The only annoying thing I found in the book that *might* be some SJW nonsense (but, more likely, is just a re-imagining I think is stupid) is this:

QuoteTo a devil, gender is insignificant. Devils can't create new life through physical means; a new devil comes into being only when a soul is corrupted or claimed in a bargain, and the gender of the mortal that provided the soul is immaterial. Devils that represent themselves to mortals are likely to adopt an appearance (including an apparent gender) that conforms with what those mortals believe to be true. Gender (and the assumptions that mortals make about it) is just another tool for devils to use to get what they want.

It then specifically mentions Glasya, who I remember pretty well from my old Monster Manual. Sure, I can ignore this sidebar, but it really changes just what devils are, fundamentally, and I don't like it. This seems like it'd be much more applicable to demons who never seemed to have any sort of sex; devils, however, were definitely tied to male or female in the old D&D books.

Again, change for a nefarious reason or just a stupid ass one? Why not make this explicit statement about demons instead?

Quote from: AsenRG;1042009Is it hard to revert to the "old" elves? Or are there any mechanical reasons to include it?

You can use and/or ignore any content you want regarding race backgrounds. There's no "DnD police" to enforce you use the fluff content.
The campaigns I run are not in any official DnD setting, but even so, the extra monsters and stuff make buying the book worth it for me.

Quote from: Brad;1042157It then specifically mentions Glasya, who I remember pretty well from my old Monster Manual. Sure, I can ignore this sidebar, but it really changes just what devils are, fundamentally, and I don't like it. This seems like it'd be much more applicable to demons who never seemed to have any sort of sex; devils, however, were definitely tied to male or female in the old D&D books.

Again, change for a nefarious reason or just a stupid ass one? Why not make this explicit statement about demons instead?

Actually. Some of this stuff existed in 3rd edition and 4th edition. It's not altogether new. Just expanded on a little.

I remember some of that contained in The Book Of Vile Darkness for 3rd edition..

Quote from: danskmacabre;1042166You can use and/or ignore any content you want regarding race backgrounds. There's no "DnD police" to enforce you use the fluff content.
The campaigns I run are not in any official DnD setting, but even so, the extra monsters and stuff make buying the book worth it for me.

It's the type of book for D&D I really like. Every bit of its contents are modular. You can easily do anything you want with it.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1042172Actually. Some of this stuff existed in 3rd edition and 4th edition. It's not altogether new. Just expanded on a little.

I remember some of that contained in The Book Of Vile Darkness for 3rd edition..

Can you tell me where in BoVD? I'm curious to see how much it's been expanded.

Quote from: Brad;1042174Can you tell me where in BoVD? I'm curious to see how much it's been expanded.

Page 173 on.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1042173It's the type of book for D&D I really like. Every bit of its contents are modular. You can easily do anything you want with it.

Yeah it's a fun read.  I'll be importing some of the Demonic and Devilish politics/creature stat blocks etc into my campaign.
The Halfling, Elvish etc stuff I'll glance over, but probably not use, although it was an interesting read.

The long list of monsters int he second half I'll defo use.. All fun stuff... can't have too many monster books...  

And yeah, I like how they're making these content books, fun to read and easy to integrate if you want to.

Quote from: Brad;1042157The only annoying thing I found in the book that *might* be some SJW nonsense (but, more likely, is just a re-imagining I think is stupid) is this:



It then specifically mentions Glasya, who I remember pretty well from my old Monster Manual. Sure, I can ignore this sidebar, but it really changes just what devils are, fundamentally, and I don't like it. This seems like it'd be much more applicable to demons who never seemed to have any sort of sex; devils, however, were definitely tied to male or female in the old D&D books.

Again, change for a nefarious reason or just a stupid ass one? Why not make this explicit statement about demons instead?

It would definitely fit the CE demons, including succubi/incubi, much better than the LE devils, I agree. The 1e devils seem to have equivalents to human societies; demons don't.

Quote from: S'mon;1042205It would definitely fit the CE demons, including succubi/incubi, much better than the LE devils, I agree. The 1e devils seem to have equivalents to human societies; demons don't.

Devils have an ordered society, but I'd hardly call it one equivalent to human societies anymore than I'd make that comparison to a colony of ants.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1042218Devils have an ordered society, but I'd hardly call it one equivalent to human societies anymore than I'd make that comparison to a colony of ants.

In the 1e MM & MM2 the higher devils have a pretty clear feudal society, including something analogous to marriage and parenting. Dunno about Planescape+.

Quote from: AsenRG;1042055Yes, I get the analogy.
What I asked is whether the number painted on the car is in inscrubably fluorescent paint and whether a simple layer of black paint would be enough:).

