| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| jordanz |
Posted - 05 Feb 2011 : 21:27:38
It seems like every race has some noteworthy members. Even the Teiflings had KAANYR Vhok but where are the AASIMAR? Are they just so exceeding rare or are they just considered "boring"? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 13 Nov 2011 : 00:40:32
Intellectual concerns, manipulations, and procreation as a means to propagate ideologies or heirs and agendas or whatnot all being set aside for the moment ... an aasimar is still (at least) half human, and it seems to me that aasimar would therefore possess very much the same biological imperatives as humans, even if only in half measure.
Agreed, not all gods are stuffy morally upstanding puritans. They are pagan, they are powerful, they are the embodied abstractions of every passion and every extreme which falls within the capacity of humans - and non-humans - of the Realms. |
| Therise |
Posted - 12 Nov 2011 : 17:57:26
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Although... I could very easily see an Aasimar child of Sune, or Bast, or Llira, dressed very provocatively. Perhaps the reason we've mostly seen art for Aasimar that is reserved and puritanical is that many of them have been children of "duty" or "honor" celestials and they simply don't think of their beauty / sexiness as being important to whatever mission they're on.
One would expect, however, that dramatically fewer celestials devoted exclusively to duty and honour, without a sexy thought in their luminous bodies, manage to sire any children.
Who said that the duty/honor-related Aasimar don't have any desire for sex?
My comment was more that: if you're an adventurer, and your business is adventuring to uphold virtues and such, you're not very likely to dress provocatively for business.
quote:
So I'd expect most aasimar to be descended from celestials that find humans sexually attractive and are willing to act on that feeling. So deities of love, lust and fun (and their servitors) are much more likely to have aasimar descendants than those deities and servitors who never stop to smell the roses (or juicy mortals) while they carry out their honourable tasks.
I'd actually expect fewer aasimar to be descended from good-oriented deities of lust/beauty. Statistically, beauty and sexiness are not exactly what you'd expect to find among dirty peasants. You're more likely to find beauty/sexiness among fellow celestials.
Furthermore, if and when a good celestial does mate with a mortal based on beauty/lustful characteristics, it's not necessarily the case that the aasimar offspring would adventure (where a duty/honor aasimar would be more likely to adventure).
Demons and evil celestials might mate with any old human, attractive or not, so long as they further their own agenda.
|
| Icelander |
Posted - 12 Nov 2011 : 17:10:47
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Although... I could very easily see an Aasimar child of Sune, or Bast, or Llira, dressed very provocatively. Perhaps the reason we've mostly seen art for Aasimar that is reserved and puritanical is that many of them have been children of "duty" or "honor" celestials and they simply don't think of their beauty / sexiness as being important to whatever mission they're on.
One would expect, however, that dramatically fewer celestials devoted exclusively to duty and honour, without a sexy thought in their luminous bodies, manage to sire any children.
In order to beget, one must get it on, as they say.
So I'd expect most aasimar to be descended from celestials that find humans sexually attractive and are willing to act on that feeling. So deities of love, lust and fun (and their servitors) are much more likely to have aasimar descendants than those deities and servitors who never stop to smell the roses (or juicy mortals) while they carry out their honourable tasks. |
| Therise |
Posted - 12 Nov 2011 : 17:06:00
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I noticed the differences in clothing style as well. Aasimar are usually shown wearing solemn ceremonial priestly garments while tieflings are typically portrayed as sexed up gothmetal biker rebels. I agree the angelic veils are somewhat cool but I wonder why aasimar conceal their faces and features. Are they shy or afraid? Do they feel guilt or shame about their appearance? Do they encourage deception? Do they sunburn easily or suffer vanity? I would think they'd be inclined to revel in their beauty and share it with others, and that they'd prefer openness in all their dealings.
Odd that outsiders would adopt our (outdated) social mores about clothing and propriety, aasimar want to appear puritan while tieflings wanna party, and they evidently costume themselves the way we would to play these parts. Fiends are tough, adapted to suffer no harm from exposure to the harsh conditions on the lower planes, so they obviously don't need to protect themselves from the elements in places like Toril. But celestials have just as many resistances and immunities, so a similar argument doesn't justify why they're so heavily zipped up. If anything, tieflings should be more clothed simply because they tend to follow more hazardous vocations. I can understand tieflings not favouring concealing headwear, since they almost universally have a confrontational and defiant attitude.
