Talk:Corollin (5e Race)

The pink corollin start the game with 4 cantrips and a level one spell. In addition to any spells they might have from spellcasting classes.
The red corollin are no better, in fact they are worse, effectively having the disintegrate spell at level one. And it can be used multiple times per long rest, up to a maximum of 12 times at 20th level (compare the actual disintegrate spell that can only be cast at most 6 times by a 20th level character). SirSprinkles (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2016 (MDT)

Pink's been reduced to 2 cantrips thus far it seems, is that more acceptable? Also I take it the issue is still with Red Corollin's Mandate effect? If so, what could be done to perhaps make it balanced? Umbra Lux (talk) 01:06, 30 October, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for repair the problems with balance, I'm not a very expert (Wiki and D&D). And this race is really important to me, but although I do the best I can, I do not do very well. (Really, Really Thanks!, and Sorry for my bad english) Shiro Ritsu 17:30 30 October

The more choices people can have when playing D&D, the more fun everyone has. So let's see what we can do about balancing the race out. Nightmares are dreams too... (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2016 (MDT)

Decided limit the ability to 1 use from Levels 1-9, 2 uses from Levels 10-19, and 3 at Level 20, as well as a possible additional uses for a possible class that has a spellcasting ability, treating it as a 6th level spell for the slot usage.Nightmares are dreams too... (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2016 (MST)

Red corrolin is still broken

Wonderful insight! I love your ideas on how to fix the problem, too! Really makes you think, too!

Minor Tweaks?

Hello!

The concept of Corollins is fascinating to me. There were just a few things that I think could use some clarification:

-You mention early on that their stature is similar to that of dwarves, but then in the base height and weight table the base height is 5'8. That seems like a pretty tall dwarf to me!

-The concept of the "core" could use some more detail: is it a gem, any gem, embedded within the human-like body, like in Steven Universe? Does it have a usual size? Can the core be the horns? I'm curious if a creature knew this race had cores and targeted the core specifically in combat, if it might shatter and result in instant death.

-The Disintegrative Mandate is awesome, but one bad roll could mean instant death for a fellow party member. On the opposite side of the coin, if it's something the player can only do a limited amount per long rest, if the target makes its save, it would feel like a complete waste of a turn since nothing happens. Perhaps the target who failed the save gradually turns to white dust over, say, three turns, to allow for someone to attempt to heal them of the condition before the target fully disintegrates. To reverse the effect, it could require a specific amount of hit points to be regained: specifically, overcoming the damage it does, which I'll detail in this next blurb. (to reverse it, regain all health lost to this specific effect)

    -My idea is, to use this mandate, roll a d6. No matter what the result, add your proficiency modifier and Charisma bonus to damage. On a one or two, the target 
    takes 10 damage. A three or four, 20 damage. A five or six, 30 damage. If the target saves, it still takes half damage. These damage amounts could also scale 
    with the character's level: At sixth level, it upgrades to 20, 30, and 40. At 12th level, 30, 40 and 50. At 18th level, 40, 50 and 60. 

-I think it makes more sense for the No-Eyes trait to stem from the horns rather than the core. Having your living essence within a gem doesn't seem like it would result in perceptive abilities. In fact, you say earlier on that the horns serve as magical radars.

-They are constructs, but they can reproduce with any race that allows their size... By reproduction, do you also mean construction? The idea of a construct being birthed in the traditional sense doesn't make sense to me. Are they built, or birthed? Maybe you can explain how they can be the same thing.

I hope this helps!

Fetishization

As mentioned on the main page, there's fetishistic elements at work here that make this race not a good fit for the wiki. Here's my two cents:

• Transgender fetishization: While there's nothing inherently wrong about a race that looks feminine regardless of the creature's sex, it's apparent in this case that the race was made to fetishize (and dehumanize) males who look like women, between the example character's outfit, the description being heavily focused on reproduction, or the gender ratio... but the dead giveaway is when you click through to the race's source, where the character is tagged as "trap" which is a dehumanizing porn genre.
• Pedophillia: A bit harder to prove, but the creature is drawn in a childlike manner, doesn't age, and we've already established the fetishistic nature of this character.