I would say it's an engraving. I mean honestly, we sit here on this forum arguing about editions that are *decades* out of print, this and many other things will become attributed to to this edition just like silly stuff from other editions that we individually ignored, or changed, at our tables. But it'll be there to remind us, forever, that yes, it was a thing.

The perennial questions are: why was it a thing? And did it *need* to be there in the first place?

and ultimately you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. And thus here we are.

Quote from: Brad;1042157The only annoying thing I found in the book that *might* be some SJW nonsense (but, more likely, is just a re-imagining I think is stupid) is this:



It then specifically mentions Glasya, who I remember pretty well from my old Monster Manual. Sure, I can ignore this sidebar, but it really changes just what devils are, fundamentally, and I don't like it. This seems like it'd be much more applicable to demons who never seemed to have any sort of sex; devils, however, were definitely tied to male or female in the old D&D books.

Again, change for a nefarious reason or just a stupid ass one? Why not make this explicit statement about demons instead?

Where do Tieflings come from? C'mon do you really think they did this for non-ideological reasons? Binary-gender relations is eeeevil. Ask the Drow.

Okay that's pretty stupid.  Devil spunk/procreating is a pretty big feature of occultism and occult horror.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1042218Devils have an ordered society, but I'd hardly call it one equivalent to human societies anymore than I'd make that comparison to a colony of ants.

That depends on how you view the planes. Are they the meta reality of the universe, where concepts and ideas exist? Are they Heaven and Hell? Or are they just basically alien worlds with separate laws of nature and their own unique ecologies? If you view it as the latter, then sure, say whatever you want about their biology. If not, then how they relate to, or diverge from, mortals matters quite a lot.

Quote from: KingCheops;1042080There's literally no rules for the shape changing and it is specifically called out as something the DM decides.

Good enough for me, then. (Also makes it look like someone adding his pet houserule to a book, but I can definitely live with that).

QuoteIt's even a sidebar so you'd have to really be a non-assertive DM.

No idea. I'm a Referee who says "no Wizards or demihumans in this campaign", and expects nobody will make a character with any occult powers or non-human heritage when they bring me characters...

But I've also seen GMs online almost apologizing for deciding some book or another is off-limits. Because one player was unhappy.
When there were 20+ applications:).
So I was thinking about those guys, and they might still have an issue requesting changes in a character sheet - even to preserve their own setting. But you can't help everyone...
As I said, good enough for me. (And also because it helps setting the elves apart from humanity...now if we could get something equally weird - but not the same - for the other demihumans!)

Quote from: Brad;1042157The only annoying thing I found in the book that *might* be some SJW nonsense (but, more likely, is just a re-imagining I think is stupid) is this:



It then specifically mentions Glasya, who I remember pretty well from my old Monster Manual. Sure, I can ignore this sidebar, but it really changes just what devils are, fundamentally, and I don't like it. This seems like it'd be much more applicable to demons who never seemed to have any sort of sex; devils, however, were definitely tied to male or female in the old D&D books.

Again, change for a nefarious reason or just a stupid ass one? Why not make this explicit statement about demons instead?

I don't know about their reasons, and neither do I care...
It makes incubus and succubus the same demon. Which they were, in the historical myths:D! (And they still managed to procreate).
So I'm fine with that when it comes to incubi/succubi.
I'm not sure I'm fine with it when it concerns other demons, though. Is that a sidebar as well?

Quote from: danskmacabre;1042166You can use and/or ignore any content you want regarding race backgrounds. There's no "DnD police" to enforce you use the fluff content.

You mean they were disbanded:p?
(Yeah, thank you, I know I can. See above).

Quote from: tenbones;1042248I would say it's an engraving. I mean honestly, we sit here on this forum arguing about editions that are *decades* out of print, this and many other things will become attributed to to this edition just like silly stuff from other editions that we individually ignored, or changed, at our tables. But it'll be there to remind us, forever, that yes, it was a thing.

Depends on how we use it, though.
To me, that could and should help make it clear that playing an elf=/=playing an agile human who sees in the dark better than others...
Is it going to be used like this? No idea.

QuoteThe perennial questions are: why was it a thing? And did it *need* to be there in the first place?

Shrug.
No, it didn't. But a lot of other content didn't need to exist, either.
It's there because someone wanted to see it there;).

Quote from: tenbones;1042249Where do Tieflings come from? C'mon do you really think they did this for non-ideological reasons? Binary-gender relations is eeeevil. Ask the Drow.

Well, you can make a Doylian argument for that, indeed.
But let me be the Devil's Advocate, and ask you this - if binary-gender relations are evil, why do demons get non-binary, while humans and halflings are still as they are in our world;)?