Another Poll on the OneDnD Subreddit is just as mixed as anything we have seen here. I wonder what the next version of Ardling is going to look like or if they will just abandon it all together.
I've talked about it elsewhere, but I think the problem is that the Ardling was intended as a new celestial option with a purely cosmetic detail of animal-like features.
However, the species didn't do enough to make it feel like anything but a weird version of an Aasimar with an animal head, and the general response was more excited for the animal aspect than the celestial aspect. So now we have this second version which does a much better job of being a generic beastfolk, but with weird, uninteresting celestial features tacked on... and because of those same celestial features, the beast aspect still ends up being mostly cosmetic, except now it's preventing the celestial features from being more interesting, since the focus can only go halfway in either direction.
I think that the Aasimar is kind of meant to be the celestial answer to the Tiefling... however, there are only 3 subrace options for the Aasimar, whereas there are like... a dozen different tiefling subraces, plus the variant option to get a DEX bonus instead of CHA, or the ability to just straight up have a fly speed. So with that many tiefling options, it makes sense to try and also expand the celestial options... but the animal heads just feel restricting when expanding into Celestial creatures. I'm more in favor of just including Aasimar as a PHB race as a compliment to Tiefling, and just making Ardling one of the subrace (or is it subspecies?) options.
However, almost on accident, they stumbled onto a generic beastfolk that is much easier to understand and has more broad appeal. I don't think it will fully replace the more popular existing beastfolk, like Tabaxi or Tortles, which have very specific features that would be hard to give as generic options to choose from, but it gives a lot of room for the much larger percentage of players who want to play as some kind of animal-person to play as whatever they feel like in One D&D, without having to wait for a species based on their preferred animal to get added to the game.
Congratulations. You've managed to perfectly say everything I've thought about this issue.
The Infernal and Celestial species in the PHB should foil each other in a way that the Ardling could never foil the Tiefling. I notice that a lot of people like the Egyptian or Hindu ideas of the celestial and are getting very inspired by them, and I think they should be validated by some sort of option that retains the beast-headed celestial, but I think the Aasimar would simply be a better option in the PHB. Sure, give 'em a subspecies (genus?) with an animal head and a couple of beasty or Egyptian-y abilities.
A generic beastfolk would also be great, since otherwise people will continue to ask for every single animal on the planet up to and including abilities for their specific pet (they still will, but we can have better reason to ignore them). I'm not saying that they should replace every single beast race; Minotaurs and Satyrs and Grungs and my sweet baby Kenkus are all cool and unique and should stay as their own species. I'm just saying that a generic beast race could prevent a million different species for every single type of butterflies. Maybe some of the less special and flavor-weak races could be put into a new option too, though. Tortles could become an Armored subspecies, and there could be an Ambusher subspecies instead of Tabaxi.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I've talked about it elsewhere, but I think the problem is that the Ardling was intended as a new celestial option with a purely cosmetic detail of animal-like features.
However, the species didn't do enough to make it feel like anything but a weird version of an Aasimar with an animal head, and the general response was more excited for the animal aspect than the celestial aspect. So now we have this second version which does a much better job of being a generic beastfolk, but with weird, uninteresting celestial features tacked on... and because of those same celestial features, the beast aspect still ends up being mostly cosmetic, except now it's preventing the celestial features from being more interesting, since the focus can only go halfway in either direction.
I think that the Aasimar is kind of meant to be the celestial answer to the Tiefling... however, there are only 3 subrace options for the Aasimar, whereas there are like... a dozen different tiefling subraces, plus the variant option to get a DEX bonus instead of CHA, or the ability to just straight up have a fly speed. So with that many tiefling options, it makes sense to try and also expand the celestial options... but the animal heads just feel restricting when expanding into Celestial creatures. I'm more in favor of just including Aasimar as a PHB race as a compliment to Tiefling, and just making Ardling one of the subrace (or is it subspecies?) options.
However, almost on accident, they stumbled onto a generic beastfolk that is much easier to understand and has more broad appeal. I don't think it will fully replace the more popular existing beastfolk, like Tabaxi or Tortles, which have very specific features that would be hard to give as generic options to choose from, but it gives a lot of room for the much larger percentage of players who want to play as some kind of animal-person to play as whatever they feel like in One D&D, without having to wait for a species based on their preferred animal to get added to the game.
Congratulations. You've managed to perfectly say everything I've thought about this issue.
The Infernal and Celestial species in the PHB should foil each other in a way that the Ardling could never foil the Tiefling. I notice that a lot of people like the Egyptian or Hindu ideas of the celestial and are getting very inspired by them, and I think they should be validated by some sort of option that retains the beast-headed celestial, but I think the Aasimar would simply be a better option in the PHB. Sure, give 'em a subspecies (genus?) with an animal head and a couple of beasty or Egyptian-y abilities.
A generic beastfolk would also be great, since otherwise people will continue to ask for every single animal on the planet up to and including abilities for their specific pet (they still will, but we can have better reason to ignore them). I'm not saying that they should replace every single beast race; Minotaurs and Satyrs and Grungs and my sweet baby Kenkus are all cool and unique and should stay as their own species. I'm just saying that a generic beast race could prevent a million different species for every single type of butterflies. Maybe some of the less special and flavor-weak races could be put into a new option too, though. Tortles could become an Armored subspecies, and there could be an Ambusher subspecies instead of Tabaxi.
I am very curious as to why the Ardling couldn't have worked as the foil to the tiefling. The Ardling was a visually striking and strange celestial being that represented a multitude of polytheistic gods rather than one god just as the tiefling is a visually striking species from the underworld that represents all kinds of demons rather than the single monotheistic devil. How is that not a mirror?
I've talked about it elsewhere, but I think the problem is that the Ardling was intended as a new celestial option with a purely cosmetic detail of animal-like features.
However, the species didn't do enough to make it feel like anything but a weird version of an Aasimar with an animal head, and the general response was more excited for the animal aspect than the celestial aspect. So now we have this second version which does a much better job of being a generic beastfolk, but with weird, uninteresting celestial features tacked on... and because of those same celestial features, the beast aspect still ends up being mostly cosmetic, except now it's preventing the celestial features from being more interesting, since the focus can only go halfway in either direction.
I think that the Aasimar is kind of meant to be the celestial answer to the Tiefling... however, there are only 3 subrace options for the Aasimar, whereas there are like... a dozen different tiefling subraces, plus the variant option to get a DEX bonus instead of CHA, or the ability to just straight up have a fly speed. So with that many tiefling options, it makes sense to try and also expand the celestial options... but the animal heads just feel restricting when expanding into Celestial creatures. I'm more in favor of just including Aasimar as a PHB race as a compliment to Tiefling, and just making Ardling one of the subrace (or is it subspecies?) options.
