They are a little bit more than similar right, I mean, I know we are being a little facetious here taking a few jabs at each other, but your not seriously suggesting that because Draconians from Dragonlance were not called Dragonborn and had some minor cosmetic difference that this somehow qualifies them as a completely new invention?
"Minor cosmetic differences"? How the hell are you defining "minor" and "cosmetic" in that sentence? Dragonborn have Breath Weapons. Draconians explode/petrify/etc when they die. Dragonborn have 3 different subraces, Chromatic, Gem, and Metallic. Draconians have 5, all based on what type of Metallic Dragon's egg they hatched from. Bahamut can turn someone into a Dragonborn with divine magic. Draconians are created from the corrupted eggs of the stupidest good guys in a D&D fantasy novel. Dragonborn are as morally diverse as humans. Draconians serve Takhisis and are attempting to conquer(?) the world.
Yes, that's just "cosmetic", obviously. And "minor". Just because they're bipedal and draconic, they're obviously identical concepts with just "minor", "cosmetic" differences. Feel free to ignore all of the stuff that makes them completely different if it helps your myopic argument though.
It's a bit like suggesting that Halflings were a new invention because clearly, they aren't Hobbits or that Wizards aren't Magic-Users because they have some different spells.
No, it's not. It's like saying Kender are a new invention because they're not the same of Hobbits. And that argument would be accurate. Kender clearly have some similarities with Hobbits, but they're distinct culturally, mechanically, and in their role in their respective stories.
I understand that you guys think it's vital to establish the point that legacy and D&D culture play no role in how the game should be designed for the purpose of defending this nonsense, but history doesn't really agree with you.
Yeah, that's not what we're saying. We're saying that new races can be added to the PHB shortly after their introduction. Dragonborn were invented in 2006 and were put in a PHB in 2008. That's a two year difference. Ardlings were invented in 2022 and seem to be in the PHB in 2024. That's the same time period from the invention of the race to their publication in a PHB (assuming the Ardling is in the PHB). And we're also saying that Ardlings didn't just come out of the blue with no basis in D&D tradition, being based off of the Guardinals (you keep ignoring that Guardinals exist even after several times of us reminding you of them).
I think we can safely put this argument to bed, but I will put a pin in this little topic so that when the floor falls out on this nonsense, I can come back here and have my "I told you so" moment.
You're not even trying to be civil anymore. Will you please turn down the condescension?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I wish I could unsubscribe from a thread using the mobile site.
Rotate the screen. It brings up the desktop site - or at least a version of it. You can unsubscribe from there. It's under tools at the top of the page.
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.
So we established that a similar concept dating way back with a different name is a good basis for puting a new name on the concept and adding it to the PHB. Cool, Gardnals have existed for decades and have minor cosmetic differences from Ardlings, so Ardlings are just adding a core aspect of DnD multiverse to the PHB. All good done. If they can make draconians dragonborn they can make gardnals Ardlings.
So we established that a similar concept dating way back with a different name is a good basis for puting a new name on the concept and adding it to the PHB. Cool, Gardnals have existed for decades and have minor cosmetic differences from Ardlings, so Ardlings are just adding a core aspect of DnD multiverse to the PHB. All good done. If they can make draconians dragonborn they can make gardnals Ardlings.
...or, ...OR!...
They could just use Guardinals and Draconians in the PHB instead. ;-P
.
.
.
.
Dragonborn in 3e was an interesting and unique concept where rather than being its own individual race, it was a ritual that applied the template as an award/reward to an individual from any pre-existing humanoid race whenever they would choose to pledge/dedicate themselves to the service to Bahamut. Bahamat would therefore convert humans, dwarves, Elves, Halflings, etc. into Dragonborn versions of the same: sharing the core abilities of their base race but also adding some draconic abilities into the mix.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
It makes me feel old when people are unaware of the guardinals, but I have the book of exalted deeds and it was just so cool back then. Does having animal headed races feel a bit odd? No more so that space hippos, embrace the absurd, have fun. Everyone gets joy in different ways.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
So... My issue with Ardlings (which someone may have mentioned already, but it's 10 pages...) isn't that they're 'furry'...
It's that they're Celestial. I.e. automatically associated with Good Aligned planes.
