No it isn't. Traditional D&D is a bag of plastic dinosaur toys from a dollar store.
I'm going to skip this one because I honestly have no idea what you are on about, but I will point out that bucking tradition with a tone is elitist.
Elitist? That's a new one to me. Can you explain what you mean?
This one is a bit more straightforward. It's elitist to claim that something (One D&D) is for everyone when you have very clearly designed something for a very specific subset of people. It's basically like saying that anyone who doesn't love what we are doing is not a D&D fan and they don't matter, everyone in this context is everyone that matters.
Now you're really losing me. What do you mean by this?
See above, similar concept.
You think catering to new players is... New? What do you think D&D did before it had OLD players?
Of course not, its not what I said. In the context which you cut out I said "The direction of the game, even with this first playtest is clear signaling that this is definitely not D&D for everyONE," This context is important. If your going to claim the game is for everyone and then promptly cater to only new players, it is clear that by default it is not for everyone.
I'm not confused why they are doing (catering to new players), I'm simply calling them on the fact that they are claiming they are making D&D for everyone and they are not.
What do you mean by "on rails"?
I can understand the confusion. It requires a bit of backstory. Basically, since Wizards of the Coast took over D&D they have been expanding the game through splash books and with each new edition they pick certain parts of those splash books and add its content to the core game, effectively changing the baseline game. Rinse and repeat. These rails they have been on for years and so what we have to look forward to is a continued re-writing of what D&D is and continued dilution of the concept game. Eventually, you will have played the game long enough to one day understand guys like me when the core game changes enough that you no longer recognize it.
All clear?
So, inclusion is exclusion. Doing things for the majority is elitist. Orwell would be proud of this logic.
The plastic toys from a dollar store refers to the origins of many classic monsters. Not Tolkien, but weird bag of random figures that Gary bought and invented a backstory for.
The existence of splat books expanding the game dates back to 1e. It's why we have barbarians, among a lot of other things, as I'm sure you know. So don't try and make it a Wizard's thing when TSR, while still under Gary, pioneered the practice.
No edition of the game has ever been for everyone, or house rules would not exist. And the current trend is not for a specific subset, it's for the vast majority of people who currently play. Not my middle school friends who haven't touched a d20 since the Regan administration. People who play now. Catering to the majority of current players has always been the strategy, as it should be; it's how you run a business. If you haven't noticed it before, it's because you used to be part of that vast majority being catered to, while lots and lots of others were left out. But times change, things evolve, and old 1e players like you and me are a small and shrinking portion of the player base. We can't expect the world to keep revolving around us just because it used to. At my current table, I've been playing D&D longer than most of the other players have been alive, and it's wonderful. They bring a new energy to the game that was much needed, and new perspectives that help shake me out of bad habits I didn't even realize I had. Not one of their characters could have been made with the 1e PHB, and it's still quite recognizably D&D. The hobby needs players like that. Honestly, if not for them, there probably wouldn't be enough book sales to justify keeping the game going at all.
But, hey, if you want to write off an entire edition of the game because of one thing in the very first playtest document, a good two years before the final version has been released, nothing I or anyone else says here is going to convince you. So, go and have fun playing the game the way you like. The rest of us will do the same.
Eh, I have no intention of playing an Ardling. But my son likes the idea so that’s good enough for me. I’m much more concerned with the mixed parentage rules than I am with the existence of a race that doesn’t interest me, but interests others.
Let's not turn this into another dogpile. Remember that this thread is literally an invitation to share your opinion. Someone who comes here to share their opinion is doing exactly what was asked of them, whether that opinion seems distasteful or not. (Rules on hate speech and so on obviously still apply, but no lines have been crossed from where I'm sitting.) One's own opinion is not erased by the presence of a contrary opinion.
To prove my point, I've deleted all the smart and witty responses that I was about to post. I'm sure you can all imagine how clever I was going to look, though.
If a new race is not to one’s personal taste…for one reason or another…they’re perfectly free to say so.
Likewise, I’d hazard to say that if other people are excited for a new race, I’d not dampen the mood by immediately declaring the new option be banned & forgotten, when it can simply be passed over at a DM’s discretion.
Opinions welcome scrutiny; we can expect contradictions here and there, but arguing will only become tiresome.
There’s a middle ground here somewhere; and we can find it without squabbling, nitpicking, or posturing.
I’d recommend playtesting for those who are interested, and then sharing the experience.
For those uninterested, I recommend what has always worked: play the way that works at your table.
And FUN. We mustn’t forget that this should be FUN.
I have to wonder: how popular were aasimar? Would they be considered successful. I’m still half convinced that they don’t much care for them. I mean this their second attempt at replacing them.
The core, baseline game of D&D is a real, tangible, definable thing and it's what the core rulebook should be. The basic, classic D&D races and classes, basic rules on which to build a platform of endless variety. If the core starts out as a rainbow, it becomes diluted and ceases to be a starting point.
I mean think about it this way. There is a new Dragonlance campaign setting coming out. I'm a DM who wants to run it, I hand the players the handbook and now I'm forced if I want to run that setting as written to tell the players all the stuff they can't pick from the book When the reality is the answer should be, everything, plus all the special stuff in the setting. That should always be the answer. Everything in the rulebook + special stuff in the campaign.
Instead, because of this splashing of everything into the core rules you are constantly having to cut stuff out to make campaigns and settings work.
Like, I agree with you, to an extent. The PHB should be your vanilla, then you have everything else that you can add to it to make it your own flavour. I like the idea. However, I do have a concern that nobody agrees on the default, vanilla stuff. Someone mentioned somewhere that one of the official settings (I want to say Dragonlance?) doesn't have Dwarves in it - does that mean we shouldn't have Dwarves in the PHB?
My personal thoughts are, you have in one section the core races that everyone thinks of when they think of D&D. Humans, Elves, Dwarves and Halflings. The LotR races, basically. Then in another segment, a few examples of more "out there" races, like Orcs, Dragonborn, etc, to show how experimental you can be. Because they're a separate segment (more obvious than the two segments are now), then you can just say "PHB standard races plus..." for your basic fairly restricted campaigns, but then others can see that D&D doesn't have to be about Hobbitses an Elves, but can have other things to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I have to wonder: how popular were aasimar? Would they be considered successful. I’m still half convinced that they don’t much care for them. I mean this their second attempt at replacing them.
