Halflings: Hobbits vs. Kender
RemyDionne
1E and 2E they were obviously based on hobbits from Tolkien's novels. Now they
are mostly like kender from Krynn. Which are your player's prefrences?
"When I look back on my childhood I wonder how I survived at all. It was, of
course, a miserable childhood: the happy childhood is hardly worth your while."
Frank McCourt
scott
rem...@aol.comspambloc (RemyDionne) wrote:
> It seems to me that halflings in 3E are completely different than before. In
> 1E and 2E they were obviously based on hobbits from Tolkien's novels. Now
> they are mostly like kender from Krynn. Which are your player's prefrences?
I prefer the 3e halflings. I had already changed them in my
campaign world to be more atheletic and less like a
homebody. I call them jor - they are gypsy wanderers,
continually traveling the lands (or rivers) of my world in
colorful wagons (or barges).
They are also the most likely race to be psions. Although
others don't commonly know this, because jor commonly
multiclass psion with rogue or fighter.
--
Dragar Steelepointe,
Master of the Blade
___________________________________________
Dragar's homepage & The World of Irial at:
www.geocities.com/dragar.geo/
Christopher Adams
>> before. In 1E and 2E they were obviously based on hobbits
>> from Tolkien's novels. Now they are mostly like kender from
>> Krynn. Which are your player's prefrences?
Whatever they look like (which is really the only change that has been
effected) doesn't really matter . . .
I find halflings really irritating, as a race. I mean, as wonderful as his
stories are, did Tolkien *have* to create such a ridiculous people from
which to draw his heroes?
Extending it into D&D, halflings have always struck me as dull and not at
all interesting to play. There have been a few people I've known to play
interesting halflings, but when the only method of creating an interesting
halfling comes in breaking the stereotype to smithereens, why not just do
away with the race altogether?
It doesn't seem to me that there is much of a difference in "racial
character" for halflings over the editions, so I'd rather do away with them
altogether.
I will say that the hobbit-style halfling makes a great deal more sense for
a race of homebodies fond of hearths and pipes, though. Lean, gnomelike
halflings are a bit incongruously athletic-looking, since they tend to still
be slender even for their size - they're not like scaled-down humans, but
much slimmer.
On another note (inspired by my signature), wasn't Yamara a
lean-and-athletic halfling long before Third Edition?
--
- Kit -
Are you on the Global Frequency?
"We shall rule! There is a bad
smell, and dwarves are unpleasant!
And gnomes, too, are illegal!"
- Fea, YAMARA
Or should that be halflings?
Hong Ooi
>It seems to me that halflings in 3E are completely different than before. In
>1E and 2E they were obviously based on hobbits from Tolkien's novels. Now they
>are mostly like kender from Krynn. Which are your player's prefrences?
Cut'n'pasted from elsewhere:
I prefer the 3E portrayal of halflings. Hobbits in the LOTR trilogy aren't
"heroic" in the sense of characters like Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli. Their
virtues are the traditional English ones of endurance, determination, and
perseverance. While these qualities are certainly admirable, they're
essentially _passive_ ones. Hobbits as a race, while they can absorb a lot
of punishment, aren't particularly dynamic or charismatic. They're not
larger than life the way an elf, dwarf or Dunadan is, or even a Rohirric
cavalryman.
For a book, this isn't a problem, but it is a problem when you want to make
up an adventuring race for an RPG. Adventuring is an active occupation, and
if a race doesn't capture the imagination, they probably shouldn't be in
the game, at least not as PCs.
--
Hong Ooi | "I think it is time I started
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | getting some decent sleep."
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- CMB
Sydney, Australia |
Steve Miller
> It seems to me that halflings in 3E are completely different than before. In
> 1E and 2E they were obviously based on hobbits from Tolkien's novels. Now they
> are mostly like kender from Krynn. Which are your player's prefrences?
I prefer the 3E halflings. I never did like those hobbit
clones--disliked them so much that I declared they'd been exterminated
in the Known World and that the Five Shires were home to werefoxes,
humans, and gnolls.
I thought the visual of their big hairy feet was goofy beyond words.
The "Fellowship of the Rings" movie did nothing to help my mental
image of just how stupid the "traditional" halfling looks.
I really doubt that I had anything to do with the choices made by the
3E designers and artists, but halflings were one of three or four
issues that I did comment loudly on while at WotC.
