| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 15 Feb 2011 : 08:14:41
One major change to races in 4e is that plane-touched races(tieflings, genasi, devas((aasimar)) ) are no longer the result of crossbreeding with planar creatures.
Tieflings are now a race with a more uniformed appearance who are decended from humans who were changed due to centuries of dealing with devils. Some suggestion of crossbreeding is made but it isn't definitely the cause.
Genasi are descended from humans who spent too much time in the elemental chaos. The suggestion that their race was created due to crossbreeding with elementals is considered an insult.
Devas are now angels who have bound themselves to mortal form and instead of breeding, go through a constant cycle of reincarnation.
I'm curious as to the opinions on these changes. |
| 14 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Quale |
Posted - 16 Feb 2011 : 17:57:17
There were genasi descended from janni before.
I've no problem with 4e tieflings, for Narfell it's even better considering the demoncysts (radiation?). Only their artwork is much worse than in 2e/3e days. |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 15 Feb 2011 : 21:18:33
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
CR — We apparently agree that the 4E genasi are perhaps the best depiction of the race to date. (Though I'll admit I'm still a little hesitant against accepting multi-element genasi.)
We do! Sorry for the oddball quoting there, I originally was just chiming in with the "I always play humans" bit that more or less responded to the bit I lifted, but then I decided that was a it scanty and backfilled in the other stuff. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 15 Feb 2011 : 20:24:47
CR — We apparently agree that the 4E genasi are perhaps the best depiction of the race to date. (Though I'll admit I'm still a little hesitant against accepting multi-element genasi.)
DD — I like 4E tieflings, but I view them as only a subset from the variety of pre-4E tieflings which I like much more.
I think today's kids are sophisticated enough to handle conceptually fiendish material. Media from Disney to Hellboy to Zelda and Pokemon and beyond all manage to portray dark/twisted/evil/fiendish/Satanic creatures to varying degrees, most of it does not delve under the "kewl" cosmetic surface and actually describe the nightmarish visceral substance.
So you've got devilish horns, smoldering eyes, the infernal reek of burning brimstone, and an in-yer-face punk/goth/biker attitude. Along with a bit of vague backstory about how your bloodline is somehow associated with fiendish deals, evil taint, blood and curses, dark pacts and sacrifices. I think today's kids can handle that. |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 15 Feb 2011 : 20:15:49
Personally I like the more standardized appearance. Back in the day I felt like people were playing a separate race when they were playing tieflings. I felt like they were playing humans with deformities. You're not playing a tiefling, you're playing a human with black eyes. Or a human that smells like brimstone. Or a human with a strange growth somewhere unspeakable.
Do they stand out more? Yes. can that be a disadvantage? Yes. Which can be a useful plot point to create tension. Granted I can see the validity of the gripes people have with the new tiefling look, I just have a different opinion.
Does the backstory with them being descended from people who were preforming unholy diabolic rites with devils speak of non-kid-friendliness? Yea, but I fail to see that as a bad thing. I also like it because it reminds me of other settings I've played in before where dealing with fiends for long periods of time would eventually affect you physically. |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 15 Feb 2011 : 20:12:31
quote:
It's a fantasy RPG, very few player characters are (the supposedly most common) human adventurers and almost every PC party has at least a few improbable freaks.
I like the 4E planetouched, especially the genasi, which I've made a particular study of. Artist's conceptions are always just that, even when they're dictated by the art director's rubric, which is itself an artist's conception. In this game, they're no more or less valid than an individual player's conception.
That said, I almost always play humans, and when I don't, I don't venture much farther afield than dwarves.
This is the part of the post where I admit that I mainly posted this because I'm looking for substantive things to contribute while hoping to break the 800 post mark this week.  |
| Arcanus |
Posted - 15 Feb 2011 : 20:12:31
Change for changes sake. What's the point? |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 15 Feb 2011 : 20:04:46
The current trend for PCs to look (and be) *kewlage* is not at all new nor is it unique to 4E. A fact attested by countless OD&D (Gygax/Tolkien) elves and dwarves (yeah, half-elves were teh kewl circa late 1970s) ... 1E drow, half-orcs, alu-fiends ... 2E bladesingers, vampires, thri-kreen, and tieflings ... 3.xE dragonborn, genasi, daemonfey, werebeasts, warforged, etc.
It's a fantasy RPG, very few player characters are (the supposedly most common) human adventurers and almost every PC party has at least a few improbable freaks.
I agree that the 4E artwork looks good but less original than it used to be. Non-Wizbro sources are not as consistent in quality but also are not locked into 4E canon, lots of excellent "old style" planetouched creatures inhabit the internet. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 15 Feb 2011 : 19:24:46
To me, it seems to indicate the current trend for Pc's to look "kewl" in some way, to distinguish them from every other Pc out there. And yet, giving them a more uniform appearance seems to have done the opposite. Sure it looks great for artistic purposes, but it also makes them inherantly more noticable, which can be a detriment in some campaigns. I liked them better as they were before 4th made them all "artsy" and took the reason for them out of the equation. I mean, let's face it- from a "realistic" standpoint, simply dealing with devils for a long time does NOT make you one, or even PART of one! Unless you're doing weird blood-rites, which is disturbing if WotC is trying to be more kid-friendly. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 15 Feb 2011 : 19:16:30
Actually, I'm a little torn ... 4E planetouched races have, in my opinion, some excellent and some awful changes in their appearances. I am strongly biased against "standardizing" these races and against injecting their retconned histories into the Realms (especially tieflings, c'mon!), though I do understand why it was done. Yes, the Realms can accomodate all planetouched variants ... a holdover from venerable planescape/spelljammer, where the philosophy is that things don't have to make sense and weirder is better. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 15 Feb 2011 : 15:05:23
I use both forms (2E/3E and 4E) reasons for their existance. There's nothing wrong with accepting both as ways to create Planetouched creatures/characters. So if one wants a different backstory as to how they came to be than what the FRCG says, then by all means I'd allow them to use another reason.
As for appearance, this is purely cosmetic and can change and vary from planetouched to planetouched and even different variations on the same planetouched. If you don't want your Tiefling character to have a tail, or crazy looking horns, then I don't see a problem with that. Same goes for someone who wants a Dragonborn character with huge horns that resemble a Black Dragon or changing the color of their skin to match that of their draconic heritage. All fluff, no mechanics required. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 15 Feb 2011 : 13:02:30
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I liked the planetouched of 2E and 3E the way they were. I see no need to change anything, especially their appearances.
I'm the same. In fact, aside from a few campaign-specific tweaks, I still continue to use them just as they are. |
| Quale |
Posted - 15 Feb 2011 : 12:52:15
I think most the changes happened in the core setting, in the Realms there always were various ways of becoming planetouched. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 15 Feb 2011 : 12:46:10
While I didn't see the need, I'm mostly neutral on the situation. I enjoyed them as they were pre-spellplague, but the way they are now I can accept as well. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 15 Feb 2011 : 11:17:22
I liked the planetouched of 2E and 3E the way they were. I see no need to change anything, especially their appearances. |
|
|