Speaking only from personal experience, not very. Visually they're pretty much just human, and the people who want to play a human typically just play a human. Narratively they're pretty much born from a human (and a celestial that probably also looked like a human). They're raised by humans, as humans typically. They're just kind of lacking any real visual or narrative bite.
I have to wonder: how popular were aasimar? Would they be considered successful. I’m still half convinced that they don’t much care for them. I mean this their second attempt at replacing them.
I thought the aasimar were pretty neat...for your human-looking character who has that extra otherworldly nature about them, without being as noticeable as, say, a tiefling.
Technically, they are not replacing aasimar: "Monsters of the Multiverse" gave aasimar an update.
Ardlings are the celestial inheritors of the lineages relating to animalistic archons & guardinals.
Aasimar draw from the human-looking celestials...angels, planetars, solars, einherjar...etc.
There is a new Dragonlance campaign setting coming out. I'm a DM who wants to run it, I hand the players the handbook and now I'm forced if I want to run that setting as written to tell the players all the stuff they can't pick from the book When the reality is the answer should be, everything, plus all the special stuff in the setting. That should always be the answer. Everything in the rulebook + special stuff in the campaign.
Instead, because of this splashing of everything into the core rules you are constantly having to cut stuff out to make campaigns and settings work.
Like, I agree with you, to an extent. The PHB should be your vanilla, then you have everything else that you can add to it to make it your own flavour. I like the idea. However, I do have a concern that nobody agrees on the default, vanilla stuff. Someone mentioned somewhere that one of the official settings (I want to say Dragonlance?) doesn't have Dwarves in it - does that mean we shouldn't have Dwarves in the PHB?
If the criteria is "the PHB races must be available in all published 6e settings," and we assume that 6e is backwards-compatible enough that 5e settings count as 6e settings, then it's just humans. (As it should be! I don't remember seeing any gosh-darned elves in Conan, or dwarves in Dying Earth, and these are what D&D is based on! /s) On Theros, the only PHB race is humans. That's it. So enjoy your one race option in the new PHB.
I guess that might boost the sales of the first setting guides that include elves and stuff though. Hey, maybe I found the strategy!
There is a new Dragonlance campaign setting coming out. I'm a DM who wants to run it, I hand the players the handbook and now I'm forced if I want to run that setting as written to tell the players all the stuff they can't pick from the book When the reality is the answer should be, everything, plus all the special stuff in the setting. That should always be the answer. Everything in the rulebook + special stuff in the campaign.
Instead, because of this splashing of everything into the core rules you are constantly having to cut stuff out to make campaigns and settings work.
Like, I agree with you, to an extent. The PHB should be your vanilla, then you have everything else that you can add to it to make it your own flavour. I like the idea. However, I do have a concern that nobody agrees on the default, vanilla stuff. Someone mentioned somewhere that one of the official settings (I want to say Dragonlance?) doesn't have Dwarves in it - does that mean we shouldn't have Dwarves in the PHB?
If the criteria is "the PHB races must be available in all published 6e settings," and we assume that 6e is backwards-compatible enough that 5e settings count as 6e settings, then it's just humans. (As it should be! I don't remember seeing any gosh-darned elves in Conan, or dwarves in Dying Earth, and these are what D&D is based on! /s) On Theros, the only PHB race is humans. That's it. So enjoy your one race option in the new PHB.
I guess that might boost the sales of the first setting guides that include elves and stuff though. Hey, maybe I found the strategy!
In order to support all of the main settings equally in a PHB, they either need to only have humans or upwards of 30 races because of how the base races differ in different worlds.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I like Ardling as a whole, I don't think they should be part of the Core rulebook. So I completely agree with OP. Make them a race that come in a second book perhaps. I would go with Aasimar as a Core race for sure. They are much more iconic.
I have to wonder: how popular were aasimar? Would they be considered successful. I’m still half convinced that they don’t much care for them. I mean this their second attempt at replacing them.
Speaking only from personal experience, not very. Visually they're pretty much just human, and the people who want to play a human typically just play a human. Narratively they're pretty much born from a human (and a celestial that probably also looked like a human). They're raised by humans, as humans typically. They're just kind of lacking any real visual or narrative bite.
I agree. We had one, once, and his aasimar-ness was... kind of relevant? Like, he had a good-vs-evil conflict in his head but it wasn't particularly specific. Another time, we had an evil one, and she, also, I feel, would've been just as functional if she'd been a human, thematically. Mechanically, they're okay, but not very interesting I feel. The only time I've ever been even moderately tempted to play one, was looking at the old Scourge one that could hurt itself, just because that's odd design space for 5e. But the new one doesn't even do that, so yeah, I'm not impressed.
I think the thing people want when they pick an angel race, is some way of having their character be, like... I don't want to say "the main character," but having some way to pull spotlight mechanically maybe? To make NPCs pay attention to their angst or their purity or whatever. Become a shining beacon of some kind of idea. You know what I mean? Like how Thaumaturgy is supposed to make your presence really impressive and commanding, although I never see anyone use it. Anyway, they don't get something like that. So I think they're failing to meet the brief.
Ok so effectively this thread has gone from "ardlings dont belong" to "ardlings, tieflings, and dragonborn don't belong". So if we can establish those races belong then the ardling is fine. In other words if tiefling is fine, ardling is fine.
The players handbook is a introduction to Dnd. As a world of fantasy and midevil sword and sorcery people are expecting the tolkien races. Human, dwarf, elf, orc, halfling maybe gnome. But dnd is more than just tolkien and the players handbook NEEDS to represent this right out the gate. In a game called Dungeons and DRAGONS you expect a dragon race to be in the book. But again, dnd is about more than tolkien and dragons. This is where the extra planar characters come in. Dnd is a world where devils and demons are distinctly different, with a pantheon of multiple gods from multiple religious beliefs and mythologies. There is nothing that illustrates that better to the player than tieflings and ardlings with their varried looks and origins. It also perfectly represents that this is not based on judeo-christian religious beliefs since a majority of people and players are one of the judeo-christian mono-theistic religions. It establishes itself as a FANTASY mythology through and through.
These races NEED to be here as an introduction to the wider world of DnD and to give players who are looking for more than just tolkien a taste of that in the PHB. 6 Tolkien races, one dragon race and 2 planar races that represent 2 sides of the same coin. The races people expect and a couple to introduce the wider fantasy of DnD.