Although... I could very easily see an Aasimar child of Sune, or Bast, or Llira, dressed very provocatively. Perhaps the reason we've mostly seen art for Aasimar that is reserved and puritanical is that many of them have been children of "duty" or "honor" celestials and they simply don't think of their beauty / sexiness as being important to whatever mission they're on.
I mean, if you're a child of Torm (or one of his celestials), you probably wouldn't want people to be staring at your chest or your butt while you're trying to organize and rally against a group of evildoers.
|
| Icelander |
Posted - 12 Nov 2011 : 15:25:39
quote:
Originally posted by Brynweir
I could be mistaken here, but can't a half-celestial be the child of a deity and a mortal and not just that of, say, an angel and a mortal? Half-celestial = the son of a god born of a mortal woman, no? Yeah, go ahead and yell at me. 
By Realmslore, this is probably true.
The descendants of the God-Kings of Mulhorand are canonically aasimar and a son or daughter might well be half-celestial. Mulhorand is filled with individuals with some divine blood.
Anyone looking for noteworthy Aasimar in the Realms ought to start there. Unfortunately, I don't think that any were named. In my campaign, I have a lot of the higher-ups in the clergy of Horus-Re be aasimar and some are half-celestials with special abilities related to their god-ancestor. |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 07 Feb 2011 : 16:30:24
The reason might have been touched on in either the main article on them in Player's Handbook 2, or in the dragon artcile Ecology of the Deva. It's been some time since I've read either and, as mentioned, I don't have access right now. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 07 Feb 2011 : 08:50:45
I noticed the differences in clothing style as well. Aasimar are usually shown wearing solemn ceremonial priestly garments while tieflings are typically portrayed as sexed up gothmetal biker rebels. I agree the angelic veils are somewhat cool but I wonder why aasimar conceal their faces and features. Are they shy or afraid? Do they feel guilt or shame about their appearance? Do they encourage deception? Do they sunburn easily or suffer vanity? I would think they'd be inclined to revel in their beauty and share it with others, and that they'd prefer openness in all their dealings.
Odd that outsiders would adopt our (outdated) social mores about clothing and propriety, aasimar want to appear puritan while tieflings wanna party, and they evidently costume themselves the way we would to play these parts. Fiends are tough, adapted to suffer no harm from exposure to the harsh conditions on the lower planes, so they obviously don't need to protect themselves from the elements in places like Toril. But celestials have just as many resistances and immunities, so a similar argument doesn't justify why they're so heavily zipped up. If anything, tieflings should be more clothed simply because they tend to follow more hazardous vocations. I can understand tieflings not favouring concealing headwear, since they almost universally have a confrontational and defiant attitude. |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 07 Feb 2011 : 07:18:29
Well, I'd imagine tiefling women are more inclined to wear revealing clothing than aasimar/deva women. Come to think of it, most 4e artwork I've seen of deva women has them dressing rather conservatively, even wearing viels/masks to cover their face(imagry I'm rather fond of). Tiefling women...less so. |
| Shemmy |
Posted - 07 Feb 2011 : 07:13:27
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
Half-god ... the rules in (and out) of D&D seem very unclear about what that actually implies, a half-god might essentially amount to being a pure-god, an avatar of the parent god, a Hercules superhero, or simply a remarkable "human" hero/King/etc.
To me there seems to be a bit a blur between the weakest gods and the mightiest fiends/celestials in D&D, confusing the distinction between a half-god and a half-celestial even more. Some people can accept (or assume) more absolute definitions than I can, and of course, the relevant details have suffered several contradictory revisions over the years.
It changes by edition and even by the book and author within each edition of the game. I don't think 1e really addressed the topic, 2e had sources saying different things, 3e had sources saying different things, and 4e I believe has gods on top always versus archfiends (I don't know their reasoning).
For instance, 2e's Hellbound: The Blood War had details on why deities don't actively fight in the Blood War, but only act through proxies at most. At some point as they got too active, they all began to notice their divine essence literally fraying apart, and eventually one of them died as a result. Once they withdrew, it stopped. The cause isn't known, but planetary-scale genocide of their worshippers by the various fiends was one possibility. There was also one specific incident of the 'loths killing a god by snuffing out the faith of his worshippers and literally bleeding him dry. There are a few other instances such as Set and Prince Levistus of Hell getting into a tiff, and Levistus by force of will over the layer of Stygia causing an actual contraction of Set's deific domain.