Steve Miller, Writer of Stuff
Check out the new world I'm building:
http://www.geocities.com/nuelow/d20sounaltarentry.html
Brad Prentice
> stories are, did Tolkien *have* to create such a ridiculous people from
> which to draw his heroes?
>
the professor! :-)
I agree with Hong that the race does better in fiction than in a RPG. Like
many things. So I agree with other comments in this thread (yours included)
that the 3e version is kinda better.
BTW, I hate how in Greyhawk there are a good population of halflings in
*every* country. This is obviously done on purpose (the gypsy/wandering
idea) but it feels overdone to me. There's halflings friggin' everywhere!
Brad P
*IMO, LotR could not be as great as it is without having the hobbits as
heroes. They may not be right for RPGs but their virtues and vices are
perfect IMO for Tolkien's story. Now Tom Bombadil on the other hand ... he
is *not* perfect for Tolkien's story ... but what are ya gonna do?
Nockermensch
The new halflings. Hobbits don't work outside Tolkien's mythos.
@ @ Nockermensch, also, the new halflings are cuter.
Anti Pope Lupus of SI
They decided kids didn't want to play little, non-combative fat men.
Badly behaved creatures are more fun.
Anyway, I think the character size sketches in the Player's Handbook
3rd Ed are a bit off. And I've always thought character development
in D&D was a bit shallow. It leads people to believe that if you're a
dwarf, then you must have a long beard, carry an axe, and be into
mining and craftmanship. Bad creativity, if you ask me.
I've noticed that it's only with human characters that you get a
variety of different situations because people have a frame of
reference. I've often gotten from DM's, "You're not playing a proper
dwarf," or "Elves don't do that." Even as far as drastically
penalizing me for not following certain established norms.
Hobbit? Kender? I hardly have a preference. I'll bet you could do
either without much fuss. Why must we group every personality trait
into their own race? Hobbits, halflings, kender: they're as identical
as I am to an Asian or an African as far as D&D should be concerned.
And I think I'd like it better that way.
:) -APLY
Fumblor
> 1E and 2E they were obviously based on hobbits from Tolkien's novels. Now they
> are mostly like kender from Krynn. Which are your player's prefrences?
Like pecks from the movie "Willow."
I wouldn't call them kenderlike. They are more similar to the movie hobbits
than the book hobbits (which may not be true for you, as you might have
imagined them differently).
The new halflings are different than the old halflings, but I seem to recall
the FR campaign setting portraying them this way since 2e.
--
Fumblor
maddman
My halflings are hobbits. Kender piss me off.
I don't mind them being a bit thinner, I imagine everyone now is going
to be getting their image of halflings/hobbits from the LotR movie.
C. Baize
>
> My halflings are hobbits. Kender piss me off.
>
Hear, hear!!!
C. Baize
Jerome Davis
wrote:
>It seems to me that halflings in 3E are completely different than before. In
From a literature perspective....
I much prefer hobbits to kender. Tolkien's hobbits were portrayed
in a comfortable and endearing way. In the Dragonlance novels,
though, kender really irritate me. In the original trilogy, I was
hoping that Tasslehoff would meet a grisly end. Alas, he never did.
In fact, with his time travelling crap, he has lasted longer than any
other original character. Kender are obnoxious..
In my gaming experience, though, I hate halflings in general. I've
never played one, but every single time my DM or one of my fellow
players have played one, they have always played them as whiny,
obnoxious pranksters with a streak of careless maliciousness a mile
wide. It got to a point in one campaign in which the DM's halfling
NPC tormented my ranger so much he ended up hating the entire
race. If we'd had 3rd Ed. at the time, he'd have made Halfling one
of his favored enemies. To this day, I shudder at hearing another
player say "I'm playing a halfling.". One of these days, if I ever
hear that I'm going to play a half-orc barbarian (despite the fact I
don't like the barbarian as a class) who makes a mean halfling stew!
If I ever did give halflings another chance in gaming, I'd far prefer
a hobbit-like halfling over a kender-like one.
Jerry Davis
Zimri
news:ac5a8c49.02091...@posting.google.com...
> rem...@aol.comspambloc (RemyDionne) wrote in message
news:<20020919060745...@mb-fl.aol.com>...
> > It seems to me that halflings in 3E are completely different than
before. In
> > 1E and 2E they were obviously based on hobbits from Tolkien's novels.