You want Aasimar in PHB just make a half human half ardling, give it the ardling stats and make it look like a human. Aasimar done, and it looks and sounds as bland as ever, to me.
Like, I agree with you, to an extent. The PHB should be your vanilla, then you have everything else that you can add to it to make it your own flavour. I like the idea. However, I do have a concern that nobody agrees on the default, vanilla stuff. Someone mentioned somewhere that one of the official settings (I want to say Dragonlance?) doesn't have Dwarves in it - does that mean we shouldn't have Dwarves in the PHB?
How can we forget Flint Fireforge! Dragonlance definitely had Dwarves, I'm actually not sure which setting you're referring though I understand the point your making.
Again I think the basic principle here I'm trying to drive at is that there is such a thing as core, fundamental D&D and to me, the core players handbook should be a function of those fundamentals. Dwarfs for example are probably not a great example of an edge case since they are featured in pretty much every official D&D setting but take for example Shifters that only appear in Eberron. Now they are an official D&D setting race, but because they are so specific to one setting, though part of the D&D multiverse, not exactly a candidate for core D&D. Certainly they should exist in a splash book or better yet a campaign book for Eberron but the issue that you run into is that anything in the core rulebook is presumed to be a base race of the game.
This has actually created a lot of weirdness in D&D setting lore not just as a gameplay element. For example when Dragonborn was added to the core rulebook, they were then retroactively added into the Forgotten Realms setting. Why? Because the assumption Wizards makes is if its in the core rulebook it must exist in their settings.
This is just a small part of the argument however. The core concept of sticking to the fundamentals in the core rulebook is to ensure D&D maintains its core identity and remains a simple approachable game from the get go. I have no issue with the expansion of races, classes, features or whatever, but my only issue is what you put into the base game.
Even if you are going to expand the lineup of core races in the player's handbook however as they did with say Dragonborn at least pick one that makes some sense. For example Dragonborn are prominently featured in the Dragonlance setting, so at least there was some connection to the lore and core of D&D somewhere. Where the hell did Ardlings come from? What part of D&D lore, history, tradition or anything else do they belong? Of all the stuff they could add into the players handbook, why would you add something completely random out of left field that arguably, inevitably would trigger this sort of reaction from the community and immediately alienate people? Why create this debate in the community? If they added this race in a splash book, no one would have even bated an eye. Had they not added Adrlings would we be having a discussion about a race missing from the corerulebook? Would anyone be upset because Ardlings were omitted? I have serious doubts about it.
Wizards of the Coast created a problem unnecessarily and of course, those that say "well just play without them" knows that this is a very loaded response. Any DM that runs D&D on anything approaching a regular basis knows that anything in the players handbook that you tell any gaming group you're removing from the game because of settings, preference or whatever is immediately a problem, its a fight every DM who doesn't like Ardlings is going to have to have with their gaming group. You remove them as a playable race from your gaming group and they are going to demand to know why creating unwanted and unnecessary problems.
If the criteria is "the PHB races must be available in all published 6e settings," and we assume that 6e is backwards-compatible enough that 5e settings count as 6e settings, then it's just humans. (As it should be! I don't remember seeing any gosh-darned elves in Conan, or dwarves in Dying Earth, and these are what D&D is based on! /s) On Theros, the only PHB race is humans. That's it. So enjoy your one race option in the new PHB.
No one is suggesting that this is the criteria. Core fundamentals of D&D are identifiable, objective, and tangible things. Certainly, there are edge cases, but the bulk of what makes core D&D, core D&D is very easy to identify and while you can debate edge cases Ardling's hardly qualified. Until this document was pushed out, no one had ever even heard of them before.
An easy test to imagine if you want to know if something is a D&D fundamental is to reverse the process. If Ardlings were excluded no one would have noticed or cared, but by adding them, you have a fight. Remove dwarfs and the D&D community would be outraged, add them and no one is asking why did we add dwarfs. That is how you know if something is core/fundamental to D&D.
If they included tieflings and ommitted ardling I would be getting the same questions I have been getting for my entire dnd 5e career. "Why is there no celestial counterpart to the tiefling in the PHB." Followed by "here is a source book for Aasimar" followed by "why is this race so much more bland than tieflings". Ardlings solve both problems and, as I just pointed out, they help intoduce the wider world of DnD and it's fantasy mythology. Which is what the PHB is, an introduction to what DnD is.
Edit: I will throw you a bone, we need a race for the PHB that serves as the celestial counterpart to tieflings. As an exotic race meant to introduce the concepts of the dnd multiverse and serve as counterpart to one of the most beloved exotic races this race must have an exotic design that looks drastically different from humans, dwarves, elves, gnomes and halflings. So aasimar does not fit the bill. Is there another race that fits this bill with a long standing tradition that we can put in the PHB or does Ardlings solve this long standing void and work perfectly for this need?
Like, I agree with you, to an extent. The PHB should be your vanilla, then you have everything else that you can add to it to make it your own flavour. I like the idea. However, I do have a concern that nobody agrees on the default, vanilla stuff. Someone mentioned somewhere that one of the official settings (I want to say Dragonlance?) doesn't have Dwarves in it - does that mean we shouldn't have Dwarves in the PHB?
How can we forget Flint Fireforge! Dragonlance definitely had Dwarves, I'm actually not sure which setting you're referring though I understand the point your making.
Again I think the basic principle here I'm trying to drive at is that there is such a thing as core, fundamental D&D and to me, the core players handbook should be a function of those fundamentals. Dwarfs for example are probably not a great example of an edge case since they are featured in pretty much every official D&D setting but take for example Shifters that only appear in Eberron. Now they are an official D&D setting race, but because they are so specific to one setting, though part of the D&D multiverse, not exactly a candidate for core D&D. Certainly they should exist in a splash book or better yet a campaign book for Eberron but the issue that you run into is that anything in the core rulebook is presumed to be a base race of the game.
This has actually created a lot of weirdness in D&D setting lore not just as a gameplay element. For example when Dragonborn was added to the core rulebook, they were then retroactively added into the Forgotten Realms setting. Why? Because the assumption Wizards makes is if its in the core rulebook it must exist in their settings.
