It feels like it ruins the whole point of the race. Every person I've played with that played a tiefling had the fact that they were outcasts as at least part of the reason why they wanted to play it. They ENJOYED being on the fringe of society and toeing the line between being normal (if usually highly chaotic) people and people's perception of them being, well, hellspawn. They would do things like bluff to pretend to go full demon/evil to scare away bandits or their character would be the kind who naturally enjoyed being on the less-reputable side of life. It was why they wanted to play the race. Making them 'widely accepted' feels well-intentioned but misguided and ruining the whole point. Am I alone in this experience? Am I mis-interpreting it?
I agree with you, but it's a wider thing affecting many races. Now Orcs, Goblins, Bugbear, Hobgoblins, etc are no longer considered to be inherently evil; These races have all changed dramatically. After all the Playtest is basically showing Orc is going PHB and their flavour text includes reference to an orc king who ruled successfully by literally peace/defensive treaty with everybody else around. However, how races are accepted are still going to be determined by setting/campaign, since specific always overrules general; Tiefling now being widely accepted is general.
For example, Tiefling probably aren't going to be treated well near Eltural, in a campaign based after the events of Descent into Avernus.
In regards to this, if this is "wokeism" or a move towards players being able to create the characters that they want to create is just opinion and probably a debate that'll get toxic fast, so I suggest we try to stay away from that particular topic.
I do agree with the wokeism bit, so let me make this clear. I'm saying that, in my experience, everyone who has played tiefling has done so with the fact that they were treated/seen as outcasts/whatever being a large part of why they chose the race over others. As such making them 'widely accepted' seems to be well-intended, but also ruining the whole point and robbing them of a huge part of their identity. If I am wrong on this, I won't dispute, but part of the point of this topic is that, as far as I can tell from my RP groups, I'm NOT wrong.
Heck, I had one tiefling scare a group of thugs into submission by saying that, if they hurt her, she'd call her daddy and they were so terrified of possibly fighting a demon they outright gave up/fled in fear (high bluff roll) instead of risking hurting her. I don't think something like that could happen if they were 'widely accepted'.
Oh I know, the character I have played the most is a Tiefling Paladin of Bahamut, but she isn't the kind to make threats like that (due to her being a Paladin). She originally took measures to try and cover up her heritage at first (using helmets that looked like her horns were part of the helmet, cloaks to cover up the tail) but as the party became more famous and her becoming a little bit of a local celebrity, everybody knows what she is and has earned her general acceptance via actions. However the whole Tieflings aren't generally accepted did come in at first and created a couple of misunderstandings since most people aren't expecting tiefling to come up and help them.
Tieflings being discriminated against is a cultural thing, which means it's subject to change from setting to setting and from table to table. It doesn't have to be baked into the rules for it to be an element in your setting, and removing it from the race lore makes it possible for more people to introduce them however they wish. The devs had specifically said they are moving toward more setting neutral writing for races and monsters, so that people can fit them in their campaigns in more flexible ways.
So they're not making tieflings more widely accepted, they are leaving it up to you how accepted they are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Tieflings being discriminated against is a cultural thing, which means it's subject to change from setting to setting and from table to table. It doesn't have to be baked into the rules for it to be an element in your setting, and removing it from the race lore makes it possible for more people to introduce them however they wish. The devs had specifically said they are moving toward more setting neutral writing for races and monsters, so that people can fit them in their campaigns in more flexible ways.
So they're not making tieflings more widely accepted, they are leaving it up to you how accepted they are.
Not really. They're not making it so 'players can introduce/play them however they wish', they're changing it so that they're now 'widely accepted' which is very different. As I said here, the people I've played with that played tieflings (seemed to be a lot) wanted to do so, in part, specifically because they WEREN'T accepted. While I do agree that people are free to change whatever they want from table to table, it seems like this is a decided step in the wrong direction with the race. Also, by that logic, I could say that dwarves are 12 feet tall, sober as a stone, and speak every third word backwards, and if you don't like it, you can just 'change it at your table'. It's true but it's also lazy and shows a lack of being-in-touch with the player base.