However, almost on accident, they stumbled onto a generic beastfolk that is much easier to understand and has more broad appeal. I don't think it will fully replace the more popular existing beastfolk, like Tabaxi or Tortles, which have very specific features that would be hard to give as generic options to choose from, but it gives a lot of room for the much larger percentage of players who want to play as some kind of animal-person to play as whatever they feel like in One D&D, without having to wait for a species based on their preferred animal to get added to the game.
Congratulations. You've managed to perfectly say everything I've thought about this issue.
The Infernal and Celestial species in the PHB should foil each other in a way that the Ardling could never foil the Tiefling. I notice that a lot of people like the Egyptian or Hindu ideas of the celestial and are getting very inspired by them, and I think they should be validated by some sort of option that retains the beast-headed celestial, but I think the Aasimar would simply be a better option in the PHB. Sure, give 'em a subspecies (genus?) with an animal head and a couple of beasty or Egyptian-y abilities.
A generic beastfolk would also be great, since otherwise people will continue to ask for every single animal on the planet up to and including abilities for their specific pet (they still will, but we can have better reason to ignore them). I'm not saying that they should replace every single beast race; Minotaurs and Satyrs and Grungs and my sweet baby Kenkus are all cool and unique and should stay as their own species. I'm just saying that a generic beast race could prevent a million different species for every single type of butterflies. Maybe some of the less special and flavor-weak races could be put into a new option too, though. Tortles could become an Armored subspecies, and there could be an Ambusher subspecies instead of Tabaxi.
I am very curious as to why the Ardling couldn't have worked as the foil to the tiefling. The Ardling was a visually striking and strange celestial being that represented a multitude of polytheistic gods rather than one god just as the tiefling is a visually striking species from the underworld that represents all kinds of demons rather than the single monotheistic devil. How is that not a mirror?
I can't speak for everyone, but for me the Ardling just swapped one narrow visual influence for another, even more narrow visual influence.
I never felt as constrained by the Aasimar as apparently some other people did. I always figured any celestial appearance was on the table, especially for something as mechanically innocuous as the way the character looks. I would have always thought a egyptian inspired Aasimar was as viable as a Kirin or a modern idea of an 'angel.' But I've come to learn recently that some people felt really constrained by the appearance options suggested in the Aasiamr write up. So expanding on that is very welcome
The new Tiefling did that wonderfully. Look at all the various ways it says you can appear. It's wide open, and they give vastly different sources for inspiration.
But the Aardling went the opposite way. It gave one real option. You have an animal head. Whether you have skin or fur or feathers, that animal head was part of the deal. It felt more constrained than the Aasimar ever did to me. It just went from limiting your inspiration from one set of world myths to another.
At least with the Aasimar, if someone said they wanted to have a crocodile head, I would have thought yes, that is within the realm of what the species is meant to be. But with the Ardling, the head is built in. Sure, I could change it at my own tables, and I would if someone asked. But not everyone feels they have that permission. They might take one look at it and never think of an alternative and just pass it by. The animal head is as likely to turn someone off as it is to excite them. Way before people think about the planar creatures that inspired them. It's just the fact that people have very strong reactions to anthropomorphic creatures.
If an animal head was one option among dozens, like the hag, incubus, horns, fur, and distinct odors are all given as examples of Tielfings, then I think it would have worked for most people right from the start. It would certainly feel more like the mirror to Tieflings that it was probably supposed to be. Right now it just speaks to a very small set of character concepts.
I do also want to add as an aside that I never saw the Aasimar as only representing Christian angels. I felt they could easily be inspired by any real world myths. They are perfectly natural fits for anything from a Yoruba Orisha, to a Greek Fury, to a Chinese immortal from Kunlun. Maybe it's the wings and mention of a halo option that throws people off. But I never saw that as indicative of only one source.
I do also want to add as an aside that I never saw the Aasimar as only representing Christian angels. I felt they could easily be inspired by any real world myths. They are perfectly natural fits for anything from a Yoruba Orisha, to a Greek Fury, to a Chinese immortal from Kunlun. Maybe it's the wings and mention of a halo option that throws people off. But I never saw that as indicative of only one source.
I think WotC has to make the difference more pronounced. To me aasimar lineages look like default angel, wrathful angel, and fallen angel. Wanna have something closer to greek eudaemon, norse valkyrie, slavic vila, japanese nigimitama, or a lesser Egyptian deity. Of course, the traits of benevolent spirits in most mythologies tend to converge, as they represent healing, protection, inspiration, and proper passing to afterlife. But look at the new tiefling - the lineages are pretty different in terms of flavor and abilities. WotC provided descriptions for each lineage, explaining their origin and appearance. The aasimar need the same.
I do also want to add as an aside that I never saw the Aasimar as only representing Christian angels. I felt they could easily be inspired by any real world myths. They are perfectly natural fits for anything from a Yoruba Orisha, to a Greek Fury, to a Chinese immortal from Kunlun. Maybe it's the wings and mention of a halo option that throws people off. But I never saw that as indicative of only one source.
It is that, and the fact that no aasimar has ever been described in a way besides judeo Christian depictions of angels. Their abilities match that depiction as well. Their lore matches that as well, nothing in it suggests any other types of dieties. And their SUBRACES all SCREAM Judeo-Christian iconography. Honestly, if you were using celestial depictions you weren't playing an aasimar. You were playing a homebrew species using the Aasimar stat block.
Edit: it would be like if I put cat ears on a halfling. Or made it where elves had goat bottoms. They are decendents of fey, who is to say they don't. It is definitely NOT that species. You can do it, but you have definitely entered the realm of homebrew. What is listed is rules as written. What you are referring to is the rules dont say I cant. Just because they dont say you cant doesn't mean you can.
I do also want to add as an aside that I never saw the Aasimar as only representing Christian angels. I felt they could easily be inspired by any real world myths. They are perfectly natural fits for anything from a Yoruba Orisha, to a Greek Fury, to a Chinese immortal from Kunlun. Maybe it's the wings and mention of a halo option that throws people off. But I never saw that as indicative of only one source.
I think WotC has to make the difference more pronounced. To me aasimar lineages look like default angel, wrathful angel, and fallen angel. Wanna have something closer to greek eudaemon, norse valkyrie, slavic vila, japanese nigimitama, or a lesser Egyptian deity. Of course, the traits of benevolent spirits in most mythologies tend to converge, as they represent healing, protection, inspiration, and proper passing to afterlife. But look at the new tiefling - the lineages are pretty different in terms of flavor and abilities. WotC provided descriptions for each lineage, explaining their origin and appearance. The aasimar need the same.
