| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Gyor |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 01:35:19
Tieflings will have subraces in 5e based on planes.
FR has unique fiendish planes, like Towers of Night and Banehold for example, should FR Tieflings have some unique subraces of thier own?
I learn this from Enworld. http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/329256-mike-mearls-paladin-ranger-wizard-arcane-tradition-walk-into-tavern.html |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Thanateros |
Posted - 18 Jan 2016 : 10:17:30
quote:
Originally posted by Aryalómë
I certainly hope the appearance of the "Infernal Tieflings" and their story and ancient empire of Bael Turath don't die with 4e. I actually enjoyed it very much.
The void in the settings that I see is the absence of a non-Evil tiefling-ruled locale, so in my game I added a tiefling kingdom with worship of Pharasma (non-Evil goddess of death) as the state religion [having been integral to the formation of the kingdom]. (Like all governments though, Lawful Evil sociopaths do occasionally manage to acquire positions of power via their ruthlessness.) |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 10:46:52
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
Tieflings will have subraces in 5e based on planes.
Groundbreaking news.
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
FR has unique fiendish planes
If you're about 4e stuff, it's incomprehensible. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 17 Sep 2012 : 15:18:49
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Since 'Tiefling' has become the term for 'descended from fiends', maybe we need to go back to Cambion for the first generation types (the ones from earlier editions).
Before we get too deep into it, you should check out Erin's explanation of 4e FR tieflings. I think it makes it pretty clear why these tieflings have the appearance they do.
But Erin's explanation is still unfolding over an as-yet-unreleased book (Lesser Evils), so until that information comes to light, let's hold off on too much analysis.
Cheers |
| Aryalómë |
Posted - 17 Sep 2012 : 11:57:29
I just really really hope that the look of "Infernal" tieflings in 4e (which I now know isn't going to disappear), Bael Turath and their true breeding capabilities won't disappear. I just really enjoyed it. I thought they were one of the better things in 4e, to be honest. |
| Lord Bane |
Posted - 17 Sep 2012 : 09:22:51
@Mrs. Evans: Thank you for your insight on the topic so far!
@Shemmy: They shifted the cambions from child of a demon and a human to child of a devil and a human or atleast that´s what 4e says.I personally liked the 3e definition that any half-fiend is considered a cambion and then it can branch out to other names.
Tying tieflings and cambions to devils retconnes the lore. The most iconic cambion of the realms Kaanyr Vhok who has been displayed as descending from demons is now of devil blood? Meh.....
|
| Shemmy |
Posted - 16 Sep 2012 : 23:48:35
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
EDIT: Another idea - Tieflings are descended from demons, and hence their more 'chaotic' appearance. Cambions are descended from devils - who already appear much more human - and those are the half-fiends who don't have such a fiendish appearance (in other words, the old-school Tieflings become Cambions). Whats funny is that this wouldn't have worked if they hadn't changed Graz'zt into a tunrcoat Devil (because his son - Iuz - is the most famous Cambion in D&D).
Fwiw, in some of the seminal sources on fiends from 2e, cambion was specifically used for first-generation spawn of mortals and demons - with some subtypes such as major and baron/marquis cambion further used to distinguish what variety of demon was responsible.
As for Graz'zt, hopefully his 4e PoL incarnation won't influence his status in the Great Wheel (given that he's the child of the obyrith Pale Night - though I'm not necessarily against the inclusion of a suggestion of his other parent being diabolic, but I wouldn't make it mandatory to assume 4e continuity there, just leave it as an option). |
| Markustay |
Posted - 16 Sep 2012 : 23:31:33
Since 'Tiefling' has become the term for 'descended from fiends', maybe we need to go back to Cambion for the first generation types (the ones from earlier editions).