While it's great that D&D is trying to move beyond the tired old cosmology of "Good = Angels, Evil = Demons and Devils" it should be noted that not all of the animal-headed gods of Egypt, the animal-aspect gods (and the shape-shifting servants thereof) of Hinduism or the actual animal deities of some First Nations religions are 'Good' by D&D standards or the cosmology of the religion they're from and you wouldn't insult the adherents of those religions by saying so.
It's like whoever designed this was aware enough to know that representing gods from religions outside the western cultural norm was a good idea, but not aware enough to let go of the established D&D notion 'Beings serving Gods = Angels = Celestial'.
The... eh.... The 'literal freaking angel wings as a racial ability literally called Angelic Flight' thing doesn't help.
So... My issue with Ardlings (which someone may have mentioned already, but it's 10 pages...) isn't that they're 'furry'...
It's that they're Celestial. I.e. automatically associated with Good Aligned planes.
While it's great that D&D is trying to move beyond the tired old cosmology of "Good = Angels, Evil = Demons and Devils" it should be noted that not all of the animal-headed gods of Egypt, the animal-aspect gods (and the shape-shifting servants thereof) of Hinduism or the actual animal deities of some First Nations religions are 'Good' by D&D standards or the cosmology of the religion they're from and you wouldn't insult the adherents of those religions by saying so.
It's like whoever designed this was aware enough to know that representing gods from religions outside the western cultural norm was a good idea, but not aware enough to let go of the established D&D notion 'Beings serving Gods = Angels = Celestial'.
The... eh.... The 'literal freaking angel wings as a racial ability literally called Angelic Flight' thing doesn't help.
Well the thing about this is, in DnD all of those egyptian gods, and Hindu gods and the like would be considered "Good" or they wouldn't be considered gods per se in DnD. It is a case where this goes back to the fictional mythology of DnD where this Celestial race is a combination of Hindu, Egyptian, Judeo-Christian, Roman, Greek, Norse and even Aztec myth that are all coalesced into a single creature that is simultaneously none of them and all of them. Which, to me, is a good way to introduce the strange mythology of DnD to a new player. People here celestial they think angels so angle wings, but we also want to introduce that it isn't just your typical Judeo-Christian angel, the upper planes of DnD are more varried than that.
So... My issue with Ardlings (which someone may have mentioned already, but it's 10 pages...) isn't that they're 'furry'...
It's that they're Celestial. I.e. automatically associated with Good Aligned planes.
While it's great that D&D is trying to move beyond the tired old cosmology of "Good = Angels, Evil = Demons and Devils" it should be noted that not all of the animal-headed gods of Egypt, the animal-aspect gods (and the shape-shifting servants thereof) of Hinduism or the actual animal deities of some First Nations religions are 'Good' by D&D standards or the cosmology of the religion they're from and you wouldn't insult the adherents of those religions by saying so.
It's like whoever designed this was aware enough to know that representing gods from religions outside the western cultural norm was a good idea, but not aware enough to let go of the established D&D notion 'Beings serving Gods = Angels = Celestial'.
The... eh.... The 'literal freaking angel wings as a racial ability literally called Angelic Flight' thing doesn't help.
I get where you're coming from. To be honest, what WotC needs to do is focus more on evil celestials. Take angels for example. They're usually portrayed as good aligned servants of various gods. But the issue crops up of what about the servants of the evil gods? There are a ******* ton of evil deities in both DnD and real life mythology. Where are their celestial servants? Where are my evil angels? And I don't mean fallen angels who have stopped serving their gods interests, no, I mean where are the evil angels faithfully serving their evil deities? There's this huge design space that WotC seems to not at all be using.
So... My issue with Ardlings (which someone may have mentioned already, but it's 10 pages...) isn't that they're 'furry'...
It's that they're Celestial. I.e. automatically associated with Good Aligned planes.
While it's great that D&D is trying to move beyond the tired old cosmology of "Good = Angels, Evil = Demons and Devils" it should be noted that not all of the animal-headed gods of Egypt, the animal-aspect gods (and the shape-shifting servants thereof) of Hinduism or the actual animal deities of some First Nations religions are 'Good' by D&D standards or the cosmology of the religion they're from and you wouldn't insult the adherents of those religions by saying so.
It's like whoever designed this was aware enough to know that representing gods from religions outside the western cultural norm was a good idea, but not aware enough to let go of the established D&D notion 'Beings serving Gods = Angels = Celestial'.