That's basically what I wrote in the post above this one that you quoted. I just double posted. This one was just a side thought. I agreed in the post before this that Ardlings needed the same treatment that Tieflings got. That post is much longer and goes into more detail of my thoughts on that topic.
I've talked about it elsewhere, but I think the problem is that the Ardling was intended as a new celestial option with a purely cosmetic detail of animal-like features.
However, the species didn't do enough to make it feel like anything but a weird version of an Aasimar with an animal head, and the general response was more excited for the animal aspect than the celestial aspect. So now we have this second version which does a much better job of being a generic beastfolk, but with weird, uninteresting celestial features tacked on... and because of those same celestial features, the beast aspect still ends up being mostly cosmetic, except now it's preventing the celestial features from being more interesting, since the focus can only go halfway in either direction.
I think that the Aasimar is kind of meant to be the celestial answer to the Tiefling... however, there are only 3 subrace options for the Aasimar, whereas there are like... a dozen different tiefling subraces, plus the variant option to get a DEX bonus instead of CHA, or the ability to just straight up have a fly speed. So with that many tiefling options, it makes sense to try and also expand the celestial options... but the animal heads just feel restricting when expanding into Celestial creatures. I'm more in favor of just including Aasimar as a PHB race as a compliment to Tiefling, and just making Ardling one of the subrace (or is it subspecies?) options.
However, almost on accident, they stumbled onto a generic beastfolk that is much easier to understand and has more broad appeal. I don't think it will fully replace the more popular existing beastfolk, like Tabaxi or Tortles, which have very specific features that would be hard to give as generic options to choose from, but it gives a lot of room for the much larger percentage of players who want to play as some kind of animal-person to play as whatever they feel like in One D&D, without having to wait for a species based on their preferred animal to get added to the game.
Congratulations. You've managed to perfectly say everything I've thought about this issue.
The Infernal and Celestial species in the PHB should foil each other in a way that the Ardling could never foil the Tiefling. I notice that a lot of people like the Egyptian or Hindu ideas of the celestial and are getting very inspired by them, and I think they should be validated by some sort of option that retains the beast-headed celestial, but I think the Aasimar would simply be a better option in the PHB. Sure, give 'em a subspecies (genus?) with an animal head and a couple of beasty or Egyptian-y abilities.
A generic beastfolk would also be great, since otherwise people will continue to ask for every single animal on the planet up to and including abilities for their specific pet (they still will, but we can have better reason to ignore them). I'm not saying that they should replace every single beast race; Minotaurs and Satyrs and Grungs and my sweet baby Kenkus are all cool and unique and should stay as their own species. I'm just saying that a generic beast race could prevent a million different species for every single type of butterflies. Maybe some of the less special and flavor-weak races could be put into a new option too, though. Tortles could become an Armored subspecies, and there could be an Ambusher subspecies instead of Tabaxi.
I am very curious as to why the Ardling couldn't have worked as the foil to the tiefling. The Ardling was a visually striking and strange celestial being that represented a multitude of polytheistic gods rather than one god just as the tiefling is a visually striking species from the underworld that represents all kinds of demons rather than the single monotheistic devil. How is that not a mirror?
I can't speak for everyone, but for me the Ardling just swapped one narrow visual influence for another, even more narrow visual influence.
I never felt as constrained by the Aasimar as apparently some other people did. I always figured any celestial appearance was on the table, especially for something as mechanically innocuous as the way the character looks. I would have always thought a egyptian inspired Aasimar was as viable as a Kirin or a modern idea of an 'angel.' But I've come to learn recently that some people felt really constrained by the appearance options suggested in the Aasiamr write up. So expanding on that is very welcome
The new Tiefling did that wonderfully. Look at all the various ways it says you can appear. It's wide open, and they give vastly different sources for inspiration.
But the Aardling went the opposite way. It gave one real option. You have an animal head. Whether you have skin or fur or feathers, that animal head was part of the deal. It felt more constrained than the Aasimar ever did to me. It just went from limiting your inspiration from one set of world myths to another.
At least with the Aasimar, if someone said they wanted to have a crocodile head, I would have thought yes, that is within the realm of what the species is meant to be. But with the Ardling, the head is built in. Sure, I could change it at my own tables, and I would if someone asked. But not everyone feels they have that permission. They might take one look at it and never think of an alternative and just pass it by. The animal head is as likely to turn someone off as it is to excite them. Way before people think about the planar creatures that inspired them. It's just the fact that people have very strong reactions to anthropomorphic creatures.
If an animal head was one option among dozens, like the hag, incubus, horns, fur, and distinct odors are all given as examples of Tielfings, then I think it would have worked for most people right from the start. It would certainly feel more like the mirror to Tieflings that it was probably supposed to be. Right now it just speaks to a very small set of character concepts.
100% ditto. The Ardling was "divine being with animal head," which, although it appears in multiple cultures, is still definitely forcing a very specific idea of a celestial.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I do also want to add as an aside that I never saw the Aasimar as only representing Christian angels. I felt they could easily be inspired by any real world myths. They are perfectly natural fits for anything from a Yoruba Orisha, to a Greek Fury, to a Chinese immortal from Kunlun. Maybe it's the wings and mention of a halo option that throws people off. But I never saw that as indicative of only one source.
It is that, and the fact that no aasimar has ever been described in a way besides judeo Christian depictions of angels. Their abilities match that depiction as well. Their lore matches that as well, nothing in it suggests any other types of dieties. And their SUBRACES all SCREAM Judeo-Christian iconography. Honestly, if you were using celestial depictions you weren't playing an aasimar. You were playing a homebrew species using the Aasimar stat block.
Edit: it would be like if I put cat ears on a halfling. Or made it where elves had goat bottoms. They are decendents of fey, who is to say they don't. It is definitely NOT that species. You can do it, but you have definitely entered the realm of homebrew. What is listed is rules as written. What you are referring to is the rules dont say I cant. Just because they dont say you cant doesn't mean you can.
That's fine if you interpreted it that way. Apparently most people do. It might have even been WotC intention for the Aasimar. I was just saying how I interpreted them. The post above that one addresses the ardling question more directly.
I do disagree a little about not really playing a species if you change the appearance. The appearance has nothing to do with rules. It's not a mechanic. If you had to use the exact physical descriptions and art from the books, every character would start looking very similar. Not a lot of people insisted that all Tieflings be red. And literally no description of elves even says what their legs look like.