Either way, me and at least one other user (the one who put the admin required template on the main page), are not comfortable with this race being on the wiki. (Varkarrus (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2018 (MST))

I changed the needsadmin template to delete. For the reasons Varkarrus listed above, I believe this page to be a viable candidate for deletion. If the issues have not been fixed by two weeks from now (or whenever an admin gets around to going through CfD), it will be deleted. The page will be kept if the issues have been fixed by that time. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 11:14, 19 January 2018 (MST)

Bah. Look. I feel too strongly about this matter to let it go, but I really feel uncomfortable with this. We can't and shouldn't be deleting articles based on the unbased assumption that somebody fetishises it in their own private time. If the source of the image is a 'real' issue - based on the fact that it has a certain tag with clearly mixed meanings to different circles, and follows a (very common) art form where one might make their own vague inferences about age, and 'then' we make these conclusions into issues by assuming that this is all sexualised on the basis of a few short, solely factual sentences on biological information - then by all means change the image.

But I really can't in good faith feel comfortable with us suppressing content solely because we make some personal inference that it relates to something that relates to something that we find personally immoral or offensive, or make some very spurious links to the possible thought of illegal acts. The only reason I dropped this matter last time was because that particular issue breached ad policy. This certainly doesn't do that.

Even I, very-rare-creator, have created content on this wiki that I feel could be deleted under similar justifications. A fact that leaves me feeling kinda unwelcome, if we decide this is what we want to do. Which I guess is the main reason why I feel strongly about this. --SgtLion (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2018 (MST)

Fetishize whatever you want on your own time, sure, but it's NOT appropriate for this wiki. This isn't inference, it's blatantly obvious. I could show it to my mom (I won't) and she'd know. Keep in mind that the creator of the image is the same as the creator of the page (check the contributions)(Varkarrus (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2018 (MST))

If you feel so strongly about it, as it stands the image is not appropriate for the wiki and the race is horribly unbalanced, so put your money where your mouth is and rewrite the page. (Varkarrus (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2018 (MST))

It's not blatantly obvious to me. I could show this to my mom and she certainly wouldn't think this was some sort of fetishisation (and hey, I even would if it helps). I won't balance it because, well one, I know very little of 5e, and two, if the fluff content of this article warrants deletion, why should I waste the effort for it to be deleted anyway? If this article gets deleted solely on the grounds of balance, I've certainly no problem. --SgtLion (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2018 (MST)

Look, never mind. I really will leave this. --SgtLion (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2018 (MST)

Lenghty discussion on Discord. I read the Deviant Art artist's entry on the race and there's nothing sadistic about this race or the rest of the author's content. I undid a rewrite because isn't at all what the OP had. Rather, some people (a handful)aren't happy with the appearance description or that women birth THIS race no matter what they reproduce with. So, a complete fabrication was drummed up. I honestly don't see an issue explaining that men appear womanly if it is core to the race. I find it appropriate to include what is reproduced; 1st party content did this before. Making assumptions that this is part of some weird sex fantasy because of some prejudice is wrong. If the article cannot be balanced, then as said deletion would be appropriate. Deletion because you don't like it based without merit though makes me question this community and site. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2018 (MST)

Not to beat a dead horse, but my behavior came into question elsewhere and GD kindly linked two pages, one being etiquette. I'll ask where was the etiquette of assuming good faith with this article? Asking for clarity about the OPs intent with race design? or in the Discord, arguing with facts, not personalities (prejudice)? The Golden Rule, reemphasizing how would you like someone propose delete your article without trying to compromise on its content? Food for thought, really hope it doesn't bite me in the rear. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2018 (MST)

I tried to leave things vague and up to the imagination " both have female characteristics". This could mean anything from clothing, physique, body language, etc. As I was typing it reminded me of dwarves. On the LOTR wikia, women resemble that of male counterparts. I've read other places where female dwarves even had beards. Then the epiphany occurred aren't elves similar to this, but feminine? that wiki states "Elves are (generally) unusually beautiful of face and body. There is little physical difference between males and females except that which is required for reproduction" with The History of Middle-earth, Vol. X: Morgoth’s Ring, “Laws and Customs among the Eldar” being the source for that. Males and females being similar isn't a new concept to the game. Please consider this when reviewing what I've added to keep the spirit of what the page originally had, which to me, is a very feminine race. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2018 (MST)