The... eh.... The 'literal freaking angel wings as a racial ability literally called Angelic Flight' thing doesn't help.
I get where you're coming from. To be honest, what WotC needs to do is focus more on evil celestials. Take angels for example. They're usually portrayed as good aligned servants of various gods. But the issue crops up of what about the servants of the evil gods? There are a ******* ton of evil deities in both DnD and real life mythology. Where are their celestial servants? Where are my evil angels? And I don't mean fallen angels who have stopped serving their gods interests, no, I mean where are the evil angels faithfully serving their evil deities? There's this huge design space that WotC seems to not at all be using.
To be fair, that is already adressed in the D&D cosmology for ages. Celestials come from the upper planes, thus they are only for the good (with some neutral tendencies mixed in) aligned planes. Fiends are from the lower planes, thus evil. Evil gods have fiends serving them, there are no evil gods on the upper planes, that is the whole idea behind that.
So... My issue with Ardlings (which someone may have mentioned already, but it's 10 pages...) isn't that they're 'furry'...
It's that they're Celestial. I.e. automatically associated with Good Aligned planes.
While it's great that D&D is trying to move beyond the tired old cosmology of "Good = Angels, Evil = Demons and Devils" it should be noted that not all of the animal-headed gods of Egypt, the animal-aspect gods (and the shape-shifting servants thereof) of Hinduism or the actual animal deities of some First Nations religions are 'Good' by D&D standards or the cosmology of the religion they're from and you wouldn't insult the adherents of those religions by saying so.
It's like whoever designed this was aware enough to know that representing gods from religions outside the western cultural norm was a good idea, but not aware enough to let go of the established D&D notion 'Beings serving Gods = Angels = Celestial'.
The... eh.... The 'literal freaking angel wings as a racial ability literally called Angelic Flight' thing doesn't help.
I get where you're coming from. To be honest, what WotC needs to do is focus more on evil celestials. Take angels for example. They're usually portrayed as good aligned servants of various gods. But the issue crops up of what about the servants of the evil gods? There are a ****ing ton of evil deities in both DnD and real life mythology. Where are their celestial servants? Where are my evil angels? And I don't mean fallen angels who have stopped serving their gods interests, no, I mean where are the evil angels faithfully serving their evil deities? There's this huge design space that WotC seems to not at all be using.
To be fair, that is already adressed in the D&D cosmology for ages. Celestials come from the upper planes, thus they are only for the good (with some neutral tendencies mixed in) aligned planes. Fiends are from the lower planes, thus evil. Evil gods have fiends serving them, there are no evil gods on the upper planes, that is the whole idea behind that.
Yes, and that's kind of stupid. It's why celestials as a creature type are so ******* boring, so much so that WotC have hardly even bothered printing the stats for any in the entirety of 5es lifespan. It's why they've tried to replace Aasimar like 3 times, so they can get an interesting celestial themed race, but haven't seemed to realize that the problem doesn't lie with the race, it lies with celestials and their portrayal of them.
Looking at past editions, celestials can be extremely varied. Seemingly, however, WotC does not want to have Celestials as enemies of the players... dozens of fiends in the books, only a handful celestials... a shame, I agree
So... My issue with Ardlings (which someone may have mentioned already, but it's 10 pages...) isn't that they're 'furry'...
It's that they're Celestial. I.e. automatically associated with Good Aligned planes.
While it's great that D&D is trying to move beyond the tired old cosmology of "Good = Angels, Evil = Demons and Devils" it should be noted that not all of the animal-headed gods of Egypt, the animal-aspect gods (and the shape-shifting servants thereof) of Hinduism or the actual animal deities of some First Nations religions are 'Good' by D&D standards or the cosmology of the religion they're from and you wouldn't insult the adherents of those religions by saying so.
It's like whoever designed this was aware enough to know that representing gods from religions outside the western cultural norm was a good idea, but not aware enough to let go of the established D&D notion 'Beings serving Gods = Angels = Celestial'.
The... eh.... The 'literal freaking angel wings as a racial ability literally called Angelic Flight' thing doesn't help.
I get where you're coming from. To be honest, what WotC needs to do is focus more on evil celestials. Take angels for example. They're usually portrayed as good aligned servants of various gods. But the issue crops up of what about the servants of the evil gods? There are a ****ing ton of evil deities in both DnD and real life mythology. Where are their celestial servants? Where are my evil angels? And I don't mean fallen angels who have stopped serving their gods interests, no, I mean where are the evil angels faithfully serving their evil deities? There's this huge design space that WotC seems to not at all be using.
