to accept the reasoning of the people who disagree with you. Hence, you are most definitely displaying the attitude that you were deriding.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 12, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> Accepting the premise that people want to make a change because it's for the better is assumed. But the idea is that the change actually makes things substantively better, rather than just making them seem that way.




Sorry, but that's nonsense. There is no _objective_ definition for changes that are "better" or "worse" in this regard. We're talking about purely imaginative, creative endeavors that are 100% opinion-based. If something in this category _seems_ better to someone then it _is_ better to that person. There's no difference and no line of demarcation.



> In that sense, the burden of proof is then on the design team. They're the ones who need to explain precisely how changing "aasimar" to "deva" improves that part of the game (or, more ideally, the improvement will be self-evident).




Nonsense. The "burden of proof" is on anyone who wants to argue that their opinion is "right." The design team has no burden to prove anything, because we've already accepted that they're doing things in the way they honestly believe is best. You can agree with them or not, but you're not owed any explanation when you already _have_ that explanation: "Because we thought it was better."

And incidentally, given that the poll attached to this thread shows close to a 2-to-1 ratio in favor of the change, I'd say that the change _is_ substantive--at least for a lot of people.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree it's better. That's entirely your right. But arguing that it's just "change for change's sake" is _not_ arguing an opinion, as you seem to think. It's ascribing motivations to the people who make decisions.

"I don't like this change" is an opinion, and a perfectly valid one.

"The people at WotC had no good reason for making this change" is _not_ an opinion. It's an _accusation_, and it's one that's not born out either by the audience reaction or by your own prior definitions.


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 12, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> Sorry, but that's nonsense.




In lieu of another post which will just drag this pointless argument out further, I will just agree with Ari. This is one smart undead rodent.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 12, 2008)

The question then is, why the name change?  Was it because of the stand by of "Sounds like buttocks?"  We've already hit the snag here where people are going to make Deva into diva.  Not much of an improvement there, is there?  Is it because they wanted a name closer tied to real mythology?  Again, we've already hit that, no, it's _not_ tied to mythology, they just found said mythology in the street, mugged it, and ran off with the word.

As for the poll, keep in mind that there are many people here who will vote for Deva because "Change away from older editions is always good," and in my personal opinion, there are far more people here that are willing to do that then there are people who will vote the opposite.


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 12, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Not much of an improvement there, is there?




I'd say that going from "ass" to "singer" as the closest, mistaken name association is a big improvement. Though I will miss the LotF references, I suppose.



> Again, we've already hit that, no, it's _not_ tied to mythology, they just found said mythology in the street, mugged it, and ran off with the word.




One of the definitions of deva is "celestial being," and the root from which it is believed to be derived from means "celestial." It has been translated as god, spirit, demigod, celestial being, angel, deity or any supernatural being of high excellence. And since the working name for aasimar/deva for 4e was Celestials, I'd say it's not out of line to use the name.

Sanskrit: deva

deva-ṛṣi — of the celestial sages
deva-udyānāni — celestial gardens


----------



## Alzrius (Sep 13, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> Sorry, but that's nonsense. There is no _objective_ definition for changes that are "better" or "worse" in this regard. We're talking about purely imaginative, creative endeavors that are 100% opinion-based. If something in this category _seems_ better to someone then it _is_ better to that person. There's no difference and no line of demarcation.




Sorry, but your saying it's nonsense is nonsense. 

You're the one who pointed out that this change was made by the creative team. They did so in their capacity as game designers, and as you also pointed out, was done with the idea that it was for the better for the game. However, they have yet to point out any way in which this name-change is better for the game, save for what people may or may not read into it as an opinion. That's change for change's sake, since it's predicated on nothing more than a hope that people's opinion will match theirs.



> _Nonsense. The "burden of proof" is on anyone who wants to argue that their opinion is "right." The design team has no burden to prove anything, because we've already accepted that they're doing things in the way they honestly believe is best. You can agree with them or not, but you're not owed any explanation when you already have that explanation: "Because we thought it was better."_




"Nonsense." You say that word often, but I don't think you understand what it means.

The design team is under a burden of proof because they're the ones who want us to buy and play their game. Admittedly, this is a small part of it, but that rationale holds. They thought this change was an improvement to the game? Why? How? Just because they believe that this change is for the best isn't enough. If they have a reason, let's evaluate it, and if not, that is (you guessed it) change for its own sake.



> _And incidentally, given that the poll attached to this thread shows close to a 2-to-1 ratio in favor of the change, I'd say that the change is substantive--at least for a lot of people._




That means people like the change, which is fine, but that doesn't make the change substantive. What did this alter that made an improvement to D&D as a whole?



> _You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree it's better. That's entirely your right. But arguing that it's just "change for change's sake" is not arguing an opinion, as you seem to think. It's ascribing motivations to the people who make decisions._




Those people have yet to make their motivations known, so in the meantime it's a perfectly reasonable response to make our own evaluations, and state what conclusions we've come up with. I see this as indeed being change for the sake of change. If there's a substantive way in which this alteration improves upon the game, please tell me - opinion is just an opinion, I want to know what the design decision was for this. Otherwise, this is just them changing it to say they're changing it.