Other sources say the exact opposite. But it's often a case of giving the archfiends homefield advantage. They're literally the stuff of Evil - living extensions of their own planes, and gods may be of evil alignment, but they lack that same primordial (not the 4e term) link to it and its representative plane. However outside of that native plane, a deity has the advantage pretty much everywhere else. Ultimately it's in the best interest of both to simply stay out of the others' way, because too much is at stake, and they often care about utterly different goals.
As for my opinion, when it comes to the 1e/2e/3e version of things within D&D, my contribution in the one instance it applies comes down to "gods will get their clocks cleaned if they take on an archfiend on its home plane." Pathfinder is a bit different, and Gods by and large are indeed top dog, but they aren't absolutely the same in nature as deities from the classical Planescape definition of such things. Plus Lamashtu and Asmodeus are both archfiends and deities at the same time - they're cool like that. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 07 Feb 2011 : 07:02:50
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
Angels can be very interesting when potrayed as more hardlined divine servants rather than the guy on your shoulder telling you to do good. To paraphrase from Supernatural; "Angels are warriors of God. I'm a soldier. I pulled you out of the pit, and I can put you back in. You should show me some respect."
They don't have to be bad to be interesting. But "good" doesn't mean "nice".
I want to see Constantine have wings. That's the kind of angel I want!
But you're right. Angels don't have to be evil to be interesting. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 07 Feb 2011 : 07:02:45
I note that google searches find many more hits for tiefling than for aasimar. I also note that images of aasimar can be found in roughly equal numbers of male and female (and indeterminant) genders, while images of tieflings are overwhelmingly female. The aasimar often have to pose in group photos with other outsider freaks, while the tieflings almost always get closeup shots. |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 07 Feb 2011 : 06:56:44
Angels can be very interesting when potrayed as more hardlined divine servants rather than the guy on your shoulder telling you to do good. To paraphrase from Supernatural; "Angels are warriors of God. I'm a soldier. I pulled you out of the pit, and I can put you back in. You should show me some respect."
They don't have to be bad to be interesting. But "good" doesn't mean "nice". |
| Shemmy |
Posted - 07 Feb 2011 : 06:54:17
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrant
*I was never clear, do tieflings descend from devils, demons, or both?
I've always assumed both.
Any type of fiend. There are some 'loth blooded tieflings specifically noted as being such (Kylie the Tout for instance, was rumored to be the Marauder's grand-daughter). You could probably even find tieflings descended from fiends who don't possess the capacity to breed in the first place.
And I pronounce tiefling as TEE-fling. PS:Torment did the same, and there have been some pronunciation guides that likewise went that route.
And fwiw, any commentary I have on planar material refers to 1e/2e/3e rather than 4e. 4e changes so many basic things that it's effectively a different game with regards to planar matters and even the base identity of many creatures. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 07 Feb 2011 : 06:49:30
Angels usually bore me, unless they become selfish and evil, though not necessarily dark.
Aasimar...doesn't interest me at all. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 07 Feb 2011 : 06:44:56
Even in this thread about aasimar we prefer to talk about tieflings. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 07 Feb 2011 : 06:18:02
I think it's pretty common that most people like the evil/dark race/organization more than their good counterparts. Most like dark angels than angels; death knights than (plain, boring) knights; death god than god of life; necromancers than enchanters...No wonder most also like tieflings more than aasimar. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 06 Feb 2011 : 23:36:21
Rakshasas have always been a bit of a problem child in D&D planar lore. They've evolved through roles as simple monsters, "evil spirits", demons, quasi-demons, quasi-devils, interloping evil planars ... further complicated by the oft-conflicting treatment/roles of Rakshasas in Eberron and other settings.