And it seems fiendish genetics doesn't work like normal genetics - more traits seem to become dominant in later generations. Or, at least, 'throw-back' genes seem to be more persistent. I am basing this o the fact the 'descended from' 4e tieflings look far more fiendish then the old ones that were children of fiends. Rather then not making sense, I think they should embrace that as one of the quirks of having a fiendish bloodline. A family could look fairly normal for a few centuries and then BAM! Some kids comes out looking like the devil himself.
EDIT: Another idea - Tieflings are descended from demons, and hence their more 'chaotic' appearance. Cambions are descended from devils - who already appear much more human - and those are the half-fiends who don't have such a fiendish appearance (in other words, the old-school Tieflings become Cambions). Whats funny is that this wouldn't have worked if they hadn't changed Graz'zt into a tunrcoat Devil (because his son - Iuz - is the most famous Cambion in D&D). |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 16 Sep 2012 : 22:19:54
quote:
Originally posted by ErinMEvans
To answer Erik's earlier comment, I have been involved in the DDN tiefling discussions. If you've seen the Sundering art, you know the 4e version's not being erased. But as I said before, they really are trying to make as many people happy as they can.
This is the key. Respecting old lore and pleasing as many fans as possible. Some folks like the 4e tiefling look, some want variety. I want both.
quote:
And I'm glad my explanation grew on you, Erik! You didn't mention that before. :)
In my mind, it was just kind of a shaky art decision until I saw the directions you were heading, and I'm pleased thereby. 
quote:
...Basically the second Lesser Evils comes out I feel like I ought to come down here with a spoiler tag and lay it out, as much as I keep talking around it.
Folks interested in tieflings should check out those novels, starting with Brimstone Angels. You'll be glad you did!
Cheers
|
| ErinMEvans |
Posted - 16 Sep 2012 : 21:29:06
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Bane
quote:
Originally posted by ErinMEvans
To answer Erik's earlier comment, I have been involved in the DDN tiefling discussions. If you've seen the Sundering art, you know the 4e version's not being erased. But as I said before, they really are trying to make as many people happy as they can.
Are these talks still ongoing or have they been concluded with a set view on the Tieflings?
If they are still ongoing and your still involved with it, is there a potential chance without the NDA to spoil too much to have the 4e Tieflings simply become one part of a bloodline, like for example those of the Nine Hells and give the Tieflings of the abyssal background to look different?
Not sure if it is worded correctly but what my mind tried to say is, that maybe even tieflings of different abyssal planes or the nine hells could look different from another?
ex. The ones from Nessus looking different than those of Dis due to different fiendish types procreating with mortals and same for the Abyss. I doubt a child of a mortal and a Pitfiend looks the same as a child of a mortal and a Gelugon or a Lilitu/mortal offpsring from a Balor/mortal offspring (genetics etc.)
Like most things D&DNext, it's still ongoing. As for specifics beyond what I've said already, the plans I've seen are to not retcon Brimstone Angels and Lesser Evils or the explanations therein. Which, if you've read the first book, you'll have gleaned that the 4e tieflings are descended from Asmodeus (etc., etc. Lesser Evils) So...I can agree that much right now? |
| Lord Bane |
Posted - 16 Sep 2012 : 12:03:03
quote:
Originally posted by ErinMEvans
To answer Erik's earlier comment, I have been involved in the DDN tiefling discussions. If you've seen the Sundering art, you know the 4e version's not being erased. But as I said before, they really are trying to make as many people happy as they can.
Are these talks still ongoing or have they been concluded with a set view on the Tieflings?
If they are still ongoing and your still involved with it, is there a potential chance without the NDA to spoil too much to have the 4e Tieflings simply become one part of a bloodline, like for example those of the Nine Hells and give the Tieflings of the abyssal background to look different?
Not sure if it is worded correctly but what my mind tried to say is, that maybe even tieflings of different abyssal planes or the nine hells could look different from another?
ex. The ones from Nessus looking different than those of Dis due to different fiendish types procreating with mortals and same for the Abyss. I doubt a child of a mortal and a Pitfiend looks the same as a child of a mortal and a Gelugon or a Lilitu/mortal offpsring from a Balor/mortal offspring (genetics etc.) |
| ErinMEvans |
Posted - 16 Sep 2012 : 03:01:24
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I was speaking of the core tieflings. Yeah, they didn't have the nation in FR, but their appearance and the appearance of other planetouched still became homogenized and exaggerated.