Edit: To show I'm not being a jerk about this, I do feel like changing it so that 'Due to the actions of some individuals, tieflings are experiencing wider acceptance, but there are still many misconceptions about them especially from those who lack tiefling friends.' would be at least a workable compromose.
They're not making it so 'players can introduce/play them however they wish', they're changing it so that they're now 'widely accepted' which is very different.
Where are they doing this? Did I miss it? Because I'm not seeing it.
Ok, I see what you mean now that I went over the playtest document. You're talking about the "Tieflings of Many Worlds " section, right? You're right, that is a shift in tone from the current 5E lore. I, personally, like it, but I can see that if you liked how it was before how you might not like the new tone. I think it's more than possible to have discrimination against tieflings in any part of any particular setting, though, if you wanted it. The shift to a multiversal emphasis sees to that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Having them get mistaken for fiends while, at the same time, being 'widely accepted' doesn't make sense. 'OH LORD! THE DEVIL IS AT THE FRONT DOOR SAYING I NEED TO PAY! LITTLE TIMMY I'M SORRY BUT I NEED A BLOOD SACRIFICE OF A CHIL- Oh. It's just Carl asking me to pay for his package delivery. Here's the 5 copper and a bonus silver for speedy delivery. Say hi to the wife and little Lilith for me Carl!'
It feels like it ruins the whole point of the race. Every person I've played with that played a tiefling had the fact that they were outcasts as at least part of the reason why they wanted to play it. They ENJOYED being on the fringe of society and toeing the line between being normal (if usually highly chaotic) people and people's perception of them being, well, hellspawn. They would do things like bluff to pretend to go full demon/evil to scare away bandits or their character would be the kind who naturally enjoyed being on the less-reputable side of life. It was why they wanted to play the race. Making them 'widely accepted' feels well-intentioned but misguided and ruining the whole point. Am I alone in this experience? Am I mis-interpreting it?
Tieflings are my favorite race to play. I have never desired being an outcast nor enjoyed this interpretation of the tiefling. I do not recall anyone I have ever played with wanting this either. In fact, I believe many choose tieflings because their association with being highly charismatic beings, which can be appealing to those who may not be in real life. I came to D&D just a few years ago though and have no emotional attachment to any of the ‘lore’ that came before. Perhaps I am just fortunate to be the demographic that WotC is trying to appeal to.
It feels like it ruins the whole point of the race. Every person I've played with that played a tiefling had the fact that they were outcasts as at least part of the reason why they wanted to play it. They ENJOYED being on the fringe of society and toeing the line between being normal (if usually highly chaotic) people and people's perception of them being, well, hellspawn. They would do things like bluff to pretend to go full demon/evil to scare away bandits or their character would be the kind who naturally enjoyed being on the less-reputable side of life. It was why they wanted to play the race. Making them 'widely accepted' feels well-intentioned but misguided and ruining the whole point. Am I alone in this experience? Am I mis-interpreting it?
Tieflings are my favorite race to play. I have never desired being an outcast nor enjoyed this interpretation of the tiefling. I do not recall anyone I have ever played with wanting this either. In fact, I believe many choose tieflings because their association with being highly charismatic beings, which can be appealing to those who may not be in real life. I came to D&D just a few years ago though and have no emotional attachment to any of the ‘lore’ that came before. Perhaps I am just fortunate to be the demographic that WotC is trying to appeal to.
Tiefling is also my favorite race and the one I play WAY more often than any other race in the game. For me it has never been about the perspective of outsiders and how they see my character, but about how my character views themselves.
To me, this is no different than what the half-elf supposedly went through.
Tanis Half-Elf had a whole story about being unwanted by either side of his parentage. Errant Story did similar with their half-elves. But... The number of actual DMs who did that during games was vanishingly low. Very few ran things that way.
So, the game came to reflect how it was played rather than what the novels did.
----------
Though this topic does remind me of one time I was talking with a prospective pbp DM about that issue. Another player asked about Tiefling and, in a tone that sounded more like a warning/discouragement, they said tieflings would be prejudiced against.
"You do realize that's encouragement, right?"
They did not. They were trying to ban without actually banning.
I've done both sides, where half-elves were basically loner rejects and where they were basically the popular kids. Had fun with both. While the latter was more fun I also had a better GM and group for that.