This is just a small part of the argument however. The core concept of sticking to the fundamentals in the core rulebook is to ensure D&D maintains its core identity and remains a simple approachable game from the get go. I have no issue with the expansion of races, classes, features or whatever, but my only issue is what you put into the base game.
Even if you are going to expand the lineup of core races in the player's handbook however as they did with say Dragonborn at least pick one that makes some sense. For example Dragonborn are prominently featured in the Dragonlance setting, so at least there was some connection to the lore and core of D&D somewhere. Where the hell did Ardlings come from? What part of D&D lore, history, tradition or anything else do they belong? Of all the stuff they could add into the players handbook, why would you add something completely random out of left field that arguably, inevitably would trigger this sort of reaction from the community and immediately alienate people? Why create this debate in the community? If they added this race in a splash book, no one would have even bated an eye. Had they not added Adrlings would we be having a discussion about a race missing from the corerulebook? Would anyone be upset because Ardlings were omitted? I have serious doubts about it.
Wizards of the Coast created a problem unnecessarily and of course, those that say "well just play without them" knows that this is a very loaded response. Any DM that runs D&D on anything approaching a regular basis knows that anything in the players handbook that you tell any gaming group you're removing from the game because of settings, preference or whatever is immediately a problem, its a fight every DM who doesn't like Ardlings is going to have to have with their gaming group. You remove them as a playable race from your gaming group and they are going to demand to know why creating unwanted and unnecessary problems.
If the criteria is "the PHB races must be available in all published 6e settings," and we assume that 6e is backwards-compatible enough that 5e settings count as 6e settings, then it's just humans. (As it should be! I don't remember seeing any gosh-darned elves in Conan, or dwarves in Dying Earth, and these are what D&D is based on! /s) On Theros, the only PHB race is humans. That's it. So enjoy your one race option in the new PHB.
No one is suggesting that this is the criteria. Core fundamentals of D&D are identifiable, objective, and tangible things. Certainly, there are edge cases, but the bulk of what makes core D&D, core D&D is very easy to identify and while you can debate edge cases Ardling's hardly qualified. Until this document was pushed out, no one had ever even heard of them before.
An easy test to imagine if you want to know if something is a D&D fundamental is to reverse the process. If Ardlings were excluded no one would have noticed or cared, but by adding them, you have a fight. Remove dwarfs and the D&D community would be outraged, add them and no one is asking why did we add dwarfs. That is how you know if something is core/fundamental to D&D.
. . . Do you not know what Guardinals are? "Animal celestial people have shouldn't be a part of the game". Dude, animal celestial people have been a part of the game for longer than I've been alive. The Ardling is basically just a playable Guardinal/Hound Archon race.
I don't like Guardinals/Hound Archons and think Ardlings would work best for an Ancient Egyptian setting, but I don't think they should be excluded from the game or the core rulebooks. I think including a celestial counterpart to Tieflings is a logical choice if Tieflings are in the PHB (and they're too popular to not be), but would like the race to be merged with Aasimar because of how similar the race concepts are.
Also, your whole stance that "the core fundamentals of D&D are objective, identifiable, and tangible things" is ridiculous. D&D means a ton of different things to millions of different people. There's no way to distill the most important parts of D&D's identity into a single thing that literally everyone in the hobby will agree on. And the core parts of D&D have always been changing, like the multiple different approaches to AC, Initiative, and Spellcasting that D&D has had in its 50-year history. There are people that will profess that 4e is an aberration that can't be considered D&D, while others will say that it's the best/purest version of D&D because of how it assumes heroic fantasy and a focus on combat as the base assumptions of the game. Some people say that D&D died with TSR (which is why OSR exists), and others think that 5e is the best edition of the game. Some say that Eberron is too far away from the original settings of the game to be a good D&D setting, while others think it's the best because of how it takes D&D's much ignored aspects (the consequences of magic, the different races, etc) to their logical extreme (by having magical corporations, high "technology" due to magitek, a lot of different cultures for every race, etc).
This community cannot even agree on the definition of the game, much less what the "objective, identifiable parts of the game are". You know what D&D is to you, but that doesn't mean it's the "objective, true version of the game" or that the majority of the community agrees with you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I want to note that, while I do not like Aasimar, I would be ok with Ardlings being wrapped into Aasimar and have them be the same race. My issue with Aasimar is how bland their design typically is since they are largely just pretty humans. And even their lore just makes them humans who touched celestial areas. Basically they are half human, half celestial. Which technically the PHB has a way to make Aasimar with Ardlings and Humans in the book and the half-race rules. The other problem with Aasimar is this part of their lore "Aasimar are born to serve as champions of the gods, their births hailed as blessed events." This is problematic for what Wizards is trying to do with their PHB races. They are all clearly meant to be able to play any class any background with any alignment. They do not want any of the races to be pushed in any direction and instead let the player make the character THEY want to make. Tieflings have long been able to be very separate their demonic heritage and be well rounded individuals. Aasimar have not. The Ardlings have been set up to also have a wide array of personalities separate their divine origins as well. Aasimar have not. Aasimar lore ties them to their deity almost as tightly as an unwilling warlock is tied to its patron. They aren't free enough to perform the job of core race that Wizards is going for. So while I am not opposed to Aasimar and Ardlings being the same, this would have to come with a pretty drastic change to Aasimar lore to free them from these kinds of player lore constraints.
Aasimar are boring because Angels are boring in 5e (and have been for pretty much every edition of the game except 4e). 4e's Aasimar-replacement, the Deva race, was a far more interesting race with better lore and more to them than just "angel people" due to the whole reincarnation part of them.
I would love if 4e's Devas were to come back in 5.5e because 5e Devas are just defined as "the weakest angels", but 5e was made as an apology for 4e being so different from previous editions.
And Celestials in D&D have always had less going on for them than Fiends. Fiends have the Blood War, the Archfiends, and cool enemies to fight. Celestials just have a few winged people/animals that live in the Upper Planes that all kind of blend together (except Ysgard) with nothing interesting going on, which is why both Ardlings and Aasimar are boring.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Aasimar are boring because Angels are boring in 5e (and have been for pretty much every edition of the game except 4e). 4e's Aasimar-replacement, the Deva race, was a far more interesting race with better lore and more to them than just "angel people" due to the whole reincarnation part of them.
I would love if 4e's Devas were to come back in 5.5e because 5e Devas are just defined as "the weakest angels", but 5e was made as an apology for 4e being so different from previous editions.