I would have never used a Tabaxi in any game, as a PC or NPC, if they had to look like the art. I personally find them a little horrifying based on their standard description. But I have a well liked NPC in my current game that is a Tabaxi. He looks like a human, just with cat ears and a tail. But he's still a Tabaxi. It changes nothing about the mechanics of the species. Example physical descriptions and art are not rules. Changing the description isn't making the character a different species. I wouldn't even call it homebrew. Just because the rules don't say I can't absolutely means that I can in the case of describing a character. My dwarfs can all be 6 feet tall, clean shaven, and have tiger stripes. It changes nothing about them being a dwarf. More importantly for the Aasimar, it doesn't give one set description. It only gives sample suggestions.
But that's all irrelevant. And it doesn't matter if we ever agree on that part. My earlier post before the one you quoted explained that I understand that some people need explicit permission to change the appearance. Which is why I thought the new Tiefling was amazing. And why I would like to see the Ardling get the same treatment. Because saying they all have to have animal heads is far more restrictive than saying some Aasimar have halos. There are hundreds of real polytheistic religions all over the world where the gods and their messengers look more human. All of the inspirations should be covered.
I do also want to add as an aside that I never saw the Aasimar as only representing Christian angels. I felt they could easily be inspired by any real world myths. They are perfectly natural fits for anything from a Yoruba Orisha, to a Greek Fury, to a Chinese immortal from Kunlun. Maybe it's the wings and mention of a halo option that throws people off. But I never saw that as indicative of only one source.
It is that, and the fact that no aasimar has ever been described in a way besides judeo Christian depictions of angels. Their abilities match that depiction as well. Their lore matches that as well, nothing in it suggests any other types of dieties. And their SUBRACES all SCREAM Judeo-Christian iconography. Honestly, if you were using celestial depictions you weren't playing an aasimar. You were playing a homebrew species using the Aasimar stat block.
Edit: it would be like if I put cat ears on a halfling. Or made it where elves had goat bottoms. They are decendents of fey, who is to say they don't. It is definitely NOT that species. You can do it, but you have definitely entered the realm of homebrew. What is listed is rules as written. What you are referring to is the rules dont say I cant. Just because they dont say you cant doesn't mean you can.
That's fine if you interpreted it that way. Apparently most people do. It might have even been WotC intention for the Aasimar. I was just saying how I interpreted them. The post above that one addresses the ardling question more directly.
I do disagree a little about not really playing a species if you change the appearance. The appearance has nothing to do with rules. It's not a mechanic. If you had to use the exact physical descriptions and art from the books, every character would start looking very similar. Not a lot of people insisted that all Tieflings be red. And literally no description of elves even says what their legs look like.
I would have never used a Tabaxi in any game, as a PC or NPC, if they had to look like the art. I personally find them a little horrifying based on their standard description. But I have a well liked NPC in my current game that is a Tabaxi. He looks like a human, just with cat ears and a tail. But he's still a Tabaxi. It changes nothing about the mechanics of the species. Example physical descriptions and art are not rules. Changing the description isn't making the character a different species. I wouldn't even call it homebrew. Just because the rules don't say I can't absolutely means that I can in the case of describing a character. My dwarfs can all be 6 feet tall, clean shaven, and have tiger stripes. It changes nothing about them being a dwarf. More importantly for the Aasimar, it doesn't give one set description. It only gives sample suggestions.
But that's all irrelevant. And it doesn't matter if we ever agree on that part. My earlier post before the one you quoted explained that I understand that some people need explicit permission to change the appearance. Which is why I thought the new Tiefling was amazing. And why I would like to see the Ardling get the same treatment. Because saying they all have to have animal heads is far more restrictive than saying some Aasimar have halos. There are hundreds of real polytheistic religions all over the world where the gods and their messengers look more human. All of the inspirations should be covered.
You are flexible with homebrew that is fine. But saying an Aasimar could have an animal head from another celestial is the same as saying an elf could have a goat bottom because it is a descendent of the fey. I highly doubt most people would see that as an elf. If I walked into a game and said I was playing a wood elf and described my character that way most of the room would look at me funny and say that is a satyr not an elf (Same with your dwarf example "that's a goliath not a dwarf"). The game doesn't say you CANT fly that doesn't mean you can. I agree with the idea that more religions should be covered. I disagree that one race is capable of doing it all.
I also disagree with the idea that animal head, ANY animal head, is a narrow visual. It is certainly more varried than guy with a halo, or sparkly skin or glowie eyes. One has 6 distinct possibilities, the other has literally hundreds if not thousands of species variation and would be more varied than any race in the game as it currently exists including the new tiefling.
I do also want to add as an aside that I never saw the Aasimar as only representing Christian angels. I felt they could easily be inspired by any real world myths. They are perfectly natural fits for anything from a Yoruba Orisha, to a Greek Fury, to a Chinese immortal from Kunlun. Maybe it's the wings and mention of a halo option that throws people off. But I never saw that as indicative of only one source.
It is that, and the fact that no aasimar has ever been described in a way besides judeo Christian depictions of angels. Their abilities match that depiction as well. Their lore matches that as well, nothing in it suggests any other types of dieties. And their SUBRACES all SCREAM Judeo-Christian iconography. Honestly, if you were using celestial depictions you weren't playing an aasimar. You were playing a homebrew species using the Aasimar stat block.
Edit: it would be like if I put cat ears on a halfling. Or made it where elves had goat bottoms. They are decendents of fey, who is to say they don't. It is definitely NOT that species. You can do it, but you have definitely entered the realm of homebrew. What is listed is rules as written. What you are referring to is the rules dont say I cant. Just because they dont say you cant doesn't mean you can.
That's fine if you interpreted it that way. Apparently most people do. It might have even been WotC intention for the Aasimar. I was just saying how I interpreted them. The post above that one addresses the ardling question more directly.
I do disagree a little about not really playing a species if you change the appearance. The appearance has nothing to do with rules. It's not a mechanic. If you had to use the exact physical descriptions and art from the books, every character would start looking very similar. Not a lot of people insisted that all Tieflings be red. And literally no description of elves even says what their legs look like.
I would have never used a Tabaxi in any game, as a PC or NPC, if they had to look like the art. I personally find them a little horrifying based on their standard description. But I have a well liked NPC in my current game that is a Tabaxi. He looks like a human, just with cat ears and a tail. But he's still a Tabaxi. It changes nothing about the mechanics of the species. Example physical descriptions and art are not rules. Changing the description isn't making the character a different species. I wouldn't even call it homebrew. Just because the rules don't say I can't absolutely means that I can in the case of describing a character. My dwarfs can all be 6 feet tall, clean shaven, and have tiger stripes. It changes nothing about them being a dwarf. More importantly for the Aasimar, it doesn't give one set description. It only gives sample suggestions.
