Alternate Tieflings

dungeon crawl stone soup just calls them "demonspawn"

Before that, though, they were mortal races with some fiend blood in their veins, but what kind of fiend and what characteristics they displayed varied wildly until Asmodeus "claimed them all his own" and they all became the red skinned, horned, tailed tieflings used in modern editions of D&D. There are a few that escaped that, or were tieflings not because they were descendants of those tieflings but were instead made from recent mixing of blood, which do possess wildly different traits.

The traits had no relation to their ancestry.

I can't believe anyone cares about fluff after 2e/OG Planescape. There's literally nothing that was improved, and almost everything got worse.

To be honest, I prefer the 4e and 5e versions. You should at least look the part if you're going to play a Tiefling, otherwise it feels like one of the billion other Elves, or a Satyr type.

> I prefer the newer editions because my definition of the race is defined by the newer editions
That's all well and good, and a valid option, but your syntax also carries the implication that the originals are actually inferior, because do not look like the new version of the tiefling.

There's been a real lack of Al-Qadims and Everton, but part of the issue has to do with economics. It's much more efficient to put out Adventure Paths than new settings.

Purely personal opinion, I just feel that monster races should really look the part. However, I totally understand why people would pick the previous version, and I do like the random trait table they had.

>Right, so they don't own the concept but they do own the word.

No nigga they don't. Paizo uses it all the time. They've got like five words copywritten.

As far as I know, Wizards only owns "illithid", which is why Pathfinder calls them "mind flayers". What are the others?

They've got a few things they've kept out of the OGL for brand identity whatever
d20srd.org/faq.htm