And Celestials in D&D have always had less going on for them than Fiends. Fiends have the Blood War, the Archfiends, and cool enemies to fight. Celestials just have a few winged people/animals that live in the Upper Planes that all kind of blend together (except Ysgard) with nothing interesting going on, which is why both Ardlings and Aasimar are boring.
I would definitely argue that just by making them look different AND having their lore simply state that while their power comes from the celestial planes that their moral and ethical outlook is self determined is already a huge step up. It makes it where you could make an ardling that has a head that resembles a sphinx cat with fur on its shoulders and one that resembles an almost demonic looking goat having the same powers coming form the same planes and still be drastically different and exist side by side in the same room. You can have a fox and a hound head. You could have all of these walking around the same town with each one of them being a different animals head all dealing with normal every day problems right along side elves and halflings and dwarfs. I can already imagine a character who is stepping out on his heroes journey for the first time leaving his farm where everyone he knew was basically human, hobbit, gnome or dwarf and now he steps into the wider world and boom, a red skinned devil person with horns, a blue skinned one with a tail AND horns, a Purple skinned one, Golden dragon people, Blue dragon people, Silver dragon people, Pale white dragon people , people with spectral wings that have a panda bear head, the head of a stork and a Boars head and Frog headed person all chuckling and dealing in the background over a pint. The red devil person with black irises finishes talking with the eagle headed individual his downy feathers along his shoulders fluffed as he attempts to hide a bag of coin slipped under the table with a glare in his eyes and a dagger across his belt. If this doesn't represent the exotic heroes journey tavern/ in a wider world now feel I don't know what does.
This community cannot even agree on the definition of the game, much less what the "objective, identifiable parts of the game are". You know what D&D is to you, but that doesn't mean it's the "objective, true version of the game" or that the majority of the community agrees with you.
This is the part I really don't agree with, though I do understand the perception. On the internet, people will argue even the most inexplicably strawman edge case and pretend like the existence of that argument means that D&D can't be defined or consolidated, but that sort of extremity argument is what splits the community apart unnecessarily. The reality is that the old school and modern communities and visions of the game are not so different that they can't exist under one system, but that system needs to be created with compromises and modularity rather than simply targeting one part of the community. Grant it the 5e community is much larger, but it's naive to think that there won't be inevitable future splits if WotC continues its uncompromising stance between 5e and 6e (One) of making fundamental changes. You might not be upset about this particular change, but they will eventually change a core element of the game that you won't like and it will be because it doesn't feel like D&D. It's not an if, its a when question.
There will be, no amount of empty promises about compatibility and assurances that will change that, they need to actually implement these more compromised design approaches. I don't understand why they would throw a wild card like Ardling's into this soup. The easiest and best way to make compromises is in the core game system because whatever comes afterwards, whatever books are released in addition to the 3 core books will always be seen as optional supplements in which case decisions as to whether to or not to use them are clear. Ardlings could have very easily been released as a supplement to meet the requirements of the edge case. Whatever the argument is for them, they are objectively not a fundamental part of D&D, if they were, no one would be asking the question, what the hell is an Ardling... we would already know because they would be a natural fit, part of a long standing tradition that we have grown so accustomed to adding them to the core rules would be natural.. they are objectively not a natural fit, they are squeezed in as a cult of the new item, an edging and very intention upsetting of traditional D&D elements.. which again, I don't have a problem with other than it being added to the core rules of the game.
It's the difference between the game simply being changed, for change's sake and evolving naturally over time. Ardling's aren't an evolution, they are a very abrupt oddity thrown in.
Now grant it this is just a playtest and given the reaction of the community, not just people from my old-timers circle but modern 5e players, I have my doubts about them surviving the evaluation process. Assuming that is that WotC intends to follow up on its promise of listening to the community.
Ardlings are an EXTREMELY natural evolution of the game. They are a response to a need for an exotic race to be a counterpart to the tieflings which are an extremely popular race that they can't take out of the core rule book. There isn't anything more natural than creating something to fit a need that has arisen from the way people play the game. This is where the nat 1 and nat 20 rule is coming from. This is where the spell list rule is coming from. This is where the rules for races and backgrounds have come from in this play test. This is where this entire new Players hand book has come from. The response to a need for refinement and to bring updates that match the way players actually play the game and to match their expectations. And players are going to expect an exotic counterpart race to the Tieflings, there is nothing more natural than creating one to fit what the players expect.
If you think they won't survive based on feedback you have been burying your head far too deep in the ground and have not been listening nearly hard enough. This is the one change I can nearly guarantee will make it if they are listening to feedback. The only thing is they might flesh out the lore a little bit more, but beyond that I would wager feedback shows big support for the new race in the PHB.
Ardlings are an EXTREMELY natural evolution of the game. They are a response to a need for an exotic race to be a counterpart to the tieflings which are an extremely popular race that they can't take out of the core rule book. There isn't anything more natural than creating something to fit a need that has arisen from the way people play the game. This is where the nat 1 and nat 20 rule is coming from. This is where the spell list rule is coming from. This is where the rules for races and backgrounds have come from in this play test. This is where this entire new Players hand book has come from. The response to a need for refinement and to bring updates that match the way players actually play the game and to match their expectations. And players are going to expect an exotic counterpart race to the Tieflings, there is nothing more natural than creating one to fit what the players expect.
If you think they won't survive based on feedback you have been burying your head far too deep in the ground and have not been listening nearly hard enough. This is the one change I can nearly guarantee will make it if they are listening to feedback. The only thing is they might flesh out the lore a little bit more, but beyond that I would wager feedback shows big support for the new race in the PHB.
We will have to agree to disagree, I don't think any of that is true. If it was a natural evolution of the game you would have known what an Ardlings is before the playtest material was released and there would be no confusion or desire to alter the lore. Ardlings would have already been an established troupe of the game.
Tieflings for example while wildly popular were not just added to the game... we knew everything there was to know about Tieflings long before they made an appearance as a playable race in the core game. I found out what an Ardling is for the first time by reading the playtest material, they have never existed anywhere before that, that is an indisputable objective fact. That is not evolution, that is change.