But that's all irrelevant. And it doesn't matter if we ever agree on that part. My earlier post before the one you quoted explained that I understand that some people need explicit permission to change the appearance. Which is why I thought the new Tiefling was amazing. And why I would like to see the Ardling get the same treatment. Because saying they all have to have animal heads is far more restrictive than saying some Aasimar have halos. There are hundreds of real polytheistic religions all over the world where the gods and their messengers look more human. All of the inspirations should be covered.
You are flexible with homebrew that is fine. But saying an Aasimar could have an animal head from another celestial is the same as saying an elf could have a goat bottom because it is a descendent of the fey. I highly doubt most people would see that as an elf. If I walked into a game and said I was playing a wood elf and described my character that way most of the room would look at me funny and say that is a satyr not an elf (Same with your dwarf example "that's a goliath not a dwarf"). The game doesn't say you CANT fly that doesn't mean you can. I agree with the idea that more religions should be covered. I disagree that one race is capable of doing it all.
I also disagree with the idea that animal head, ANY animal head, is a narrow visual. It is certainly more varried than guy with a halo, or sparkly skin or glowie eyes. One has 6 distinct possibilities, the other has literally hundreds if not thousands of species variation and would be more varied than any race in the game as it currently exists including the new tiefling.
But it's not homebrew. A dwarf has Tremorsense. That's a game rule. Their beard is not. Flight is an actual game mechanic. Tiger stripes is not.
None of that matters though for the Aasimar especially. MotM says they are connected to the Upper Planes. It gives 6 sample physical traits. Even with the strictest interpretation of the rules as written, these are not the only options. It says right there that a player can use the examples, or make up their own. The only assumption would be that the physical traits reflect the creatures of the Upper Planes. Guardinals are among those creatures. So a player can have an animal head. You don't even have to stretch to get there. Aasimar have one of the most flexible physical descriptions in the whole game.
But so many people think they don't. I don't know if it's because of the limited art, or the list they gave as examples. That's why my longer post explaining my thoughts on why the Ardling doesn't work as well recognizes that. I think we need a Celestial mirror to the Tiefling in the PHB. But the description they give them needs to be as inclusive as the one the Tiefling got. It needs to mention all of the possible creatures you could draw inspiration from. And like the Tiefling, it should be clear that you aren't limited to what is written as examples. They can call it Aasimar or Ardling or something new.
And when I said the animal head is a narrow visual, I mean to capture the wide range of myths in the world. Both the real world and DnD. There are hundreds of polytheistic, non-Christian myths that have gods and their messengers that look more like the sample Aasimar traits than have animal heads. It doesn't matter if you can pick a crocodile or a crow. The number of animals isn't important. It's all the same image that applies to only a narrow range of inspirations.
I'm sure for some people that really want to play an Egyptian inspired character, the animal head is a perfect fit. But that's a very small group of players compared to those who want things from all the other myths in the world. Since people need permission explicitly given on appearance, then the species needs to be as flexible in that regard as the Tiefling. It only makes sense as their mirror. Especially if you take physical traits to be akin to rules.
I'm all for expanding the scope of inspiration for people. Including animal heads. But limiting it in the same action doesn't feel right to me.
I do also want to add as an aside that I never saw the Aasimar as only representing Christian angels. I felt they could easily be inspired by any real world myths. They are perfectly natural fits for anything from a Yoruba Orisha, to a Greek Fury, to a Chinese immortal from Kunlun. Maybe it's the wings and mention of a halo option that throws people off. But I never saw that as indicative of only one source.
It is that, and the fact that no aasimar has ever been described in a way besides judeo Christian depictions of angels. Their abilities match that depiction as well. Their lore matches that as well, nothing in it suggests any other types of dieties. And their SUBRACES all SCREAM Judeo-Christian iconography. Honestly, if you were using celestial depictions you weren't playing an aasimar. You were playing a homebrew species using the Aasimar stat block.
Edit: it would be like if I put cat ears on a halfling. Or made it where elves had goat bottoms. They are decendents of fey, who is to say they don't. It is definitely NOT that species. You can do it, but you have definitely entered the realm of homebrew. What is listed is rules as written. What you are referring to is the rules dont say I cant. Just because they dont say you cant doesn't mean you can.
That's fine if you interpreted it that way. Apparently most people do. It might have even been WotC intention for the Aasimar. I was just saying how I interpreted them. The post above that one addresses the ardling question more directly.
I do disagree a little about not really playing a species if you change the appearance. The appearance has nothing to do with rules. It's not a mechanic. If you had to use the exact physical descriptions and art from the books, every character would start looking very similar. Not a lot of people insisted that all Tieflings be red. And literally no description of elves even says what their legs look like.
I would have never used a Tabaxi in any game, as a PC or NPC, if they had to look like the art. I personally find them a little horrifying based on their standard description. But I have a well liked NPC in my current game that is a Tabaxi. He looks like a human, just with cat ears and a tail. But he's still a Tabaxi. It changes nothing about the mechanics of the species. Example physical descriptions and art are not rules. Changing the description isn't making the character a different species. I wouldn't even call it homebrew. Just because the rules don't say I can't absolutely means that I can in the case of describing a character. My dwarfs can all be 6 feet tall, clean shaven, and have tiger stripes. It changes nothing about them being a dwarf. More importantly for the Aasimar, it doesn't give one set description. It only gives sample suggestions.
But that's all irrelevant. And it doesn't matter if we ever agree on that part. My earlier post before the one you quoted explained that I understand that some people need explicit permission to change the appearance. Which is why I thought the new Tiefling was amazing. And why I would like to see the Ardling get the same treatment. Because saying they all have to have animal heads is far more restrictive than saying some Aasimar have halos. There are hundreds of real polytheistic religions all over the world where the gods and their messengers look more human. All of the inspirations should be covered.
You are flexible with homebrew that is fine. But saying an Aasimar could have an animal head from another celestial is the same as saying an elf could have a goat bottom because it is a descendent of the fey. I highly doubt most people would see that as an elf. If I walked into a game and said I was playing a wood elf and described my character that way most of the room would look at me funny and say that is a satyr not an elf (Same with your dwarf example "that's a goliath not a dwarf"). The game doesn't say you CANT fly that doesn't mean you can. I agree with the idea that more religions should be covered. I disagree that one race is capable of doing it all.
I also disagree with the idea that animal head, ANY animal head, is a narrow visual. It is certainly more varried than guy with a halo, or sparkly skin or glowie eyes. One has 6 distinct possibilities, the other has literally hundreds if not thousands of species variation and would be more varied than any race in the game as it currently exists including the new tiefling.