As for that GM... Seriously? That's jerkish. If he wants to kick a player at least have the decency to be upfront about it instead of trying to do stuff like that.
They gained traction once they put them in as core in 4e and multiple DND sourced games.
I was going to say this. The change to 4E was a big deal for tieflings. Yes, they all became "Children of Asmodeus" through some divine prank. It also wasn't their fault. They were reminders of the arrogance and folly of a human empire long ago. For my games in the Forgotten Realms, I made it Netheril. And I think Matt Mercer did something similar with tieflings in Exandria with the Age of Arcanum. He really likes 4E, if you haven't noticed.
But I digress. Throughout the D&D multiverse, tieflings have been walking around as adventurers, even heroes, and just regular folk for well over a hundred years. In some placed, far longer. And they're more of a sore spot to remind them of past mistakes; which not everyone takes well to. Some don't like to be reminded, so they lash out. Others view them welcomingly, like a cautionary tale to be learned from. And still more probably just take pity on them because, at the end of the day, tieflings are people who a fair number (I'd wager) don't view as people. They see them as something bigger than that, for good and for ill.
They gained traction once they put them in as core in 4e and multiple DND sourced games.
I was going to say this. The change to 4E was a big deal for tieflings. Yes, they all became "Children of Asmodeus" through some divine prank. It also wasn't their fault. They were reminders of the arrogance and folly of a human empire long ago. For my games in the Forgotten Realms, I made it Netheril. And I think Matt Mercer did something similar with tieflings in Exandria with the Age of Arcanum. He really likes 4E, if you haven't noticed.
But I digress. Throughout the D&D multiverse, tieflings have been walking around as adventurers, even heroes, and just regular folk for well over a hundred years. In some placed, far longer. And they're more of a sore spot to remind them of past mistakes; which not everyone takes well to. Some don't like to be reminded, so they lash out. Others view them welcomingly, like a cautionary tale to be learned from. And still more probably just take pity on them because, at the end of the day, tieflings are people who a fair number (I'd wager) don't view as people. They see them as something bigger than that, for good and for ill.
Ok, I see what you mean now that I went over the playtest document. You're talking about the "Tieflings of Many Worlds " section, right? You're right, that is a shift in tone from the current 5E lore. I, personally, like it, but I can see that if you liked how it was before how you might not like the new tone. I think it's more than possible to have discrimination against tieflings in any part of any particular setting, though, if you wanted it. The shift to a multiversal emphasis sees to that.
Personally I don't like it when the race of many world section make blanket statements about a race. They should be limited to in setting X they do Y.
So a DM has full freedom when making a homebrew world, without players saying but the rules say....
Ok, I see what you mean now that I went over the playtest document. You're talking about the "Tieflings of Many Worlds " section, right? You're right, that is a shift in tone from the current 5E lore. I, personally, like it, but I can see that if you liked how it was before how you might not like the new tone. I think it's more than possible to have discrimination against tieflings in any part of any particular setting, though, if you wanted it. The shift to a multiversal emphasis sees to that.
Personally I don't like it when the race of many world section make blanket statements about a race. They should be limited to in setting X they do Y.
So a DM has full freedom when making a homebrew world, without players saying but the rules say....
Okay, so two things.
First, this is what session zero is for. The players and DM, together, can establish a tone they all agree with.
Second, including fantasy racism is a certainly a choice. And not one I'd knowingly engage with.
This has been a challenge for me as a long-time player. It speaks to a generational difference which I haven’t been able to really accept yet.
I come from an age where fantasy stories were high melodrama. Good and evil were writ large. Discussions of Paladins killing kobold children were ignored or despised.
The new generation of players run games much more like Japanese anime where everybody is happy and character inclusivity is the name of the game. There’s no real good or evil, or rather the edges have been dulled. The half-orc brute raised in savagery, suckled on a broad ax, is now your PC’s next door neighbor dropping by for a cup of sugar. The great Fiend warlock Tiefling son of Asmodeus is now your kid sister’s babysitter.