Gotcha!
(I suspect the issue is people here and there on various fora misreading others talking about what they don't like about the new races as a whole and assuming they ALL have their own nations. Or maybe I've misread every one and they're only commenting on core ...But I live in fear of the critical sidebar I might have missed. :)
To answer Erik's earlier comment, I have been involved in the DDN tiefling discussions. If you've seen the Sundering art, you know the 4e version's not being erased. But as I said before, they really are trying to make as many people happy as they can.
And I'm glad my explanation grew on you, Erik! You didn't mention that before. :)
...Basically the second Lesser Evils comes out I feel like I ought to come down here with a spoiler tag and lay it out, as much as I keep talking around it. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 16 Sep 2012 : 01:38:13
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
Really the thing that set FR tiefling apart from other settings was that many of them were blood relations of Evil Gods, not just common,demons and devils (although thier was that too,especially in Thay and Narfell). Even 4e kept elements of that via the Godborn feat. Many Aasmir where related to Gods as well, of Neutral and Good alignment.
Just a minor note... I don't see there being a lot of Thayan born tieflings unless they were to try it through a breeding program (like the tanarukk). They were way too proud of their Mulan breeding to even breed with other non-mulan humans, much less fiends. Not a major point of contention mind you, just people tend to go "evil, twisted culture filled with magic, yep they'd have lots of tieflings" but in this instance, it doesn't sound like someone that would apply so much. Now, would they shirk from having a tiefling as a compatriot? Hell no. Would they accept them in their society? Sure, as a henchman. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 15 Sep 2012 : 21:06:19
quote:
Originally posted by ErinMEvans
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Ditto.
What I really don't want to see is the 4E version of tieflings. Have an entire nation of them,with a homogenized appearance, really takes away the appeal for me. It makes them seem like just another race. <snip>.
Can I ask something? I keep seeing people talking about how 4e tieflings have their own nation in FR. To my knowledge that's not so. There are higher concentrations of them in a few places like the Calim and Narfell, but there's no Bael Turath in FR. Did I miss something? (Fortunately, doesn't mean continuity issues if I did, but it would be good to know).
(Wooly, don't mean to pick on you; you just said it clearest here. You may be talking about Nentir Vale/ core after all)
And yes, listen to Erik. He is full of excellent advice. :p
I was speaking of the core tieflings. Yeah, they didn't have the nation in FR, but their appearance and the appearance of other planetouched still became homogenized and exaggerated. |
| Gyor |
Posted - 15 Sep 2012 : 20:32:52
Bael Turanth wasn't really a Tiefling nation, more like a nation ruled by tieflings. Only the noblity, royalty, the wealthest merchants and thier choosen pets became Tieflings, the common people remained human or other races. In this it resembles Narfell, were most of the population was human, but many of the,elites became Tieflings, or breed with things that bore Tieflings, or other things.
Bael also kind of resembled Unther towards the end, although the tieflings of Unther were related more to the darker Gods of the Unther pantheon, Tiamat, Assuran (Hoar), Nergal, Inanna(don't know why they concidered her evil), maybe some Settan and,Sebekian Tieflings from nearby Mulhorand, although in earlier, pre Gilgamesh times they'd have been balanced out by Aasmir of Ishtar, Murduk, and Enlil, and others.
Really the thing that set FR tiefling apart from other settings was that many of them were blood relations of Evil Gods, not just common,demons and devils (although thier was that too,especially in Thay and Narfell). Even 4e kept elements of that via the Godborn feat. Many Aasmir where related to Gods as well, of Neutral and Good alignment.