To be fair, that is already adressed in the D&D cosmology for ages. Celestials come from the upper planes, thus they are only for the good (with some neutral tendencies mixed in) aligned planes. Fiends are from the lower planes, thus evil. Evil gods have fiends serving them, there are no evil gods on the upper planes, that is the whole idea behind that.
Yes, and that's kind of stupid. It's why celestials as a creature type are so ****ing boring, so much so that WotC have hardly even bothered printing the stats for any in the entirety of 5es lifespan. It's why they've tried to replace Aasimar like 3 times, so they can get an interesting celestial themed race, but haven't seemed to realize that the problem doesn't lie with the race, it lies with celestials and their portrayal of them.
Well in this case, this celestial race CAN be evil, or good. They are just as fallible as people just like the Tiefling is not stuck being evil just because they are originated from the lower planes. People have had no issue with Tieflings breaking out from evil for sake of evil and thus not being boring, so people shouldnt have an issue with ardlings not being good for sake of good. Also the animal head thing adds further distinction to set them apart as a race which is what Aasimar was missing.
So... My issue with Ardlings (which someone may have mentioned already, but it's 10 pages...) isn't that they're 'furry'...
It's that they're Celestial. I.e. automatically associated with Good Aligned planes.
While it's great that D&D is trying to move beyond the tired old cosmology of "Good = Angels, Evil = Demons and Devils" it should be noted that not all of the animal-headed gods of Egypt, the animal-aspect gods (and the shape-shifting servants thereof) of Hinduism or the actual animal deities of some First Nations religions are 'Good' by D&D standards or the cosmology of the religion they're from and you wouldn't insult the adherents of those religions by saying so.
It's like whoever designed this was aware enough to know that representing gods from religions outside the western cultural norm was a good idea, but not aware enough to let go of the established D&D notion 'Beings serving Gods = Angels = Celestial'.
The... eh.... The 'literal freaking angel wings as a racial ability literally called Angelic Flight' thing doesn't help.
This is one of my main issues as well, though I was far worse at getting my point across.
So... My issue with Ardlings (which someone may have mentioned already, but it's 10 pages...) isn't that they're 'furry'...
It's that they're Celestial. I.e. automatically associated with Good Aligned planes.
While it's great that D&D is trying to move beyond the tired old cosmology of "Good = Angels, Evil = Demons and Devils" it should be noted that not all of the animal-headed gods of Egypt, the animal-aspect gods (and the shape-shifting servants thereof) of Hinduism or the actual animal deities of some First Nations religions are 'Good' by D&D standards or the cosmology of the religion they're from and you wouldn't insult the adherents of those religions by saying so.
It's like whoever designed this was aware enough to know that representing gods from religions outside the western cultural norm was a good idea, but not aware enough to let go of the established D&D notion 'Beings serving Gods = Angels = Celestial'.
The... eh.... The 'literal freaking angel wings as a racial ability literally called Angelic Flight' thing doesn't help.
I get where you're coming from. To be honest, what WotC needs to do is focus more on evil celestials. Take angels for example. They're usually portrayed as good aligned servants of various gods. But the issue crops up of what about the servants of the evil gods? There are a ****ing ton of evil deities in both DnD and real life mythology. Where are their celestial servants? Where are my evil angels? And I don't mean fallen angels who have stopped serving their gods interests, no, I mean where are the evil angels faithfully serving their evil deities? There's this huge design space that WotC seems to not at all be using.
To be fair, that is already adressed in the D&D cosmology for ages. Celestials come from the upper planes, thus they are only for the good (with some neutral tendencies mixed in) aligned planes. Fiends are from the lower planes, thus evil. Evil gods have fiends serving them, there are no evil gods on the upper planes, that is the whole idea behind that.
Yes, and that's kind of stupid. It's why celestials as a creature type are so ****ing boring, so much so that WotC have hardly even bothered printing the stats for any in the entirety of 5es lifespan. It's why they've tried to replace Aasimar like 3 times, so they can get an interesting celestial themed race, but haven't seemed to realize that the problem doesn't lie with the race, it lies with celestials and their portrayal of them.
