Why do fa/tg/uys hate Tielfing, Drow and Dragonborn so much?

He asked, I gave him the reason, doesn't mean I believe it. don't shoot the messenger.

and the analogy was perfect

Because they're both ugly and dumb-looking?

Dragonborn have a silly hammer-like broad head and stupid tentacles, while tiefling have those god awful eyebrow horns that give them that buttugly klingon-forehead look that's just a poor design with an unfortunate amount of WoW influence.

I think it's mostly just that one user that won't stop sperging about them, you know the one.

Well, that's your opinion, thanks.

>"I'm Shadowfang Darkblade....Last of my line who lives on the edge..."
>"Can my demonic half have been from a succubus or lust demon?"
>"So at first I plan to be evil and fight through inner battles to change neutral. I MIGHT do things that will be confrontational with the rest of the party at first."
>blatant waifu insert
>"What do you mean the order of X wont let me in simply because of my horns, red skin, tail, fanged teeth, and apparent disposition to murder people?!"

Fuck tiefling players. Every single one of them.

fuck i hadn't realized they were from 4e
i hated those dragonborn and tiefling looks too but i didn't know why they were so fucking ugly when compared to any other artist, or 5e's designs

Not that guy, but personally I prefer my dragon-men a little more lithe and less flat-headed.

Tieflings are fine, though sometimes their horns look kinda off. They're better when they sprout a little further back IMO.

4e Tieflings are heavily dependent on the artist.

Some managed to make the far-forward horns look good. Other didn't.

I like snowflakes, so I made a setting where snowflakes are normal "generic" npcs. Now I got players who play them, and I am having a blast to DM and I hope they are having a blast Playing, as for us it's less about combat and more about roleplay - and I will say monsters races and these three, if done well are perfect for roleplay.

This.
They are probably talking about the awful phb1 artist that made everyone look like shit.
Only elves, eladrin and halflings in that book managed to not get hit with the ugly bat.

The best made them look passable, but never good, because they were giant eyebrow horns, which are among the dumbest possible horn designs ever. Any 4e tiefling could have been improved with just replacing the horns with another style.

As a horn connoisseur, I was actually deeply offended that not only did they do away with the sensible idea that tieflings should vary as much as fiends do, but to lock them into such an awful design just for the sake of recognizability. Yes, they're unmistakable as anything other than D&D 4e tieflings (so you've built up your brand identity), but that's because no one else would ever want their demon-descendants to look so stupid.

>The analogy was perfect

Not the guy you replied to, but that seems to imply that you only define a character by broad strokes. Good characterisation would meld in someone's heritage, with their own personality, and goals that they want to achieve in life.

It's like saying "Oh, that's my gay friend Bert. [implication] I only remember him because he's gay.[/implication]" As opposed to "Oh, that's my friend Bert. He's working on a masters in math at the moment, and trying to reconnect with his brother after his dad died. Oh, and that's his husband Phil."

If someone's characters are defined only by their race, that's a failure of the writer, not the race.

My last Tiefling Player:

>Name: Akmenos (literally the first name given on the list of example tiefling names in the PHB)
>Alignment: Neutral Evil
>Race: Tiefling
>Class: Divine Soul (Death) Sorcerer
>Background: Noble (imagine the Darkest Dungeon's Ancestor, but he reincarnated as the Heir.)

It was weird, but I made it work and everyone had fun and got along.

>I was actually deeply offended that not only did they do away with the sensible idea that tieflings should vary as much as fiends do
Which existed in a single setting in the entirety of D&D.
No user, your little variable list doesn't apply to anything except planescape.
> that's because no one else would ever want their demon-descendants to look so stupid.
Uh, user, do you where 4e tieflings come from?

>Divine Soul (Death) Sorcerer
How does that even work?

I love the shit out of Drow and Tieflings. I'm not a big fan of dragonborn but mostly because I'm not big on beast races in general.

The people that are vocal about their dislike of them tend to be so because they aren't stock and standard Tolkien fantasy, which automatically makes them special snowflakes and everyone who plays them That Guy. It's an incredibly shallow viewpoint that is basically just a variant of badwrongfun.

>Which existed in a single setting in the entirety of D&D

They originated in Planescape, but can also be found in other settings, including Faerun.