But it's not homebrew. A dwarf has Tremorsense. That's a game rule. Their beard is not. Flight is an actual game mechanic. Tiger stripes is not.
None of that matters though for the Aasimar especially. MotM says they are connected to the Upper Planes. It gives 6 sample physical traits. Even with the strictest interpretation of the rules as written, these are not the only options. It says right there that a player can use the examples, or make up their own. The only assumption would be that the physical traits reflect the creatures of the Upper Planes. Guardinals are among those creatures. So a player can have an animal head. You don't even have to stretch to get there. Aasimar have one of the most flexible physical descriptions in the whole game.
But so many people think they don't. I don't know if it's because of the limited art, or the list they gave as examples. That's why my longer post explaining my thoughts on why the Ardling doesn't work as well recognizes that. I think we need a Celestial mirror to the Tiefling in the PHB. But the description they give them needs to be as inclusive as the one the Tiefling got. It needs to mention all of the possible creatures you could draw inspiration from. And like the Tiefling, it should be clear that you aren't limited to what is written as examples. They can call it Aasimar or Ardling or something new.
And when I said the animal head is a narrow visual, I mean to capture the wide range of myths in the world. Both the real world and DnD. There are hundreds of polytheistic, non-Christian myths that have gods and their messengers that look more like the sample Aasimar traits than have animal heads. It doesn't matter if you can pick a crocodile or a crow. The number of animals isn't important. It's all the same image that applies to only a narrow range of inspirations.
I'm sure for some people that really want to play an Egyptian inspired character, the animal head is a perfect fit. But that's a very small group of players compared to those who want things from all the other myths in the world. Since people need permission explicitly given on appearance, then the species needs to be as flexible in that regard as the Tiefling. It only makes sense as their mirror. Especially if you take physical traits to be akin to rules.
I'm all for expanding the scope of inspiration for people. Including animal heads. But limiting it in the same action doesn't feel right to me.
To be fair, you are right, monsters of the multiverse made a vast overhaul to the Aasimar that expanded their celestial connection and moved a bit away from how they used to be. Before it wasn't upper planes it was Mount Celestia, specifically NOT where gardinals and the like came from. Before the Protector, Scourge and Fallen all hinted at judeo-christian style myths before. So I do have to give you that a lot has CHANGED about Aasimar recently to allow this more specifically. These are new options and I am less familiar with the new Aasimar as I was with the old one. The old one wouldn't have allowed this. But I do feel that altering appearance drastically from the typical depictions of a species without making it a half species goes against the idea of species at all. Why not have an 8 foot halfling, but even Wizards of the coast knows better than that. The Halfling can only be small. There is a reason for that. The aesthetics are apart of the race. You may not think various species of animals is enough of a distinct difference but I do. I wish I could draw, because the variety that provides, the world that creates, just imagining the cantina from star wars in a world where dragonborn, tieflings, and ardlings exist no two people in that cantina look remotely the same.
Even Volo's Aasimar isn't specific on appearances. It barely mentions it at all. It says they have 'otherworldly visages' and 'luminous features' and that they tend to prefer hoods when they travel to conceal their identities. If anything that helps back up even stranger appearances. Those examples in MotM really only made it worse because people take those 6 samples as being the beginning and end of the appearance option. But it really does say they are just for inspiration.
Volo's does specify that they come from Mount Celestia, and that they have guides that are usually Devas. But those are just their guides, and they aren't limited to Devas even for them. And Mount Celestia is home to many animal creatures including some Archons, Foo creatures, Lammasu, Ki-rin, etc. All of that supports the idea of animal features being one option for Aasimar. Even the new Ardling includes Mount Celestia.
When I hear Deva, I think of actual Devas from earth, which are definitely not Judeo-Christian. They do exhibit many traits given as examples in the rules. But all of this is just to say why I think an animal head was always an option for Aasimar and it was never strictly Christian at all.
I also said that I recognize why others don't. And that whatever new celestial species we get in the PHB should have a very wide range of appearance options.
I'm sure you could get a lot of different looks with the animal heads. But in the end they all would still have animal heads. I'm not talking about how different a hippo and a gecko look. I'm talking about how many myths they can represent well. And an animal head just doesn't capture as many myths as a broader appearance could. One that has room for silver skin, halos, bark, animal heads, and everything else. I just feel that a true mirror of the Tiefling would have more options for appearance to really be diverse in its influences. And I know that the animal head alone is one of the biggest sticking points for many people that just don't want that part. I think an Ardling/Aasimar as varied as the new Tiefling could please the most people.
I think the UA Ardling might be a good Hengeyokai base (for those familiar with Oriental Adventures). I’d swap the Divine cantrip for Primal and perhaps add a low CR Druid wild shape in the mix. Maybe WotC is stealth evaluating future products and Ardling isn’t really a PHB candidate anyway.
I think the UA Ardling might be a good Hengeyokai base (for those familiar with Oriental Adventures). I’d swap the Divine cantrip for Primal and perhaps add a low CR Druid wild shape in the mix. Maybe WotC is stealth evaluating future products and Ardling isn’t really a PHB candidate anyway.
I've been thinking about that book a lot lately because of the Ardling. I would love a new version of it (Hopefully with a much better name and more cultural sensitivity).
I've wondered the same thing too. Mostly because I can't figure out why they are attached to the idea of the Ardling being an animal headed celestial. It was the thing that confused people the most in the first survey, and the one thing they didn't change. They must have some idea of their own why they want it. We're just left confused in the dark.
I think the funny thing is, if they said that they were going for something like the Hengeyokai, more people would be on board. And they could adjust the features to represent that idea better than a bunch of bland divine spells.
Maybe they are looking at using it in a different book. Maybe they just gave up on the Aasimar. Maybe they don't want to reprint it so soon after MotM (but they already have with others.) Maybe they want something they think they can trademark better. Maybe they are hoping to appeal to more than one crowd at the same time. Maybe it's just the pet project of one of the designers.
But they don't seem too attached to the mechanics at all. They freely swapped out almost all of the divine spells for something completely different. The one thing they seem attached to is there being a celestial with an animal head. And that's the one thing that a majority of people weren't specifically clamoring for. Not enough to reach 70% satisfaction anyways.
Another Poll on the OneDnD Subreddit is just as mixed as anything we have seen here. I wonder what the next version of Ardling is going to look like or if they will just abandon it all together.
How satisfied are you with the new Ardling?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I shudder to think.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Congratulations. You've managed to perfectly say everything I've thought about this issue.