So you have Tieflings and Aasmir that were totally differently inclined then thier Planescape cousins. Sharessian Aasmir were more prone to corruption, Basheban Tieflings,had Antlars instead of horns.
Ishtaran Aasmir and Inannan Tieflings were related (Ishtar being Inanna's daughter).
|
| ErinMEvans |
Posted - 15 Sep 2012 : 17:41:58
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Ditto.
What I really don't want to see is the 4E version of tieflings. Have an entire nation of them,with a homogenized appearance, really takes away the appeal for me. It makes them seem like just another race. <snip>.
Can I ask something? I keep seeing people talking about how 4e tieflings have their own nation in FR. To my knowledge that's not so. There are higher concentrations of them in a few places like the Calim and Narfell, but there's no Bael Turath in FR. Did I miss something? (Fortunately, doesn't mean continuity issues if I did, but it would be good to know).
(Wooly, don't mean to pick on you; you just said it clearest here. You may be talking about Nentir Vale/ core after all)
And yes, listen to Erik. He is full of excellent advice. :p |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 15 Sep 2012 : 04:43:22
Bael Turarth needs to die!!!!!!!!
well actually it jsut needs to be left in the POL stuff and in its own setting.
as for the look, it actually could pass for a tiefling spawned from the hells but not an evil outsider spawned from some other plane.
as for making one that the decent of every little thing like a tifling with the powers of an enryies ora sucubus, well instead of that, make them a set bunch and jsut have optional powers...... |
| Aryalómë |
Posted - 15 Sep 2012 : 04:30:21
I certainly hope the appearance of the "Infernal Tieflings" and their story and ancient empire of Bael Turath don't die with 4e. I actually enjoyed it very much. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 15 Sep 2012 : 01:59:04
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
That's pretty much Paizo's approach.
Heh, it was also D&D's approach back in the day. It appears as recently as Races of Faerun/PGtF, specifically dealing with fey'ri.
And of course 4e itself is rife with this concept, from elf subraces to the way genasi function, etc. I wasn't really keen on uniform tieflings in 4e, though Erin's explanation changed my mind.
I think going forward, there's plenty of room for lots of variety here.
Cheers |
| Shemmy |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 22:32:01
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
Do Slaad's count as fiends? Previously to 4e only the Death Slaad was evil, the rest were Chaotic Neutral although the descriptions of thier behaviour always did lean towards evil.
No, slaadi aren't fiends.
As for the death slaadi, some sources actually described their bent towards evil rather than true chaos as being a corruption of their chaotic nature, emphasizing their divergence from the slaadi baseline nature. |
| Aryalómë |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 22:08:13
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Bane
Tanaar'ri and Baatezu bloodlines as subrace description and then you can always go into detail with each bloodline having their subraces.
I like this idea a lot, though I generally prefer the Tieflings to be of Fiendish descent. |
| Gyor |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 21:24:51
Do Slaad's count as fiends? Previously to 4e only the Death Slaad was evil, the rest were Chaotic Neutral although the descriptions of thier behaviour always did lean towards evil. |
| Gyor |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 21:17:27
Okay here's how I see it likely to play out.
All Tieflings have universal traits just like Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, ect...
Then they have a subrace which grants an ability bonus and a bonus trait, and an adjustment to any traits that need it (like how wild elves change the normal speed for elves).
So guess what some core 5e subraces could be like.
So an example of a subrace would be Infernal Tieflings, which gains +1 intelligence and Infernal Wrath as a feature. This subrace resembles 4e tieflings the most, an orderly appearance of horns and a tails. Its the lawful evil hells so a uniform of sorts makes sense. Infernals can come about from breeding or by ancient pacts.
An example Abyssal Tieflings are way more chaotic inform and are less automatically recognizable as Tieflings. Maybe they get +1 strength and a Abyssal Mutation trait.
A Gehenna Tiefling might have features that resemble Yugoloths. +1 dexierity
Carceri Tieflings might have chains of bone wrapped around parts parts of thier body fitting the theme of imprisonment. +1 to constitution.