Something else to note is that a very similar race of creatures officially published by Wizards of the Coast also all display female characteristics: harpies. I believe that they've stated they are identical in all but reproductive organs (I'm away from my Monster Manual at the moment, so I may be slightly off on that), so I don't exactly see the issue, here.--24.103.152.138 09:54, 25 January 2018 (MST)

There may not be an issue with the current version. The original and past versions made some feel uncomfortable and I believe was offensive to a couple. I hope I've alleviated those issues, but it's currently on wait status for feedback from users taking issue with the lore. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2018 (MST)

I am one of the users that took issue, and, looking back, my issue was less about the page content and more about the way it was presented, and that it seemed to be the main focus of the race. The current revision is a lot better, in my eyes. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 10:42, 25 January 2018 (MST)

Construct Status

This is a REALLY weird race in that is somehow a construct... yet lacks most of the properties of constructs. I'm at a loss as to how to word its traits adhering to the original intention and to 5e standards, which is constructs that still need to eat, but can die and heal... Or should I just get rid of the construct part all together.--Yanied (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2018 (MST)

Have you looked through some of the previous revisions? I think the original contributor has long been gone so if you can find a way to word things great! ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2018 (MST)

If it's okay to completely change it a bit then I guess I could word it how all constructs are standardly. But it is unique in intention.--Yanied (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2018 (MST)

I think some users tried to change things quite a bit a year ago and I lost my gasket over it. The race had a certain flavor to it, and the community was divided over the appropriateness. I would say if you can keep the mechanics the same and easier to read great. I'd hate to contradict myself simply because time has passed. I think it still important to maintain design flavor. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2019 (MST)

The only thing the corollin have from constructs is really only the category. They need to eat and can heal. They really are living constructs.--Yanied (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2019 (MST)

I would think they shouldn't be constructs then? The lore says they can procreate despite being made originally. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:56, 2 January 2019 (MST)

Yeah... So I guess lore is just they used to be constructs and traits is that they no longer are. That helps loads.--Yanied (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2019 (MST)

Renaming the race?

So, at this point, the Corollins are kinda quite different from the original primary contributor's race. Which is not a bad thing; the original Corollins had some Real Big Problems with their concept. However, the original contributor did base the D&D race off their own work / intellectual property. I would much rather this race be its own thing, rather than be rewritten to bring it closer to its original concept.

Because of that, I feel like it should be renamed, so as to not step on the toes of the original creator, and also to sever the last remaining tie to "little boys in dresses with monster-sized dicks" Varkarrus (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2019 (MST)

So the witch hunt is back, as I fear it would with too many edits to it.

1. It's different because of accused horridness and assumptions
2. the OC wasn't really bad, but more importantly the wiki is to critique articles on their own merit
3. it's not being rewritten to the original concept, or at least hasn't been

The name is fine, the article is too despite its forced changes that are similar D&D core races and a beloved super hero (male elves appear rather feminine and mistaken at times, and Mr. Fantastic can change size/length along with other characters with that power). Yanied is making good edits. They aren't controversial and haven't steered the race in any direction further away or towards the original idea. The name isn't offensive, the page isn't offensive. There's literally no reason for this. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2019 (MST)

Even going back to the original (again), its sad how persecuted this page was. Was good faith assumed? I see no reference to the quote used above either. If we could not slander other users' works that'd be helpful too. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2019 (MST)

There has to be a limit to good faith. It'd be like if someone made a race of blonde-haired blue-eyed pseudo-elves that "heroically fought off an invasion of evil and greedy lizard people" in the year of 1488, but swapping nazi advocation for pedophilia and transgender fetishization. Someone not in the know might not notice the parallels, but there were so many multiple blatant ones that it's clear signalling for everyone who can recognize them. Also, comparing them to Mr Fantastic is really a false comparison. If Mr. Fantastic was designed to explicitly look like a child, was put in a dress, and outright stated that the primary use of his shapeshifting powers is to make his dick really big, then that'd be a huge problem. It'd also be a problem if someone made an adult male elf, made them look 12, and treated them as a sex object, whether or not that person also put the elf in a dress. Taking an adult male elf and putting them in a dress in and of itself is totally fine. I'm just very used to a very widespread culture involving the fetishization and objectification of "femboys" and "tr*ps." Varkarrus (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2019 (MST)