Well in this case, this celestial race CAN be evil, or good. They are just as fallible as people just like the Tiefling is not stuck being evil just because they are originated from the lower planes. People have had no issue with Tieflings breaking out from evil for sake of evil and thus not being boring, so people shouldnt have an issue with ardlings not being good for sake of good. Also the animal head thing adds further distinction to set them apart as a race which is what Aasimar was missing.
I agree? I've got no problem with Ardlings. My problem is WotCs current use of celestials.
Wanted to say sorry if I am a bit aggressive with my advocation of things like Ardling and backgrounds. I expected crit, and inspiration, and nat 1/20 rule to get push back. I expected there to be a talk of balance for dragonborn and other races. But I was not expecting people to go wild on "here is a new race to play". Or "You can now customize your background to your liking take the ASI, Skills, tool, language and now all new feat of your choice." I thought most people wanted more ways to make their character distinct from each other at level 1. So the fact that these 2 things have gotten so much push back boggles my mind.
Wanted to say sorry if I am a bit aggressive with my advocation of things like Ardling and backgrounds. I expected crit, and inspiration, and nat 1/20 rule to get push back. I expected there to be a talk of balance for dragonborn and other races. But I was not expecting people to go wild on "here is a new race to play". Or "You can now customize your background to your liking take the ASI, Skills, tool, language and now all new feat of your choice." I thought most people wanted more ways to make their character distinct from each other at level 1. So the fact that these 2 things have gotten so much push back boggles my mind.
Looking at the discussions, it does seem like most people are fine with the changes, and there's just 1 or 2 people who have complaints. Complaints which usually boil down to 'This isn't the way it was and I don't like change'. That said, it's an edition change, you've always got to expect a handful of people to push back on any positive change introduced. It's unfortunately the way of people.
So... My issue with Ardlings (which someone may have mentioned already, but it's 10 pages...) isn't that they're 'furry'...
It's that they're Celestial. I.e. automatically associated with Good Aligned planes.
While it's great that D&D is trying to move beyond the tired old cosmology of "Good = Angels, Evil = Demons and Devils" it should be noted that not all of the animal-headed gods of Egypt, the animal-aspect gods (and the shape-shifting servants thereof) of Hinduism or the actual animal deities of some First Nations religions are 'Good' by D&D standards or the cosmology of the religion they're from and you wouldn't insult the adherents of those religions by saying so.
It's like whoever designed this was aware enough to know that representing gods from religions outside the western cultural norm was a good idea, but not aware enough to let go of the established D&D notion 'Beings serving Gods = Angels = Celestial'.
The... eh.... The 'literal freaking angel wings as a racial ability literally called Angelic Flight' thing doesn't help.
I get where you're coming from. To be honest, what WotC needs to do is focus more on evil celestials. Take angels for example. They're usually portrayed as good aligned servants of various gods. But the issue crops up of what about the servants of the evil gods? There are a ****ing ton of evil deities in both DnD and real life mythology. Where are their celestial servants? Where are my evil angels? And I don't mean fallen angels who have stopped serving their gods interests, no, I mean where are the evil angels faithfully serving their evil deities? There's this huge design space that WotC seems to not at all be using.
To be fair, that is already adressed in the D&D cosmology for ages. Celestials come from the upper planes, thus they are only for the good (with some neutral tendencies mixed in) aligned planes. Fiends are from the lower planes, thus evil. Evil gods have fiends serving them, there are no evil gods on the upper planes, that is the whole idea behind that.
I know that Asmodeus, Tiamat, and Lolth have fiendish servants, but I don’t know about the others. Does Bane l, for instance, have to rent devils from Asmodeus?
So... My issue with Ardlings (which someone may have mentioned already, but it's 10 pages...) isn't that they're 'furry'...
It's that they're Celestial. I.e. automatically associated with Good Aligned planes.
While it's great that D&D is trying to move beyond the tired old cosmology of "Good = Angels, Evil = Demons and Devils" it should be noted that not all of the animal-headed gods of Egypt, the animal-aspect gods (and the shape-shifting servants thereof) of Hinduism or the actual animal deities of some First Nations religions are 'Good' by D&D standards or the cosmology of the religion they're from and you wouldn't insult the adherents of those religions by saying so.
It's like whoever designed this was aware enough to know that representing gods from religions outside the western cultural norm was a good idea, but not aware enough to let go of the established D&D notion 'Beings serving Gods = Angels = Celestial'.