The fallen-deva story is part of D&D's cosmic cleanup effort, an attempt to categorically remove redundancies and exceptions, much like the fallen-angel erinyes succubus and fallen-celestial archdevil retcons. Reasonably plausible, actually quite sensible. I'm more inclined to stick with older lore on such things — the planes (and their denizens) aren't required to have symmetry, fit into nice compartments, or make any sense to mortals. |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 06 Feb 2011 : 23:06:47
Another thought that annoys me about devas turning into rakshasas when they cross the line into evil; angels, by their very nature, are no longer good. They are the servants of the gods, good or evil, and share their deity's alignment. It would make sense for some evil angels to have bound themselves in mortal form as well, creating evil devas. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 06 Feb 2011 : 22:59:43
I suppose it would be simpler to answer your question by just saying "no, there aren't really any consistent game rules for divinely-sired NPCs". |
| Tyrant |
Posted - 06 Feb 2011 : 21:39:48
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
Xvim Baneson was generally considered a lesser power or demipower, although his parentage involved some vague kind of demon or fiend, not a mortal. Many half-gods exist, although the non-god parent is typically some kind of unique or titanic planar thing or primal concept or whatever, again not a mortal. Well-known half-gods from mythology include Hercules/Heracles, Achilles, Perseus, Helen of Troy, King Minos, Gilgamesh, Thor, Tyr, Egyptian Pharaohs, Chinese and Japanese Emperors ... some of these were alternately worshipped as full gods. Technically all half-gods are called "demi-gods", though not in D&D.
Sorry, I meant in D&D. I know there are a number in Earth mythology. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 06 Feb 2011 : 21:33:52
Xvim Baneson was generally considered a lesser power or demipower, although his parentage involved some vague kind of demon or fiend, not a mortal. Many half-gods exist, although the non-god parent is typically some kind of unique or titanic planar thing or primal concept or whatever, again not a mortal. Well-known half-gods from mythology include Hercules/Heracles, Achilles, Perseus, Helen of Troy, King Minos, Gilgamesh, Thor, Tyr, Egyptian Pharaohs, Chinese and Japanese Emperors ... some of these were alternately worshipped as full gods. Technically all half-gods are called "demi-gods", though not in D&D. |
| Tyrant |
Posted - 06 Feb 2011 : 21:06:02
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
I believe it is possible to go back to deva, though I forget how and don't have access to any of my source books right now.
I'm not disinterested in devas, and indeed I love their current look of tall humans with unearthly two-toned skin colors. But their scarcity makes them hard to intigrate into a story without sticking out like a sore thumb, the built in past lives weighing down on them can be tricky to write for, and their extreme reluctance if not flat out inability to go evil makes them tricky when most of my stories focus on people who are at best in the darker side of neutral.
It will be interesting to see how they are handled in Dawnbringer.
@Arik-Yeah I am of the belief that some of the Archdevils and the Demon Princes are on a power level comparable to some of the lesser gods and the lines can get blurry. Not counting Asmodeus who is a full on god now. Are there any examples of half gods?* I would think with a direct divine connection like that they would have the chance to potentially ascend at some point. I suppose we might see something along these lines in Godborn depending on what transpired with Cale's unborn child (as far as what Mask did or did not do).
*What was Bane's son counted as? One of these days I might read more about him. |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 06 Feb 2011 : 20:25:46
I believe it is possible to go back to deva, though I forget how and don't have access to any of my source books right now.
I'm not disinterested in devas, and indeed I love their current look of tall humans with unearthly two-toned skin colors. But their scarcity makes them hard to intigrate into a story without sticking out like a sore thumb, the built in past lives weighing down on them can be tricky to write for, and their extreme reluctance if not flat out inability to go evil makes them tricky when most of my stories focus on people who are at best in the darker side of neutral. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 06 Feb 2011 : 20:24:34
Half-god ... the rules in (and out) of D&D seem very unclear about what that actually implies, a half-god might essentially amount to being a pure-god, an avatar of the parent god, a Hercules superhero, or simply a remarkable "human" hero/King/etc.
To me there seems to be a bit a blur between the weakest gods and the mightiest fiends/celestials in D&D, confusing the distinction between a half-god and a half-celestial even more. Some people can accept (or assume) more absolute definitions than I can, and of course, the relevant details have suffered several contradictory revisions over the years. |
| Tyrant |
Posted - 06 Feb 2011 : 20:16:54
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
By 4e, devas as they are now called (angels have been completely reworked so deva is no longer a type of angel, and people got tired of the assimar joke) are no longer the result of celestials mixing with mortals, rather they are celestials who have bound themselves to a mortal form. They don't reproduce sexually; rather, whenever they die, they are reincarnated in a new form with fragmented memories. Also, if they turn to evil, then when they are reincarnated they become...what are those things called...the evil cat peole with the backwards hands? Rakshas? Something like that.