All forms of fun are valid, just not profitable, and it seems the epic stories of good and evil are a thing of the past. It takes some getting used to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It feels like it ruins the whole point of the race. Every person I've played with that played a tiefling had the fact that they were outcasts as at least part of the reason why they wanted to play it. They ENJOYED being on the fringe of society and toeing the line between being normal (if usually highly chaotic) people and people's perception of them being, well, hellspawn. They would do things like bluff to pretend to go full demon/evil to scare away bandits or their character would be the kind who naturally enjoyed being on the less-reputable side of life. It was why they wanted to play the race. Making them 'widely accepted' feels well-intentioned but misguided and ruining the whole point. Am I alone in this experience? Am I mis-interpreting it?
I agree with you, but it's a wider thing affecting many races. Now Orcs, Goblins, Bugbear, Hobgoblins, etc are no longer considered to be inherently evil; These races have all changed dramatically. After all the Playtest is basically showing Orc is going PHB and their flavour text includes reference to an orc king who ruled successfully by literally peace/defensive treaty with everybody else around. However, how races are accepted are still going to be determined by setting/campaign, since specific always overrules general; Tiefling now being widely accepted is general.
For example, Tiefling probably aren't going to be treated well near Eltural, in a campaign based after the events of Descent into Avernus.
In regards to this, if this is "wokeism" or a move towards players being able to create the characters that they want to create is just opinion and probably a debate that'll get toxic fast, so I suggest we try to stay away from that particular topic.
I do agree with the wokeism bit, so let me make this clear. I'm saying that, in my experience, everyone who has played tiefling has done so with the fact that they were treated/seen as outcasts/whatever being a large part of why they chose the race over others. As such making them 'widely accepted' seems to be well-intended, but also ruining the whole point and robbing them of a huge part of their identity. If I am wrong on this, I won't dispute, but part of the point of this topic is that, as far as I can tell from my RP groups, I'm NOT wrong.
Heck, I had one tiefling scare a group of thugs into submission by saying that, if they hurt her, she'd call her daddy and they were so terrified of possibly fighting a demon they outright gave up/fled in fear (high bluff roll) instead of risking hurting her. I don't think something like that could happen if they were 'widely accepted'.
Oh I know, the character I have played the most is a Tiefling Paladin of Bahamut, but she isn't the kind to make threats like that (due to her being a Paladin). She originally took measures to try and cover up her heritage at first (using helmets that looked like her horns were part of the helmet, cloaks to cover up the tail) but as the party became more famous and her becoming a little bit of a local celebrity, everybody knows what she is and has earned her general acceptance via actions. However the whole Tieflings aren't generally accepted did come in at first and created a couple of misunderstandings since most people aren't expecting tiefling to come up and help them.
Tieflings being discriminated against is a cultural thing, which means it's subject to change from setting to setting and from table to table. It doesn't have to be baked into the rules for it to be an element in your setting, and removing it from the race lore makes it possible for more people to introduce them however they wish. The devs had specifically said they are moving toward more setting neutral writing for races and monsters, so that people can fit them in their campaigns in more flexible ways.
So they're not making tieflings more widely accepted, they are leaving it up to you how accepted they are.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Not really. They're not making it so 'players can introduce/play them however they wish', they're changing it so that they're now 'widely accepted' which is very different. As I said here, the people I've played with that played tieflings (seemed to be a lot) wanted to do so, in part, specifically because they WEREN'T accepted. While I do agree that people are free to change whatever they want from table to table, it seems like this is a decided step in the wrong direction with the race. Also, by that logic, I could say that dwarves are 12 feet tall, sober as a stone, and speak every third word backwards, and if you don't like it, you can just 'change it at your table'. It's true but it's also lazy and shows a lack of being-in-touch with the player base.
Edit: To show I'm not being a jerk about this, I do feel like changing it so that 'Due to the actions of some individuals, tieflings are experiencing wider acceptance, but there are still many misconceptions about them especially from those who lack tiefling friends.' would be at least a workable compromose.
Where are they doing this? Did I miss it? Because I'm not seeing it.