The... eh.... The 'literal freaking angel wings as a racial ability literally called Angelic Flight' thing doesn't help.
I get where you're coming from. To be honest, what WotC needs to do is focus more on evil celestials. Take angels for example. They're usually portrayed as good aligned servants of various gods. But the issue crops up of what about the servants of the evil gods? There are a ****ing ton of evil deities in both DnD and real life mythology. Where are their celestial servants? Where are my evil angels? And I don't mean fallen angels who have stopped serving their gods interests, no, I mean where are the evil angels faithfully serving their evil deities? There's this huge design space that WotC seems to not at all be using.
To be fair, that is already adressed in the D&D cosmology for ages. Celestials come from the upper planes, thus they are only for the good (with some neutral tendencies mixed in) aligned planes. Fiends are from the lower planes, thus evil. Evil gods have fiends serving them, there are no evil gods on the upper planes, that is the whole idea behind that.
I know that Asmodeus, Tiamat, and Lolth have fiendish servants, but I don’t know about the others. Does Bane l, for instance, have to rent devils from Asmodeus?
From older sources, Bane's servants are indeed Baatezu, he has his own devils, no need to rent them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"Minor cosmetic differences"? How the hell are you defining "minor" and "cosmetic" in that sentence? Dragonborn have Breath Weapons. Draconians explode/petrify/etc when they die. Dragonborn have 3 different subraces, Chromatic, Gem, and Metallic. Draconians have 5, all based on what type of Metallic Dragon's egg they hatched from. Bahamut can turn someone into a Dragonborn with divine magic. Draconians are created from the corrupted eggs of the stupidest good guys in a D&D fantasy novel. Dragonborn are as morally diverse as humans. Draconians serve Takhisis and are attempting to conquer(?) the world.
Yes, that's just "cosmetic", obviously. And "minor". Just because they're bipedal and draconic, they're obviously identical concepts with just "minor", "cosmetic" differences. Feel free to ignore all of the stuff that makes them completely different if it helps your myopic argument though.
No, it's not. It's like saying Kender are a new invention because they're not the same of Hobbits. And that argument would be accurate. Kender clearly have some similarities with Hobbits, but they're distinct culturally, mechanically, and in their role in their respective stories.
Yeah, that's not what we're saying. We're saying that new races can be added to the PHB shortly after their introduction. Dragonborn were invented in 2006 and were put in a PHB in 2008. That's a two year difference. Ardlings were invented in 2022 and seem to be in the PHB in 2024. That's the same time period from the invention of the race to their publication in a PHB (assuming the Ardling is in the PHB). And we're also saying that Ardlings didn't just come out of the blue with no basis in D&D tradition, being based off of the Guardinals (you keep ignoring that Guardinals exist even after several times of us reminding you of them).
You're not even trying to be civil anymore. Will you please turn down the condescension?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It’s getting pretty dicey here.
Rotate the screen. It brings up the desktop site - or at least a version of it. You can unsubscribe from there. It's under tools at the top of the page.
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.
So we established that a similar concept dating way back with a different name is a good basis for puting a new name on the concept and adding it to the PHB. Cool, Gardnals have existed for decades and have minor cosmetic differences from Ardlings, so Ardlings are just adding a core aspect of DnD multiverse to the PHB. All good done. If they can make draconians dragonborn they can make gardnals Ardlings.
...or, ...OR!...
They could just use Guardinals and Draconians in the PHB instead. ;-P
.
.
.
.
Dragonborn in 3e was an interesting and unique concept where rather than being its own individual race, it was a ritual that applied the template as an award/reward to an individual from any pre-existing humanoid race whenever they would choose to pledge/dedicate themselves to the service to Bahamut. Bahamat would therefore convert humans, dwarves, Elves, Halflings, etc. into Dragonborn versions of the same: sharing the core abilities of their base race but also adding some draconic abilities into the mix.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
It makes me feel old when people are unaware of the guardinals, but I have the book of exalted deeds and it was just so cool back then. Does having animal headed races feel a bit odd? No more so that space hippos, embrace the absurd, have fun. Everyone gets joy in different ways.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
So... My issue with Ardlings (which someone may have mentioned already, but it's 10 pages...) isn't that they're 'furry'...
It's that they're Celestial. I.e. automatically associated with Good Aligned planes.