>Uh, user, do you where 4e tieflings come from?
Wow, what a little nitpicking bitch you must be. Fine. Devil-Pact-Descendants, in 4e's case, but that doesn't flow so well off the tongue.

My personal experience with these races is
TIefling
>Sexy rogue+fighter.
>Mischievous but harmless
Dragonborn
>Strok race who is not barbaric
>Competitively Classist/Racist against Orcs.
Drow
>Elf but evil
>CRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWLING IN MY SKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN

>Faerun
Yes, and in FR, they tend to have a very specific set of features, and every piece of art of tieflings has them with horns and tail.
Now go look at a picture of Asmodeus.

Tiefling Paladins are the bestest.

Because only edgy snowflakes play them.

Because its an easy angle to attack a player.
In other words its just trolling.

In reality most people do not give a shit.
Personaly i would prefer if Lizardmen were in the core book rather than Dragonborn because i prefer races to be more mundane.
But thats where it ends.

Its just that people want to enforce some form of purity test. "How male human fighter is your character", but thats just a trolling technique. Dont take it seriously and play whatever char you want.

When you adopt an identity, you are known primarily by your identity, almost never your accomplishments.
Solution: Stop focusing on identity.

>Yes, and in FR, they tend to have a very specific set of features,

Horns, tails, and pointed teeth are the most common, but not universal, traits. This is explicitly stated. The tails, horns, and teeth likewise dramatically differ, and there are many other uncommon features that appear like scales, fur, goat legs, hooves, or forked tongues.

So, shut the fuck up.

Because they're monster races that have been shoehorned into the default setting, meaning anybody who doesn't want players to be monster races like half dragons, murder elves (but only the super-rare good aligned ones) and demon people have to defend their decision to dissalow them to people like you have to play something monsterous to be even relatively interesting.

Some people are stupid enough to put their identities at the forefront of every interaction until it's anything anyone cares or knows about them (and then complain about it), ie. Tumblr "LGBT+" people.

Of course normal people who happen to be gay will be known for their interactions before their circumstances, just like a socially apt drow may not be known as a tortureporn autist. But when you yourself identify as "Drow first, person second", you're the one who's fucked up your own social interactions, not society nor the DM or playgroup.

>no pictures of the features he talks about, every drawing a tiefling has the same set of features
>butbutbut they exist!

Maybe the idea of a monster race is retarded when they're more than capable of sentient thought? Being core doesn't necessarily mean you have to include them, if you so oppose them.

>the actual text description explains that they vary dramatically, but some features are more common than others
>but the pictures of common examples of the race look the same!

You about to shut the fuck up yet? You'd be doing yourself a favor if you did.

It's the Favored Soul (will be called Divine Soul in the next supplement) Sorcerous Origin for the Sorcerer, with the Death Domain. His backstory has him reincarnated through a demonic death god thing.

Fair point, but again, we can agree that it's the fault of people who can't write/rollplay characters for crap.

I suppose I'm a bit spoiled because I have a solid RP group, who all like to make characters deeper than a glass of water.

And despite the fact that it's well-established fact that 9 out of 10 of these characters are edgeflakes, the vocal losers who love these races have banned together to try to make the extremely fair judgement of their favorite races seem like a "tg meme" that isn't true at all.

It's a stereotype for a reason. I used to think it wasn't totally true, but real life experience has proved the internet right.

Of the many players I've had that wanted to play tieflings, drow, or dragonborn; literally 5 of them were furries, 3 of them were fags (not including the furries because most furries are also fags), 1 was literally autistic, and 1 was a cool guy who had never played and though dragon-man was cool but has never played one since.

Sorry,
"...people who can't write/roleplay for crap, not the concept of niche races itself."

They still exist in my games, they're just not player races.

Drow have a chance to actually be cool as long as you don't ruin them by making them player races.

9, and 11 are best girls
Prove me wrong, faggots

6, 9, and 11*

>I'm a product of the american school system, what do you mean books have things besides pictures in them?

But why not just use an infernal warlock if he wants to be reincarnated by a demonic death god

That's not how warlocks work. Warlocks barter with scary entities for power. They don't have innate power in their blood like sorcerers.

Because a death god's not the same as a fiend, and he probably wanted to play a Sorcerer instead of a Warlock.

>I've never had an issue with them

Uh me neither, user, I don't know what the problem is...

>or the people who play them.