> _"I don't like this change" is an opinion, and a perfectly valid one.
> 
> "The people at WotC had no good reason for making this change" is not an opinion. It's an accusation, and it's one that's not born out either by the audience reaction or by your own prior definitions._




The audience reaction couldn't bear this out anyway, so it's rather weird that you'd mention that as though it means something. By my own definitions, it is indeed borne out, because I'm of the belief that there are no design reasons or implications behind this change, and I doubt the people at WotC had any either. If that's not the case, I welcome being proven wrong.


----------



## Alzrius (Sep 13, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> In lieu of another post which will just drag this pointless argument out further, I will just agree with Ari. This is one smart undead rodent.




He's not the only one. You're pretty smart too, to let this go. Kudos to you for knowing when to quit.


----------



## Drowbane (Sep 13, 2008)

I'm not fond of 4e's tendencies to change names or give names of older monster-types to new races.  Examples: dragonborn (not what they were in 3e), eladrin (from celestial-fey-types to Uber-Elf?)

Aasimar (blood of the Aasimon) have been an established thing for what... 15+ years?

off-topic-mini-rant: Seriously, did we need two Elf-types in the PHB... really?


----------



## SKyOdin (Sep 13, 2008)

While some people have suggested Nephilim as an alternative, I think Nephilim would be a terrible choice. The Nephilim of Hebrew legend were the descendants of fallen angels who had intercourse with wicked humans. They were also described as evil giants and cannibals. While not all references to Nephilim are to evil beings, there are enough evil connotations to the word Nephilim to make it problematic.

Anyways, I like the change from Aasimar to Deva. Aasimar just sounds too much like something someone made up by pulling syllables out of a hat.


----------



## Warrior147 (Jul 9, 2009)

I like the name "Deva", but I don't like the pronounciation. "Deva" is apparently pronounced "Day-va", but I prefer to proncounce it "De-va" or "Dee-va"


----------



## Warrior147 (Jul 9, 2009)

I like the name "Deva", but I don't like the pronounciation. "Deva" is apparently pronounced "Day-va", but I prefer to proncounce it "De-va" or "Dee-va".


----------



## Krensky (Jul 9, 2009)

Wrong tab. Please delete.


----------



## Zinovia (Jul 9, 2009)

Neither word has any particular association with D&D for me.  The only thing I think of when hearing the word "Deva" is the aforementioned Bazaar of Deva from the Myth Adventures books.  

Aasimar was one of those silly made-up words that they stuck throughout 2E in order to avoid the devil-worshiping accusations that were prevalent at the time among a few outspoken members of the general public, and strip all real-world religion out of D&D.  I never played 2E, so never encountered aasimar or tenaari (or whatever it was that they called the demons or devils).  In AD&D we just called them angels, demons, or devils.  No history there.  

Then we played 3.0/3.5 for many years, but it was always the same campaign.  Our group never changed out characters, and so didn't incorporate races or classes from the new books.  We had the core set and the psionics book, and that was it.  The psionic races were ignored (we had our own house-ruled race that used psionics).  I mention this because in my opinion it was after the introduction of the book that let you play monster races that the aasimar and tieflings came into the forefront.  People could, and did, play them as characters now.  That increased their interest and visibility, and hence the general awareness of those racial names.  It never happened in our group.  I bet most of our players would have no idea what an aasimar was if I asked them.  

So despite playing D&D for many years since aasimar were introduced, it has practically zero meaning to me.  I like deva better than aasimar as a name, but I think it might have been better yet to just call them celestials.  As for nephilium, wasn't that a strange transparent metal in D&D?  I had a sword made out of it - but it could just be the DM making stuff up.  He does that a lot.


----------



## Starglim (Jul 10, 2009)

Aasimar doesn't mean anything. Deva means something different than the way WotC uses the word. Thus, if we have to have either one, I prefer aasimar. It's not up to me, though, and doesn't greatly matter, if the made-up terms describe a useful game concept.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jul 10, 2009)

I am not particularly fond of deva but it is better than a lame, made up word like _aasimar_. 

(The _Lord of the Flies_ reference was great, by the way. "Sucks to your _aasimar_!")


----------



## Hjorimir (Jul 10, 2009)

In my homebrew I call them Malakhim (singular Malakh), which I yoinked right from Hebrew for messenger angel. Within my game, when a Malakhim appears he or she has no clearly defined direction they can decipher as to their purpose, but their purpose is certainly divine. The Malakhim is on a journey of discovery and - it is believed - whatever they do is somehow a message from the gods.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jul 10, 2009)

Have to say Aasimar, which I have always said "Asz-I-Mar" myself


----------



## Agamon (Jul 10, 2009)

I prefer Deva.  And I've always pronouced the word correctly, and figured the American poparazzi bastarized the word, as the Yanks so often do.


----------