This is funny. There was a time you read dwarf for the first time, there was a time you read orc for the first time and there was a time you read about Tieflings for the first time. The fact that just because it is new that it is not a natural evolution is just outright idiotic. It is new, but it evolved naturally from the need and desire for an exotic race to be the celestial counterpart to the Tiefling. It wouldn't exist at all in play test material or anywhere else if this perceived need didn't exist.
Edit: you know what you are probably right. Wizards of the Coast didn't have any plan or reason to create Ardling they were just in the office throwing darts at a board one day.
"Ok Mr. Ardling you are up, we are creating a new race for one of the books today lets see what you make." Dart board with human, dwarf, elf, orc and halfling is brought out. "Alright throw the dart Mr. Ardling" .... Ardling closes his eyes and lets the dart fly.... it lands on human. "alright, alright human, BUT..." And they bring out the next dart board, This one has purple skin, animal heads, giant backfin/sail, and tentacles. Ardling closes his eyes and throws the dart.... Animal heads. "Ok, Ok. Animal heads we can work with that." He brings out the next board. "Ok where are they getting thier powers, lower planes, fey wilds, elemental planes, mortal realm." Ardling throws the dart.... the exec is thinking... 'come on fey wilds, come on fey wilds'.... "Alright fey wilds!" but the exec is wrong, the dart didn't hit the fey wilds, there is a small spot on the board everyone forgot about, a spot nearly untouched by the darts.... Ardling meekly states "ummmm sir, its on Upper planes, celestial"... the exec looks back "WHAT!" and sure enough there it is this new race will be celestial.... the exec is confused but comes around to it thinking "we can work with this, alright Mr. Ardling what book are we putting this in?" The final dart board, Planescape, giants, and the new PHB. "Um sir, why is the PHB on this dart board, we don't need another race for that." Says Ardling. The exec: "ah its tiny you wont hit that AND the celestial thing at the same time, never in a million years." "Alright", says Mr. Ardling, but this time he takes it as a challenge, he aims for that PHB slot just to show he can land it, and HE DOES and thus in remembrance for the first time creature making the execs name the new Race Ardling.
Yep completely random, no thought what so ever, no reason at all. This didn't naturally evolve from anything at all. Complete accident that they were made. I am sure this is how it happened and not them responding to players expressed desires at all.
So, inclusion is exclusion. Doing things for the majority is elitist. Orwell would be proud of this logic.
The plastic toys from a dollar store refers to the origins of many classic monsters. Not Tolkien, but weird bag of random figures that Gary bought and invented a backstory for.
The existence of splat books expanding the game dates back to 1e. It's why we have barbarians, among a lot of other things, as I'm sure you know. So don't try and make it a Wizard's thing when TSR, while still under Gary, pioneered the practice.
No edition of the game has ever been for everyone, or house rules would not exist. And the current trend is not for a specific subset, it's for the vast majority of people who currently play. Not my middle school friends who haven't touched a d20 since the Regan administration. People who play now. Catering to the majority of current players has always been the strategy, as it should be; it's how you run a business. If you haven't noticed it before, it's because you used to be part of that vast majority being catered to, while lots and lots of others were left out. But times change, things evolve, and old 1e players like you and me are a small and shrinking portion of the player base. We can't expect the world to keep revolving around us just because it used to. At my current table, I've been playing D&D longer than most of the other players have been alive, and it's wonderful. They bring a new energy to the game that was much needed, and new perspectives that help shake me out of bad habits I didn't even realize I had. Not one of their characters could have been made with the 1e PHB, and it's still quite recognizably D&D. The hobby needs players like that. Honestly, if not for them, there probably wouldn't be enough book sales to justify keeping the game going at all.
But, hey, if you want to write off an entire edition of the game because of one thing in the very first playtest document, a good two years before the final version has been released, nothing I or anyone else says here is going to convince you. So, go and have fun playing the game the way you like. The rest of us will do the same.
Eh, I have no intention of playing an Ardling. But my son likes the idea so that’s good enough for me. I’m much more concerned with the mixed parentage rules than I am with the existence of a race that doesn’t interest me, but interests others.
Let's not turn this into another dogpile. Remember that this thread is literally an invitation to share your opinion. Someone who comes here to share their opinion is doing exactly what was asked of them, whether that opinion seems distasteful or not. (Rules on hate speech and so on obviously still apply, but no lines have been crossed from where I'm sitting.) One's own opinion is not erased by the presence of a contrary opinion.
To prove my point, I've deleted all the smart and witty responses that I was about to post. I'm sure you can all imagine how clever I was going to look, though.
Aye.
If a new race is not to one’s personal taste…for one reason or another…they’re perfectly free to say so.
Likewise, I’d hazard to say that if other people are excited for a new race, I’d not dampen the mood by immediately declaring the new option be banned & forgotten, when it can simply be passed over at a DM’s discretion.
Opinions welcome scrutiny; we can expect contradictions here and there, but arguing will only become tiresome.
There’s a middle ground here somewhere; and we can find it without squabbling, nitpicking, or posturing.
I’d recommend playtesting for those who are interested, and then sharing the experience.
For those uninterested, I recommend what has always worked: play the way that works at your table.
And FUN. We mustn’t forget that this should be FUN.
I have to wonder: how popular were aasimar? Would they be considered successful. I’m still half convinced that they don’t much care for them. I mean this their second attempt at replacing them.
Like, I agree with you, to an extent. The PHB should be your vanilla, then you have everything else that you can add to it to make it your own flavour. I like the idea. However, I do have a concern that nobody agrees on the default, vanilla stuff. Someone mentioned somewhere that one of the official settings (I want to say Dragonlance?) doesn't have Dwarves in it - does that mean we shouldn't have Dwarves in the PHB?
My personal thoughts are, you have in one section the core races that everyone thinks of when they think of D&D. Humans, Elves, Dwarves and Halflings. The LotR races, basically. Then in another segment, a few examples of more "out there" races, like Orcs, Dragonborn, etc, to show how experimental you can be. Because they're a separate segment (more obvious than the two segments are now), then you can just say "PHB standard races plus..." for your basic fairly restricted campaigns, but then others can see that D&D doesn't have to be about Hobbitses an Elves, but can have other things to.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Speaking only from personal experience, not very. Visually they're pretty much just human, and the people who want to play a human typically just play a human. Narratively they're pretty much born from a human (and a celestial that probably also looked like a human). They're raised by humans, as humans typically. They're just kind of lacking any real visual or narrative bite.