The Infernal and Celestial species in the PHB should foil each other in a way that the Ardling could never foil the Tiefling. I notice that a lot of people like the Egyptian or Hindu ideas of the celestial and are getting very inspired by them, and I think they should be validated by some sort of option that retains the beast-headed celestial, but I think the Aasimar would simply be a better option in the PHB. Sure, give 'em a subspecies (genus?) with an animal head and a couple of beasty or Egyptian-y abilities.
A generic beastfolk would also be great, since otherwise people will continue to ask for every single animal on the planet up to and including abilities for their specific pet (they still will, but we can have better reason to ignore them). I'm not saying that they should replace every single beast race; Minotaurs and Satyrs and Grungs and my sweet baby Kenkus are all cool and unique and should stay as their own species. I'm just saying that a generic beast race could prevent a million different species for every single type of butterflies. Maybe some of the less special and flavor-weak races could be put into a new option too, though. Tortles could become an Armored subspecies, and there could be an Ambusher subspecies instead of Tabaxi.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I am very curious as to why the Ardling couldn't have worked as the foil to the tiefling. The Ardling was a visually striking and strange celestial being that represented a multitude of polytheistic gods rather than one god just as the tiefling is a visually striking species from the underworld that represents all kinds of demons rather than the single monotheistic devil. How is that not a mirror?
I can't speak for everyone, but for me the Ardling just swapped one narrow visual influence for another, even more narrow visual influence.
I never felt as constrained by the Aasimar as apparently some other people did. I always figured any celestial appearance was on the table, especially for something as mechanically innocuous as the way the character looks. I would have always thought a egyptian inspired Aasimar was as viable as a Kirin or a modern idea of an 'angel.' But I've come to learn recently that some people felt really constrained by the appearance options suggested in the Aasiamr write up. So expanding on that is very welcome
The new Tiefling did that wonderfully. Look at all the various ways it says you can appear. It's wide open, and they give vastly different sources for inspiration.
But the Aardling went the opposite way. It gave one real option. You have an animal head. Whether you have skin or fur or feathers, that animal head was part of the deal. It felt more constrained than the Aasimar ever did to me. It just went from limiting your inspiration from one set of world myths to another.
At least with the Aasimar, if someone said they wanted to have a crocodile head, I would have thought yes, that is within the realm of what the species is meant to be. But with the Ardling, the head is built in. Sure, I could change it at my own tables, and I would if someone asked. But not everyone feels they have that permission. They might take one look at it and never think of an alternative and just pass it by. The animal head is as likely to turn someone off as it is to excite them. Way before people think about the planar creatures that inspired them. It's just the fact that people have very strong reactions to anthropomorphic creatures.
If an animal head was one option among dozens, like the hag, incubus, horns, fur, and distinct odors are all given as examples of Tielfings, then I think it would have worked for most people right from the start. It would certainly feel more like the mirror to Tieflings that it was probably supposed to be. Right now it just speaks to a very small set of character concepts.
I do also want to add as an aside that I never saw the Aasimar as only representing Christian angels. I felt they could easily be inspired by any real world myths. They are perfectly natural fits for anything from a Yoruba Orisha, to a Greek Fury, to a Chinese immortal from Kunlun. Maybe it's the wings and mention of a halo option that throws people off. But I never saw that as indicative of only one source.
I think WotC has to make the difference more pronounced. To me aasimar lineages look like default angel, wrathful angel, and fallen angel. Wanna have something closer to greek eudaemon, norse valkyrie, slavic vila, japanese nigimitama, or a lesser Egyptian deity. Of course, the traits of benevolent spirits in most mythologies tend to converge, as they represent healing, protection, inspiration, and proper passing to afterlife. But look at the new tiefling - the lineages are pretty different in terms of flavor and abilities. WotC provided descriptions for each lineage, explaining their origin and appearance. The aasimar need the same.
It is that, and the fact that no aasimar has ever been described in a way besides judeo Christian depictions of angels. Their abilities match that depiction as well. Their lore matches that as well, nothing in it suggests any other types of dieties. And their SUBRACES all SCREAM Judeo-Christian iconography. Honestly, if you were using celestial depictions you weren't playing an aasimar. You were playing a homebrew species using the Aasimar stat block.
Edit: it would be like if I put cat ears on a halfling. Or made it where elves had goat bottoms. They are decendents of fey, who is to say they don't. It is definitely NOT that species. You can do it, but you have definitely entered the realm of homebrew. What is listed is rules as written. What you are referring to is the rules dont say I cant. Just because they dont say you cant doesn't mean you can.
That's basically what I wrote in the post above this one that you quoted. I just double posted. This one was just a side thought. I agreed in the post before this that Ardlings needed the same treatment that Tieflings got. That post is much longer and goes into more detail of my thoughts on that topic.
100% ditto. The Ardling was "divine being with animal head," which, although it appears in multiple cultures, is still definitely forcing a very specific idea of a celestial.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
That's fine if you interpreted it that way. Apparently most people do. It might have even been WotC intention for the Aasimar. I was just saying how I interpreted them. The post above that one addresses the ardling question more directly.
I do disagree a little about not really playing a species if you change the appearance. The appearance has nothing to do with rules. It's not a mechanic. If you had to use the exact physical descriptions and art from the books, every character would start looking very similar. Not a lot of people insisted that all Tieflings be red. And literally no description of elves even says what their legs look like.
I would have never used a Tabaxi in any game, as a PC or NPC, if they had to look like the art. I personally find them a little horrifying based on their standard description. But I have a well liked NPC in my current game that is a Tabaxi. He looks like a human, just with cat ears and a tail. But he's still a Tabaxi. It changes nothing about the mechanics of the species. Example physical descriptions and art are not rules. Changing the description isn't making the character a different species. I wouldn't even call it homebrew. Just because the rules don't say I can't absolutely means that I can in the case of describing a character. My dwarfs can all be 6 feet tall, clean shaven, and have tiger stripes. It changes nothing about them being a dwarf. More importantly for the Aasimar, it doesn't give one set description. It only gives sample suggestions.
But that's all irrelevant. And it doesn't matter if we ever agree on that part. My earlier post before the one you quoted explained that I understand that some people need explicit permission to change the appearance. Which is why I thought the new Tiefling was amazing. And why I would like to see the Ardling get the same treatment. Because saying they all have to have animal heads is far more restrictive than saying some Aasimar have halos. There are hundreds of real polytheistic religions all over the world where the gods and their messengers look more human. All of the inspirations should be covered.