So for 5e FR one could assign Tiefling subraces to multiple Domains that are aligned simularly.
So Infernals to hell and Abssyal to the Abyss is obvious. But Abyssal to the demonwebs and Deep Caverns as well as Carceri to the Superme Throne and the Towers of Night, Gehenna or infernal to Banehold ect... Could work to with changes to discriptions.
Oh each fiendish plane gets its own subrace.
Oh and I agree Erin should be in on Tiefling design.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 20:38:40
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I think the 4e tieflings presented in the core 4e books look a particular way because they are a true-breeding race that has "settled" into its general appearance. 4e FR tieflings have a somewhat different explanation (see Brimstone Angels) and even they might be only the standard tiefling, not *all* tieflings. It's entirely possible for a demon and a mortal creature to hook up and produce offspring with any sort of appearance you like and still use the mechanical chassis of the tiefling.
I think when speaking of subraces, we should be careful of creating too many divergent mechanical constructions. We should identify what is common to all tieflings (what does a demonic heritage do to humans?) and then give a range of options that you can take to reflect a tiefling of various sorts. In other words:
Every tiefling has (such and such) racial features and has two of the following traits, which hearken back to its fiendish heritage (list of possible traits including demonic, diabolic, slaad, yugoloth, etc). You could pick two abilities of the same source or two different sources, or they might not even correspond to the source listed.
The aasimar should be handled the same way, with options from Celestia, Arvandor, etc.
Thereby you suggest infinite variety and leave it open to more game design to offer even more options. There could certainly be a Realms-specific article that appears about tieflings in the Realms specifically.
That's how I would do it.
Cheers
That's pretty much Paizo's approach. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 20:03:28
I think the 4e tieflings presented in the core 4e books look a particular way because they are a true-breeding race that has "settled" into its general appearance. 4e FR tieflings have a somewhat different explanation (see Brimstone Angels) and even they might be only the standard tiefling, not *all* tieflings. It's entirely possible for a demon and a mortal creature to hook up and produce offspring with any sort of appearance you like and still use the mechanical chassis of the tiefling.
I think when speaking of subraces, we should be careful of creating too many divergent mechanical constructions. We should identify what is common to all tieflings (what does a demonic heritage do to humans?) and then give a range of options that you can take to reflect a tiefling of various sorts. In other words:
Every tiefling has (such and such) racial features and has two of the following traits, which hearken back to its fiendish heritage (list of possible traits including demonic, diabolic, slaad, yugoloth, etc). You could pick two abilities of the same source or two different sources, or they might not even correspond to the source listed.
The aasimar should be handled the same way, with options from Celestia, Arvandor, etc.
Thereby you suggest infinite variety and leave it open to more game design to offer even more options. There could certainly be a Realms-specific article that appears about tieflings in the Realms specifically.
That's how I would do it.
Cheers |
| Shemmy |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 18:58:35
I know a teeny bit about such things, and IMO that's one good option (it's something that Pathfinder already uses as an option for tieflings of a specific fiendish descent). However it will be good to have the options for tieflings of mixed heritage, true-breeding breeds such as the planar mutts of Sigil, etc. Again also the route that PF has used.
Options are good, especially when it comes to tiefers.
But it's a good sign that WotC is willing to go back to a more classic tiefling as this suggests. -Anything- will be better than only presenting the 4e "tieflings" with their uniform heritage and appearance as a default that's completely different from what tieflings had been. I wasn't a fan of that approach at all. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 18:41:51
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
There's approximately 8,362,573.2 different breeds of Lower Plane baddies -- their offspring should reflect that variety.
And they are breeding with forty-six trillion intelligent species in the multiverse.
Which means the odds of any two even looking related is so astronomical to be nigh-impossible.