Likewise, tieflings(which I pronounce TIE) are no longer the result of crossbreeding with fiends, but are a race unto themselves born of a pact between humans and devils. They also have a more standard physical appearance as opposed to simply being humans with slight deformities. A lot of people don't like the new look as they think it is too monstrous, which is a valid arguement, but personally I like it.
You're close. Rakshasa is what you're looking for. Don't they also keep reincarnating upon death (with no real hope of going back to Deva status)? |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 06 Feb 2011 : 20:07:33
By 4e, devas as they are now called (angels have been completely reworked so deva is no longer a type of angel, and people got tired of the assimar joke) are no longer the result of celestials mixing with mortals, rather they are celestials who have bound themselves to a mortal form. They don't reproduce sexually; rather, whenever they die, they are reincarnated in a new form with fragmented memories. Also, if they turn to evil, then when they are reincarnated they become...what are those things called...the evil cat peole with the backwards hands? Rakshas? Something like that.
Likewise, tieflings(which I pronounce TIE) are no longer the result of crossbreeding with fiends, but are a race unto themselves born of a pact between humans and devils. They also have a more standard physical appearance as opposed to simply being humans with slight deformities. A lot of people don't like the new look as they think it is too monstrous, which is a valid arguement, but personally I like it. |
| Brynweir |
Posted - 06 Feb 2011 : 18:01:51
I could be mistaken here, but can't a half-celestial be the child of a deity and a mortal and not just that of, say, an angel and a mortal? Half-celestial = the son of a god born of a mortal woman, no? Yeah, go ahead and yell at me. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 06 Feb 2011 : 17:43:33
The only Biblical references I can recall would be the Nephilim, though there might be others. Many religions (real and fictional) claim that some monarch or dynasty possesses divine or celestial lineage. Some mythologies would technically have all of humanity be descended, at least in part, from the blood of a common divine or celestial ancestor.
Agreed, an aasimar or avatar character seems quite inoffensive when demons, devils, and various monstrous evils are already popularized in the media. That still doesn't make them any less "boring", though, because good is dumb. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 06 Feb 2011 : 17:36:12
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
Aasimar might be the expected to become awesome paladin and cleric sorts ... but I think aasimar warlocks would be equally impressive, and who wouldn't find an aasimar bard compelling?
To be technical: tieflings were introduced as a player race in 2E planescape, although (as a race) they had a very different look and flavour than they do in 4E. The same planescape lore also included aasimar, but as hardly more than a monster entry.
Yep probably another reason why there's so much tiefling love now. As the editions rolled on, they've gain a lot of popularity (same as drow) while Aasimar have fallen behind.
quote:
Originally posted by jordanz
Forgive my ignorance. I've been away from the actual game since the 2nd edition. Do the bonuses and additional abilities I presume the Aasimar gain make them too potentially powerful? Is a Aasimar Cleric or Paladin just too uber?
Not really, espically when you consider the +1 level adjustement. Or at least not compared to a race that works well with it's Faovred Class such as a gold elf Wizard or a half-orc Barbarian. Their special qualities play up to the divine classes better than others, but as Arik said, they make good Bards as well with the +2 to Cha, and the +2 to Wis isn't a bad buff either. Couple that with no racial penalties and it's a solid choice for a race.
And as far as the fun at playing Good vs. Evil, that's all pretty much up to the style a player enjoys regardless of Race. An Aasimar can just as easily be an evil Warlock or Dread Necromancer as a Tiefling can be a good Paladin or Cleric. |
| Tyrant |
Posted - 06 Feb 2011 : 17:31:23
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
Yeah, angels (of some sort) feature in any number of shows. But half-angels or diluted angel descendants? Is this concept just too "boring" or strange (or perhaps too religiously offensive) to become mainstream?
My guess is that the masses see angels as beings that don't sleep around with human women. Either because they literally can't (by divine edict, or because they lack the equipment), or because they are beyond earthly desires. They are viewed as oppoosing demons. Demons usually personify corruption and temptation on every level possible, which includes physical pleasure (viewed by some as a weakness us lowly mortals should control). So I don't think it's that odd that there aren't many to speak of in (wide spread, popular) fiction. |
|
|