Oh fuck no. These 3 races attract the worst faggots imaginable. Instant red flag.

>everyone seems to agree that these 3 races attract the worst faggots imaginable, or they're an instant red flag for some reason.

That's what I'm SAYING.

He was kind of new, building his character on whim decisions as I walked him through his choices. It was his fault for not reading through the pdfs I sent everyone before the first session, but also my fault for overwhelming him with options.

You had a brand new player go through the Unearthed Arcanas?

Perceived Mary Sueness of the races due to association with less than stellar writing and stories, both false and true but exaggerated, as well as the perceived attention hogging due to being an unusual race not commonly met outside of enemies and important characters in exotic locations.

>Tieflings
They're a bad combo of special snowflake, furfag, and "I am ebil >:3" That Guy tendencies. The kind you used in your pic were from Eberron, and that ruined a lot of people's idea of them because they lost the special snowflake aspect and became boring. At least in their opinion.

>Drow
Don't hate them at all, they just get used a lot by players who are going for some ultra edgy "outcast" shit. Also a lot of people hate the role-reversal "good drow" thing, but I actually like that, especially as a DM. A character who needs to prove their worth or "redeem" themselves through good deeds tends to be way more interesting than le power lust man or le dead parents girl.

>Dragonborn
Dragonborn are just shitty and they don't really fit any setting except Eberron (which they were created for). They have the neat dragonbreath ability, but other than that they're just weird re-fluffed lizardfolk, which is kinda redundant. Lizardfolk were a cooler supplemental race because they had/have a bit more RP fluff.

>tiefling players are the worst people alive

Where do succubus players fall?

not even people.

>Dragonborn are just shitty and they don't really fit any setting except Eberron (which they were created for). They have the neat dragonbreath ability, but other than that they're just weird re-fluffed lizardfolk, which is kinda redundant. Lizardfolk were a cooler supplemental race because they had/have a bit more RP fluff.
Anyone who uses arguments like this has almost never actually read the fluff they were given when 4e created them.

There's just a tiny little difference between "spiritual kinsfolk to (or original models for) dragons who once had a dragon-ruled empire before they fought to mutual destruction with the tiefling empire" and "primitive reptilian tribals who haven't grown or changed in the slightest after millennia of grubbing around in the swamps".

>Dragonborn are just shitty and they don't really fit any setting except Eberron (which they were created for)
What the fuck are you talking about?

>except Eberron (which they were created for)
It was Greyhawk, dumbass.

Yeah, I know, right? I mean, it's not like there's not a whole official sourcebook dedicated to them exclusively...

What does that have to do with Eberron?

It doesn't. The guy saying they were made FOR Eberron is completely wrong in saying sol; they were made for another setting entirely.

Well yeah, they also predate 4e, but they were pretty different back then

I can't speak for his reasons, but personally I like dragonborn a lot more when they're depicted as more lithe and sinuous rather than just being big and stocky. Dragons are really long with their necks and tails, so having dragonborn be more serpentine feels more fitting to me.

That said, in regard's to OP's point, I would say that the three of those are also rather difficult to work into a lot of settings in interesting ways. Sometimes demon-men and dragon-men just don't fit what's going on in the rest of the world.

Yes. Despite the fact that Wizards was pushing out supplements and UAs slower than any previous edition, it was still more frequent than the sessions I was getting to game in, so I grew impatient and told my players that everything is on the table for character creation, even homebrew. They still stuck mostly to the core books.

Thats dumb what you said in the second paragraph

Isn't that what this means?
>but other than that they're just weird re-fluffed lizardfolk

Seems like user is agreeing they're refluffed, but fit a niche (i.e. lizard humanoids) that could have worked with the stock standard lizardfolk, if not giving them a touch of civilization.

Every game I have ever played with a tielfing rogue (two different groups) has ended with the edglord edglording out and stealing/killing/otherwise destroying the campaign.

Rouges in general tend to edgelord, don't drag tieflings into it.

> why do [the entirety of Veeky Forums share a singular opinion]
spoiler alert

>Why do fa/tg/uys hate Tielfing, Drow and Dragonborn so much?

>Tielfing
muh half demon half celestial half vampire half umber hulk half saiyan half sonic gokuverine half moon princess half elf half orc half kender
>Drow
Drizzt. Drizzt everywhere.
"Oh, I'm not playing Drizzt. It may be an exact copy of Drizzt, but it's not-drizzt."
>Dragonborn
I wanna fuck a reptile!