Edit: Oh I am seeing it now, sorry.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Ok, I see what you mean now that I went over the playtest document. You're talking about the "Tieflings of Many Worlds " section, right? You're right, that is a shift in tone from the current 5E lore. I, personally, like it, but I can see that if you liked how it was before how you might not like the new tone. I think it's more than possible to have discrimination against tieflings in any part of any particular setting, though, if you wanted it. The shift to a multiversal emphasis sees to that.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
And there's still the bit about possibly mistaking them for Fiends.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Having them get mistaken for fiends while, at the same time, being 'widely accepted' doesn't make sense. 'OH LORD! THE DEVIL IS AT THE FRONT DOOR SAYING I NEED TO PAY! LITTLE TIMMY I'M SORRY BUT I NEED A BLOOD SACRIFICE OF A CHIL- Oh. It's just Carl asking me to pay for his package delivery. Here's the 5 copper and a bonus silver for speedy delivery. Say hi to the wife and little Lilith for me Carl!'
Tieflings are my favorite race to play. I have never desired being an outcast nor enjoyed this interpretation of the tiefling. I do not recall anyone I have ever played with wanting this either. In fact, I believe many choose tieflings because their association with being highly charismatic beings, which can be appealing to those who may not be in real life. I came to D&D just a few years ago though and have no emotional attachment to any of the ‘lore’ that came before. Perhaps I am just fortunate to be the demographic that WotC is trying to appeal to.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Tiefling is also my favorite race and the one I play WAY more often than any other race in the game. For me it has never been about the perspective of outsiders and how they see my character, but about how my character views themselves.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
To me, this is no different than what the half-elf supposedly went through.
Tanis Half-Elf had a whole story about being unwanted by either side of his parentage. Errant Story did similar with their half-elves. But... The number of actual DMs who did that during games was vanishingly low. Very few ran things that way.
So, the game came to reflect how it was played rather than what the novels did.
----------
Though this topic does remind me of one time I was talking with a prospective pbp DM about that issue. Another player asked about Tiefling and, in a tone that sounded more like a warning/discouragement, they said tieflings would be prejudiced against.
"You do realize that's encouragement, right?"
They did not. They were trying to ban without actually banning.
I've done both sides, where half-elves were basically loner rejects and where they were basically the popular kids. Had fun with both. While the latter was more fun I also had a better GM and group for that.
As for that GM... Seriously? That's jerkish. If he wants to kick a player at least have the decency to be upfront about it instead of trying to do stuff like that.
I was going to say this. The change to 4E was a big deal for tieflings. Yes, they all became "Children of Asmodeus" through some divine prank. It also wasn't their fault. They were reminders of the arrogance and folly of a human empire long ago. For my games in the Forgotten Realms, I made it Netheril. And I think Matt Mercer did something similar with tieflings in Exandria with the Age of Arcanum. He really likes 4E, if you haven't noticed.
But I digress. Throughout the D&D multiverse, tieflings have been walking around as adventurers, even heroes, and just regular folk for well over a hundred years. In some placed, far longer. And they're more of a sore spot to remind them of past mistakes; which not everyone takes well to. Some don't like to be reminded, so they lash out. Others view them welcomingly, like a cautionary tale to be learned from. And still more probably just take pity on them because, at the end of the day, tieflings are people who a fair number (I'd wager) don't view as people. They see them as something bigger than that, for good and for ill.
Well put.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
Personally I don't like it when the race of many world section make blanket statements about a race.
They should be limited to in setting X they do Y.
So a DM has full freedom when making a homebrew world, without players saying but the rules say....
Okay, so two things.
First, this is what session zero is for. The players and DM, together, can establish a tone they all agree with.
Second, including fantasy racism is a certainly a choice. And not one I'd knowingly engage with.
This has been a challenge for me as a long-time player. It speaks to a generational difference which I haven’t been able to really accept yet.
I come from an age where fantasy stories were high melodrama. Good and evil were writ large. Discussions of Paladins killing kobold children were ignored or despised.
The new generation of players run games much more like Japanese anime where everybody is happy and character inclusivity is the name of the game. There’s no real good or evil, or rather the edges have been dulled. The half-orc brute raised in savagery, suckled on a broad ax, is now your PC’s next door neighbor dropping by for a cup of sugar. The great Fiend warlock Tiefling son of Asmodeus is now your kid sister’s babysitter.
All forms of fun are valid, just not profitable, and it seems the epic stories of good and evil are a thing of the past. It takes some getting used to.