While it's great that D&D is trying to move beyond the tired old cosmology of "Good = Angels, Evil = Demons and Devils" it should be noted that not all of the animal-headed gods of Egypt, the animal-aspect gods (and the shape-shifting servants thereof) of Hinduism or the actual animal deities of some First Nations religions are 'Good' by D&D standards or the cosmology of the religion they're from and you wouldn't insult the adherents of those religions by saying so.
It's like whoever designed this was aware enough to know that representing gods from religions outside the western cultural norm was a good idea, but not aware enough to let go of the established D&D notion 'Beings serving Gods = Angels = Celestial'.
The... eh.... The 'literal freaking angel wings as a racial ability literally called Angelic Flight' thing doesn't help.
Well the thing about this is, in DnD all of those egyptian gods, and Hindu gods and the like would be considered "Good" or they wouldn't be considered gods per se in DnD. It is a case where this goes back to the fictional mythology of DnD where this Celestial race is a combination of Hindu, Egyptian, Judeo-Christian, Roman, Greek, Norse and even Aztec myth that are all coalesced into a single creature that is simultaneously none of them and all of them. Which, to me, is a good way to introduce the strange mythology of DnD to a new player. People here celestial they think angels so angle wings, but we also want to introduce that it isn't just your typical Judeo-Christian angel, the upper planes of DnD are more varried than that.
I get where you're coming from. To be honest, what WotC needs to do is focus more on evil celestials. Take angels for example. They're usually portrayed as good aligned servants of various gods. But the issue crops up of what about the servants of the evil gods? There are a ******* ton of evil deities in both DnD and real life mythology. Where are their celestial servants? Where are my evil angels? And I don't mean fallen angels who have stopped serving their gods interests, no, I mean where are the evil angels faithfully serving their evil deities? There's this huge design space that WotC seems to not at all be using.
To be fair, that is already adressed in the D&D cosmology for ages. Celestials come from the upper planes, thus they are only for the good (with some neutral tendencies mixed in) aligned planes. Fiends are from the lower planes, thus evil. Evil gods have fiends serving them, there are no evil gods on the upper planes, that is the whole idea behind that.
Yes, and that's kind of stupid. It's why celestials as a creature type are so ******* boring, so much so that WotC have hardly even bothered printing the stats for any in the entirety of 5es lifespan. It's why they've tried to replace Aasimar like 3 times, so they can get an interesting celestial themed race, but haven't seemed to realize that the problem doesn't lie with the race, it lies with celestials and their portrayal of them.
Looking at past editions, celestials can be extremely varied. Seemingly, however, WotC does not want to have Celestials as enemies of the players... dozens of fiends in the books, only a handful celestials... a shame, I agree
Well in this case, this celestial race CAN be evil, or good. They are just as fallible as people just like the Tiefling is not stuck being evil just because they are originated from the lower planes. People have had no issue with Tieflings breaking out from evil for sake of evil and thus not being boring, so people shouldnt have an issue with ardlings not being good for sake of good. Also the animal head thing adds further distinction to set them apart as a race which is what Aasimar was missing.
Ardlings are humanoid btw. not Celestials.
This is one of my main issues as well, though I was far worse at getting my point across.
I agree? I've got no problem with Ardlings. My problem is WotCs current use of celestials.
Wanted to say sorry if I am a bit aggressive with my advocation of things like Ardling and backgrounds. I expected crit, and inspiration, and nat 1/20 rule to get push back. I expected there to be a talk of balance for dragonborn and other races. But I was not expecting people to go wild on "here is a new race to play". Or "You can now customize your background to your liking take the ASI, Skills, tool, language and now all new feat of your choice." I thought most people wanted more ways to make their character distinct from each other at level 1. So the fact that these 2 things have gotten so much push back boggles my mind.
Looking at the discussions, it does seem like most people are fine with the changes, and there's just 1 or 2 people who have complaints. Complaints which usually boil down to 'This isn't the way it was and I don't like change'. That said, it's an edition change, you've always got to expect a handful of people to push back on any positive change introduced. It's unfortunately the way of people.
I know that Asmodeus, Tiamat, and Lolth have fiendish servants, but I don’t know about the others. Does Bane l, for instance, have to rent devils from Asmodeus?
From older sources, Bane's servants are indeed Baatezu, he has his own devils, no need to rent them.