I thought the aasimar were pretty neat...for your human-looking character who has that extra otherworldly nature about them, without being as noticeable as, say, a tiefling.
Technically, they are not replacing aasimar: "Monsters of the Multiverse" gave aasimar an update.
Ardlings are the celestial inheritors of the lineages relating to animalistic archons & guardinals.
Aasimar draw from the human-looking celestials...angels, planetars, solars, einherjar...etc.
If the criteria is "the PHB races must be available in all published 6e settings," and we assume that 6e is backwards-compatible enough that 5e settings count as 6e settings, then it's just humans. (As it should be! I don't remember seeing any gosh-darned elves in Conan, or dwarves in Dying Earth, and these are what D&D is based on! /s) On Theros, the only PHB race is humans. That's it. So enjoy your one race option in the new PHB.
I guess that might boost the sales of the first setting guides that include elves and stuff though. Hey, maybe I found the strategy!
In order to support all of the main settings equally in a PHB, they either need to only have humans or upwards of 30 races because of how the base races differ in different worlds.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I like Ardling as a whole, I don't think they should be part of the Core rulebook. So I completely agree with OP. Make them a race that come in a second book perhaps. I would go with Aasimar as a Core race for sure. They are much more iconic.
I agree. We had one, once, and his aasimar-ness was... kind of relevant? Like, he had a good-vs-evil conflict in his head but it wasn't particularly specific. Another time, we had an evil one, and she, also, I feel, would've been just as functional if she'd been a human, thematically. Mechanically, they're okay, but not very interesting I feel. The only time I've ever been even moderately tempted to play one, was looking at the old Scourge one that could hurt itself, just because that's odd design space for 5e. But the new one doesn't even do that, so yeah, I'm not impressed.
I think the thing people want when they pick an angel race, is some way of having their character be, like... I don't want to say "the main character," but having some way to pull spotlight mechanically maybe? To make NPCs pay attention to their angst or their purity or whatever. Become a shining beacon of some kind of idea. You know what I mean? Like how Thaumaturgy is supposed to make your presence really impressive and commanding, although I never see anyone use it. Anyway, they don't get something like that. So I think they're failing to meet the brief.
Ok so effectively this thread has gone from "ardlings dont belong" to "ardlings, tieflings, and dragonborn don't belong". So if we can establish those races belong then the ardling is fine. In other words if tiefling is fine, ardling is fine.
The players handbook is a introduction to Dnd. As a world of fantasy and midevil sword and sorcery people are expecting the tolkien races. Human, dwarf, elf, orc, halfling maybe gnome. But dnd is more than just tolkien and the players handbook NEEDS to represent this right out the gate. In a game called Dungeons and DRAGONS you expect a dragon race to be in the book. But again, dnd is about more than tolkien and dragons. This is where the extra planar characters come in. Dnd is a world where devils and demons are distinctly different, with a pantheon of multiple gods from multiple religious beliefs and mythologies. There is nothing that illustrates that better to the player than tieflings and ardlings with their varried looks and origins. It also perfectly represents that this is not based on judeo-christian religious beliefs since a majority of people and players are one of the judeo-christian mono-theistic religions. It establishes itself as a FANTASY mythology through and through.
These races NEED to be here as an introduction to the wider world of DnD and to give players who are looking for more than just tolkien a taste of that in the PHB. 6 Tolkien races, one dragon race and 2 planar races that represent 2 sides of the same coin. The races people expect and a couple to introduce the wider fantasy of DnD.
You want Aasimar in PHB just make a half human half ardling, give it the ardling stats and make it look like a human. Aasimar done, and it looks and sounds as bland as ever, to me.
If they included tieflings and ommitted ardling I would be getting the same questions I have been getting for my entire dnd 5e career. "Why is there no celestial counterpart to the tiefling in the PHB." Followed by "here is a source book for Aasimar" followed by "why is this race so much more bland than tieflings". Ardlings solve both problems and, as I just pointed out, they help intoduce the wider world of DnD and it's fantasy mythology. Which is what the PHB is, an introduction to what DnD is.
Edit: I will throw you a bone, we need a race for the PHB that serves as the celestial counterpart to tieflings. As an exotic race meant to introduce the concepts of the dnd multiverse and serve as counterpart to one of the most beloved exotic races this race must have an exotic design that looks drastically different from humans, dwarves, elves, gnomes and halflings. So aasimar does not fit the bill. Is there another race that fits this bill with a long standing tradition that we can put in the PHB or does Ardlings solve this long standing void and work perfectly for this need?
. . . Do you not know what Guardinals are? "Animal celestial people have shouldn't be a part of the game". Dude, animal celestial people have been a part of the game for longer than I've been alive. The Ardling is basically just a playable Guardinal/Hound Archon race.
I don't like Guardinals/Hound Archons and think Ardlings would work best for an Ancient Egyptian setting, but I don't think they should be excluded from the game or the core rulebooks. I think including a celestial counterpart to Tieflings is a logical choice if Tieflings are in the PHB (and they're too popular to not be), but would like the race to be merged with Aasimar because of how similar the race concepts are.
Also, your whole stance that "the core fundamentals of D&D are objective, identifiable, and tangible things" is ridiculous. D&D means a ton of different things to millions of different people. There's no way to distill the most important parts of D&D's identity into a single thing that literally everyone in the hobby will agree on. And the core parts of D&D have always been changing, like the multiple different approaches to AC, Initiative, and Spellcasting that D&D has had in its 50-year history. There are people that will profess that 4e is an aberration that can't be considered D&D, while others will say that it's the best/purest version of D&D because of how it assumes heroic fantasy and a focus on combat as the base assumptions of the game. Some people say that D&D died with TSR (which is why OSR exists), and others think that 5e is the best edition of the game. Some say that Eberron is too far away from the original settings of the game to be a good D&D setting, while others think it's the best because of how it takes D&D's much ignored aspects (the consequences of magic, the different races, etc) to their logical extreme (by having magical corporations, high "technology" due to magitek, a lot of different cultures for every race, etc).