Funny thing is, I am working a very similar problem out right now for goblinoids (for my psuedo-CKC article). Goblinoids tend to all look very distinct, at least from tribe to tribe. This should mean that they are constantly breeding with other 'things', and widening their gene pool. Given their high birth rates and short gestation periods, goblinoids are prone to diversity, but in a more regional fashion. Within a few generations (just 20 years or so) entire new 'subspecies' could form around one particular trait. I actually have a lot more on the subject, but I am saving that for my article.
Suffice it to say that I think of tieflings in the same manner as goblinoids (or most anything else, given enough time). Certain racial traits will become dominate when groups of the creatures co-exist and breed, and eventually you will have a more standardized appearance. Thus, both types of Tieflings should exist.
However, I think the 'standardized' variants should all be descended from devils. The chaotic nature of demon blood should make them all different, regardless of how much in-breeding occurs. The child of a devil should look like the parents; the child of a demon should'nt look like anyone else (IMHO). |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 18:15:56
I hope Erin Evans is involved in the tiefling discussion going forward. She (literally) wrote the book (or three) on modern tieflings (the Brimstone Angels series).
Cheers |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 18:00:54
quote:
Originally posted by Korginard
I like the way Pathfinder handled Tiefling and Aasimar subraces based on the type of being they descend from, and wouldn't mind seeing something similar used in 5e or the realms.
Ditto.
What I really don't want to see is the 4E version of tieflings. Have an entire nation of them, with a homogenized appearance, really takes away the appeal for me. It makes them seem like just another race. The 2E/3E tieflings were far more rare and had unique appearances, and something like that makes the race stand out far more than "yeah, all the people over there have tails, horns, and red skin."
I don't mind individual tieflings looking like the 4E ones, I just want some variety among the race. There's approximately 8,362,573.2 different breeds of Lower Plane baddies -- their offspring should reflect that variety. |
| Korginard |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 17:46:02
I like the way Pathfinder handled Tiefling and Aasimar subraces based on the type of being they descend from, and wouldn't mind seeing something similar used in 5e or the realms.
|
| Sightless |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 17:31:27
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
If this idea goes ahead, and the core rules provide detail on tiefling sub-races, I think it would be appropriate for the FR books to give a "Realms-take" on those sub-races. In fact, all races presented. If we're going back to the Ol' Grey Box, that's how all the demihumans were treated way back in 1987. Them and dragons.
Like I said in another thread, whenever 'advanced/optional material' becomes avaialable for D&D, I think a series of "In the Realms..." style articles are appropriate. I do not want realms-specific versions of everything, though. The days of different rules for different D&D settings needs to be something in the past. In nearly all other companies, rules are hand-tailored to a specific world, but D&D apparently doesn't have that luxury. D&D's major strength is that almost everyone is already familiar with the system, in one form or another - it doesn't matter what setting you use, D&D is D&D. 2e steered us a way from that, and drove the company into ruin. 3e was amazingly successful because of the OGL and its versatility as a 'universal system'.
Building (D&D) rules for specific settings brings us back to the profit-bleeding 2e days - we need to go back to the 3e days with one rules set for everyone. I don't mind adapting D&D core mechanics with world-specific lore, but not with world-specific mechanics. keep the settings 'fluffy'.
quote:
Originally posted by Eldacar
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
As a gamer, I'd like the D&D rules to stop somewhere around 50 books or so. If they want to do DDi articles on them, fine. I don't consider anything not in physical print format canon anyway.
Doesn't that technically mean you don't think Ed, anything Ed writes, or anything any author has written on Candlekeep ever to be canon?
I was actually being sarcastic with the "50 books or so". I consider everything beyond the three core books completely unnecessary. That goes for settings as well (they are nice to have, but unnecessary to play D&D).
As for what I consider canon in my games - Yup, that's exactly how I feel. For me, online articles, what Ed says, and even whats in novels is all 'optional material'. I know that's not how its handled officially, but that's how I handle it mentally.
I may be foreced to take this mind set myself, given the delay and difficulties for Realms lore. Heck I can't even go to WOTcs website anymore since they altered the format round the time 4e came out. |
|
|