What's Veeky Forums's opinion on a tiefling paladin who viciously hates himself for his demonic heritage and whose ultimate goal in life is to purge his body of all demonic influence and eradicate the demonic blood inside him and thus allow him to live life as a normal human and not subject any future descendants of his to a life as a tiefling?

I'll sum it up for you. Cliche, boring, uninspired, Marie sue.

Works fine enough, but could probably stand to lighten up a bit. Self-loathing on a Paladin could get annoying very fast if too played up.

In my experience, either low tier or the toppest top tier. In ERP games. Most people just use the idea because they are lazy. It takes a special kind of person to turn fetish bait into a redeeming character.

Tieflings aren't half demons though. It says a lot when the people who detract from a race don't even know what the fuck it's supposed to be in the first place.

In 5e they're descendants of half demons.

Only Tieflings on the prime material were affected by the ritual that made asmodeus a god and made them all his descendants. Even then after the most recent cosmic event, where the gods return and the tablets of fate are restored, the tieflings born after this are similar to what existed pre-4e

This was confirmed by devs in a FAQ about DND Next when they were asked about Tieflings and whether they would remain as they were in 4e or go back to what they looked like before since there were so many vocal vehement complaints about their appearance in 4e

Come at me bro

They're the distant descendants of half-demons.

>World has no dragons
>World has no demons that could have offspring
>Has Tieflings and Dragonborn anyway

Yeah, no

I don't know. I mean, I don't particularly like the SRD design of those races, but I'm pretty flexible when it comes to appearance, so that's not really an issue for me.
ex. this is an example of a totally acceptable dragonborn to me

I'm still correct.

Foe me, i don't care about dragonborn. Drow is typically drizzt syndrome and a lot of the hate i've heard recently is because they were made a core race in 5th just because of the drizzt fans. Tieflings on the other hand i like, except the 4e bullshit, though i did relate to "Centuries of other races’ distrust and outright
hatred have made tieflings self-reliant and often too
willing to live up to the stereotypes imposed on them.
As a race without a homeland, tieflings know that they
have to make their own way in the world and that they
have to be strong to survive, and they are not quick to
trust anyone who claims to be a friend. However, when
a tiefling’s companions demonstrate that they trust him
or her, the tiefling quickly learns to extend the same
trust to them. And once a tiefling gives someone trust
and loyalty, the tiefling is a firm friend and ally for life." for the 4e player's guide.

I typically play as a tiefling ranger in 3.5, pathfinder, 5e, and the very few 4e games i played.

Devils not demons
Infernal descent not abyssal

If Tieflings are descended from demons, then why are there still demons? Checkmate, Atheists.

Are you one of those people that get royally anal if you call a medusa a gorgon?

Why play D&D then?

D&D is all about dragons, it's in the name. And if your donut steal homebrew world doesn't have 1000 different intelligent races within 100 km radius, just lol.

No, play a Fire and Brinstone preacher Paladin. Yeah, his great-great...grandparents got involved in it, but they're going to make sure no one else does

(you)

And make sure that he's chopped off his horns, filed down his claws and doesn't use any of his demonic powers.

>viciously hates himself
Why wouldn't the character just kill themselves? Quick way to make sure your future descendants have no chance of being a tiefling.

So you're one of those people who gets offended by being corrected?

For me with tieflings it's too constraining on visuals. A mortal tainted and changed by fiendish blood or influence is greater than a purple or red skinned humans with horns and a tail. I prefer the visually varied tieflings of 2e.

No, in the kind of person that realizes that they're synonymous in most scenarios except for forgotten realms. Which the player handbook doesn't even explicitly use as default.

They're also different in pathfinder and just about every DND setting

Which is what this thread is talking about

All of the DND material clearly states infernal/abyssal devil/demon in any situation that those particular outsiders are mentioned

>in
>I'm*

Fixed it for you

No, that's what they are in 2e and 3e.
In 5e their official origin was a watered down version of 4e's.
Except they also keep putting in alternate tiefling types with alternate origins to try to please people who want "muh planescape" style tieflings back.

Do people still play Drizzt clones these days? Most drow players I've seem to be riding the "dickass elf" or "I'm enjoying life on the surface instead of underground spider land" kicks.