This community cannot even agree on the definition of the game, much less what the "objective, identifiable parts of the game are". You know what D&D is to you, but that doesn't mean it's the "objective, true version of the game" or that the majority of the community agrees with you.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I want to note that, while I do not like Aasimar, I would be ok with Ardlings being wrapped into Aasimar and have them be the same race. My issue with Aasimar is how bland their design typically is since they are largely just pretty humans. And even their lore just makes them humans who touched celestial areas. Basically they are half human, half celestial. Which technically the PHB has a way to make Aasimar with Ardlings and Humans in the book and the half-race rules. The other problem with Aasimar is this part of their lore "Aasimar are born to serve as champions of the gods, their births hailed as blessed events." This is problematic for what Wizards is trying to do with their PHB races. They are all clearly meant to be able to play any class any background with any alignment. They do not want any of the races to be pushed in any direction and instead let the player make the character THEY want to make. Tieflings have long been able to be very separate their demonic heritage and be well rounded individuals. Aasimar have not. The Ardlings have been set up to also have a wide array of personalities separate their divine origins as well. Aasimar have not. Aasimar lore ties them to their deity almost as tightly as an unwilling warlock is tied to its patron. They aren't free enough to perform the job of core race that Wizards is going for. So while I am not opposed to Aasimar and Ardlings being the same, this would have to come with a pretty drastic change to Aasimar lore to free them from these kinds of player lore constraints.
Aasimar are boring because Angels are boring in 5e (and have been for pretty much every edition of the game except 4e). 4e's Aasimar-replacement, the Deva race, was a far more interesting race with better lore and more to them than just "angel people" due to the whole reincarnation part of them.
I would love if 4e's Devas were to come back in 5.5e because 5e Devas are just defined as "the weakest angels", but 5e was made as an apology for 4e being so different from previous editions.
And Celestials in D&D have always had less going on for them than Fiends. Fiends have the Blood War, the Archfiends, and cool enemies to fight. Celestials just have a few winged people/animals that live in the Upper Planes that all kind of blend together (except Ysgard) with nothing interesting going on, which is why both Ardlings and Aasimar are boring.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I would definitely argue that just by making them look different AND having their lore simply state that while their power comes from the celestial planes that their moral and ethical outlook is self determined is already a huge step up. It makes it where you could make an ardling that has a head that resembles a sphinx cat with fur on its shoulders and one that resembles an almost demonic looking goat having the same powers coming form the same planes and still be drastically different and exist side by side in the same room. You can have a fox and a hound head. You could have all of these walking around the same town with each one of them being a different animals head all dealing with normal every day problems right along side elves and halflings and dwarfs. I can already imagine a character who is stepping out on his heroes journey for the first time leaving his farm where everyone he knew was basically human, hobbit, gnome or dwarf and now he steps into the wider world and boom, a red skinned devil person with horns, a blue skinned one with a tail AND horns, a Purple skinned one, Golden dragon people, Blue dragon people, Silver dragon people, Pale white dragon people , people with spectral wings that have a panda bear head, the head of a stork and a Boars head and Frog headed person all chuckling and dealing in the background over a pint. The red devil person with black irises finishes talking with the eagle headed individual his downy feathers along his shoulders fluffed as he attempts to hide a bag of coin slipped under the table with a glare in his eyes and a dagger across his belt. If this doesn't represent the exotic heroes journey tavern/ in a wider world now feel I don't know what does.
Ardlings are an EXTREMELY natural evolution of the game. They are a response to a need for an exotic race to be a counterpart to the tieflings which are an extremely popular race that they can't take out of the core rule book. There isn't anything more natural than creating something to fit a need that has arisen from the way people play the game. This is where the nat 1 and nat 20 rule is coming from. This is where the spell list rule is coming from. This is where the rules for races and backgrounds have come from in this play test. This is where this entire new Players hand book has come from. The response to a need for refinement and to bring updates that match the way players actually play the game and to match their expectations. And players are going to expect an exotic counterpart race to the Tieflings, there is nothing more natural than creating one to fit what the players expect.
If you think they won't survive based on feedback you have been burying your head far too deep in the ground and have not been listening nearly hard enough. This is the one change I can nearly guarantee will make it if they are listening to feedback. The only thing is they might flesh out the lore a little bit more, but beyond that I would wager feedback shows big support for the new race in the PHB.
This is funny. There was a time you read dwarf for the first time, there was a time you read orc for the first time and there was a time you read about Tieflings for the first time. The fact that just because it is new that it is not a natural evolution is just outright idiotic. It is new, but it evolved naturally from the need and desire for an exotic race to be the celestial counterpart to the Tiefling. It wouldn't exist at all in play test material or anywhere else if this perceived need didn't exist.
Edit: you know what you are probably right. Wizards of the Coast didn't have any plan or reason to create Ardling they were just in the office throwing darts at a board one day.
"Ok Mr. Ardling you are up, we are creating a new race for one of the books today lets see what you make." Dart board with human, dwarf, elf, orc and halfling is brought out. "Alright throw the dart Mr. Ardling" .... Ardling closes his eyes and lets the dart fly.... it lands on human. "alright, alright human, BUT..." And they bring out the next dart board, This one has purple skin, animal heads, giant backfin/sail, and tentacles. Ardling closes his eyes and throws the dart.... Animal heads. "Ok, Ok. Animal heads we can work with that." He brings out the next board. "Ok where are they getting thier powers, lower planes, fey wilds, elemental planes, mortal realm." Ardling throws the dart.... the exec is thinking... 'come on fey wilds, come on fey wilds'.... "Alright fey wilds!" but the exec is wrong, the dart didn't hit the fey wilds, there is a small spot on the board everyone forgot about, a spot nearly untouched by the darts.... Ardling meekly states "ummmm sir, its on Upper planes, celestial"... the exec looks back "WHAT!" and sure enough there it is this new race will be celestial.... the exec is confused but comes around to it thinking "we can work with this, alright Mr. Ardling what book are we putting this in?" The final dart board, Planescape, giants, and the new PHB. "Um sir, why is the PHB on this dart board, we don't need another race for that." Says Ardling. The exec: "ah its tiny you wont hit that AND the celestial thing at the same time, never in a million years." "Alright", says Mr. Ardling, but this time he takes it as a challenge, he aims for that PHB slot just to show he can land it, and HE DOES and thus in remembrance for the first time creature making the execs name the new Race Ardling.
Yep completely random, no thought what so ever, no reason at all. This didn't naturally evolve from anything at all. Complete accident that they were made. I am sure this is how it happened and not them responding to players expressed desires at all.