You are flexible with homebrew that is fine. But saying an Aasimar could have an animal head from another celestial is the same as saying an elf could have a goat bottom because it is a descendent of the fey. I highly doubt most people would see that as an elf. If I walked into a game and said I was playing a wood elf and described my character that way most of the room would look at me funny and say that is a satyr not an elf (Same with your dwarf example "that's a goliath not a dwarf"). The game doesn't say you CANT fly that doesn't mean you can. I agree with the idea that more religions should be covered. I disagree that one race is capable of doing it all.
I also disagree with the idea that animal head, ANY animal head, is a narrow visual. It is certainly more varried than guy with a halo, or sparkly skin or glowie eyes. One has 6 distinct possibilities, the other has literally hundreds if not thousands of species variation and would be more varied than any race in the game as it currently exists including the new tiefling.
But it's not homebrew. A dwarf has Tremorsense. That's a game rule. Their beard is not. Flight is an actual game mechanic. Tiger stripes is not.
None of that matters though for the Aasimar especially. MotM says they are connected to the Upper Planes. It gives 6 sample physical traits. Even with the strictest interpretation of the rules as written, these are not the only options. It says right there that a player can use the examples, or make up their own. The only assumption would be that the physical traits reflect the creatures of the Upper Planes. Guardinals are among those creatures. So a player can have an animal head. You don't even have to stretch to get there. Aasimar have one of the most flexible physical descriptions in the whole game.
But so many people think they don't. I don't know if it's because of the limited art, or the list they gave as examples. That's why my longer post explaining my thoughts on why the Ardling doesn't work as well recognizes that. I think we need a Celestial mirror to the Tiefling in the PHB. But the description they give them needs to be as inclusive as the one the Tiefling got. It needs to mention all of the possible creatures you could draw inspiration from. And like the Tiefling, it should be clear that you aren't limited to what is written as examples. They can call it Aasimar or Ardling or something new.
And when I said the animal head is a narrow visual, I mean to capture the wide range of myths in the world. Both the real world and DnD. There are hundreds of polytheistic, non-Christian myths that have gods and their messengers that look more like the sample Aasimar traits than have animal heads. It doesn't matter if you can pick a crocodile or a crow. The number of animals isn't important. It's all the same image that applies to only a narrow range of inspirations.
I'm sure for some people that really want to play an Egyptian inspired character, the animal head is a perfect fit. But that's a very small group of players compared to those who want things from all the other myths in the world. Since people need permission explicitly given on appearance, then the species needs to be as flexible in that regard as the Tiefling. It only makes sense as their mirror. Especially if you take physical traits to be akin to rules.
I'm all for expanding the scope of inspiration for people. Including animal heads. But limiting it in the same action doesn't feel right to me.
To be fair, you are right, monsters of the multiverse made a vast overhaul to the Aasimar that expanded their celestial connection and moved a bit away from how they used to be. Before it wasn't upper planes it was Mount Celestia, specifically NOT where gardinals and the like came from. Before the Protector, Scourge and Fallen all hinted at judeo-christian style myths before. So I do have to give you that a lot has CHANGED about Aasimar recently to allow this more specifically. These are new options and I am less familiar with the new Aasimar as I was with the old one. The old one wouldn't have allowed this. But I do feel that altering appearance drastically from the typical depictions of a species without making it a half species goes against the idea of species at all. Why not have an 8 foot halfling, but even Wizards of the coast knows better than that. The Halfling can only be small. There is a reason for that. The aesthetics are apart of the race. You may not think various species of animals is enough of a distinct difference but I do. I wish I could draw, because the variety that provides, the world that creates, just imagining the cantina from star wars in a world where dragonborn, tieflings, and ardlings exist no two people in that cantina look remotely the same.
Even Volo's Aasimar isn't specific on appearances. It barely mentions it at all. It says they have 'otherworldly visages' and 'luminous features' and that they tend to prefer hoods when they travel to conceal their identities. If anything that helps back up even stranger appearances. Those examples in MotM really only made it worse because people take those 6 samples as being the beginning and end of the appearance option. But it really does say they are just for inspiration.
Volo's does specify that they come from Mount Celestia, and that they have guides that are usually Devas. But those are just their guides, and they aren't limited to Devas even for them. And Mount Celestia is home to many animal creatures including some Archons, Foo creatures, Lammasu, Ki-rin, etc. All of that supports the idea of animal features being one option for Aasimar. Even the new Ardling includes Mount Celestia.
When I hear Deva, I think of actual Devas from earth, which are definitely not Judeo-Christian. They do exhibit many traits given as examples in the rules. But all of this is just to say why I think an animal head was always an option for Aasimar and it was never strictly Christian at all.
I also said that I recognize why others don't. And that whatever new celestial species we get in the PHB should have a very wide range of appearance options.
I'm sure you could get a lot of different looks with the animal heads. But in the end they all would still have animal heads. I'm not talking about how different a hippo and a gecko look. I'm talking about how many myths they can represent well. And an animal head just doesn't capture as many myths as a broader appearance could. One that has room for silver skin, halos, bark, animal heads, and everything else. I just feel that a true mirror of the Tiefling would have more options for appearance to really be diverse in its influences. And I know that the animal head alone is one of the biggest sticking points for many people that just don't want that part. I think an Ardling/Aasimar as varied as the new Tiefling could please the most people.
I think the UA Ardling might be a good Hengeyokai base (for those familiar with Oriental Adventures). I’d swap the Divine cantrip for Primal and perhaps add a low CR Druid wild shape in the mix. Maybe WotC is stealth evaluating future products and Ardling isn’t really a PHB candidate anyway.
I've been thinking about that book a lot lately because of the Ardling. I would love a new version of it (Hopefully with a much better name and more cultural sensitivity).
I've wondered the same thing too. Mostly because I can't figure out why they are attached to the idea of the Ardling being an animal headed celestial. It was the thing that confused people the most in the first survey, and the one thing they didn't change. They must have some idea of their own why they want it. We're just left confused in the dark.
I think the funny thing is, if they said that they were going for something like the Hengeyokai, more people would be on board. And they could adjust the features to represent that idea better than a bunch of bland divine spells.
Maybe they are looking at using it in a different book. Maybe they just gave up on the Aasimar. Maybe they don't want to reprint it so soon after MotM (but they already have with others.) Maybe they want something they think they can trademark better. Maybe they are hoping to appeal to more than one crowd at the same time. Maybe it's just the pet project of one of the designers.
But they don't seem too attached to the mechanics at all. They freely swapped out almost all of the divine spells for something completely different. The one thing they seem attached to is there being a celestial with an animal head. And that's the one thing that a majority of people weren't specifically clamoring for. Not enough to reach 70% satisfaction anyways.