Now they
> > are mostly like kender from Krynn. Which are your player's prefrences?
>
> I prefer the 3E halflings. I never did like those hobbit
> clones--disliked them so much that I declared they'd been exterminated
> in the Known World and that the Five Shires were home to werefoxes,
> humans, and gnolls.
I split the difference; I only did that to the eastern half of the Shires.
There was a fortress, Wereskalot, just waiting to be stuffed full of
lycanthropes of all description.
"The Five Shires" is also commonly ranked worst of the Gazetteer series,
although in my opinion "The Atruaghin Clans" ranks somewhere below that.
Because who wants to adventure in an backwater so profound even the orcs
avoid it?
--
zimriel sbc dot
at global net
.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/blog/zimblog.html
because everyone else is doing it
Michael Bruner
<bpre...@julian.uwo.ca> wrote:
>BTW, I hate how in Greyhawk there are a good population of halflings in
>*every* country. This is obviously done on purpose (the gypsy/wandering
>idea) but it feels overdone to me. There's halflings friggin' everywhere!
Guess they're not only the size of rabbits, but they breed like 'em
:).
--
Mike Bruner - mbru...@WANTNOSPAMcomcast.net
Yes, I am a servant of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial
"The bullet of justice caps evil's a**! Remember that!"
-Excel Saga
Håvard Rønne Faanes
>rem...@aol.comspambloc (RemyDionne) wrote in message news:<20020919060745...@mb-fl.aol.com>...
>> It seems to me that halflings in 3E are completely different than before. In
>> 1E and 2E they were obviously based on hobbits from Tolkien's novels. Now they
>> are mostly like kender from Krynn. Which are your player's prefrences?
>
>I prefer the 3E halflings. I never did like those hobbit
>clones--disliked them so much that I declared they'd been exterminated
>in the Known World and that the Five Shires were home to werefoxes,
>humans, and gnolls.
Check out the Dark Shire article at
http://dnd.starflung.com/hellnght.html for another way of ridding the
Known World/Mystara of halfings...
>I thought the visual of their big hairy feet was goofy beyond words.
>The "Fellowship of the Rings" movie did nothing to help my mental
>image of just how stupid the "traditional" halfling looks.
I dont think they look stupid, but as others have said they are not an
adventuring race. Even in Tolkien, pretty much nobody's ever heard of
Halfings and the only two halfing adventurers in the world seem to be
Bilbo and Frodo. (And ofcourse my favourite character: Gollum).
I think they serve an excellent role in the novel, but yeah, in a D&D game
I prefer the new halflings aswell..
Håvard
Håvard Rønne Faanes
>"The Five Shires" is also commonly ranked worst of the Gazetteer series,
>although in my opinion "The Atruaghin Clans" ranks somewhere below that.
What about Ierendi..?
Too bad they werent all written in the manner of alltime classics
like Elves of Alfheim, Principalities of Glantri, Dwarves of Rockhome etc
etc..
Håvard
Arivne
>
<snip>
>
> On another note (inspired by my signature), wasn't Yamara a
> lean-and-athletic halfling long before Third Edition?
Yes. She was a slender (for a halfling) thief.
Arivne
Steve Miller
> I split the difference; I only did that to the eastern half of the Shires.
> There was a fortress, Wereskalot, just waiting to be stuffed full of
> lycanthropes of all description.
>
> "The Five Shires" is also commonly ranked worst of the Gazetteer series,
> although in my opinion "The Atruaghin Clans" ranks somewhere below that.
"Atruaghin Clans" and "Milenian Empire" are definately the bottom of
the barrel as far as DnD sourcebooks go.
I never did get "Five Shires," when when I had the opportunity to
acquire it for free while working at TSR.
My extermination of halflings happened when I was first started
building my version of the Known World with the use of X1. :)
"Five Shires" also has the distiction of being the only
Original/Classic DnD product that I've never owned/isn't sitting on
the shelf across my office. I read a copy, though, and decided it
wasn't worth the shelf-space. It confirmed my view of that stripe of
halflings as being not suitable for my campaigns and my spin on the
world.
Steve Miller, Writer of Stuff
Visit my web site: http://www.stevemillersband.com
Bradd W. Szonye
>> I find halflings really irritating, as a race. I mean, as wonderful as his
>> stories are, did Tolkien *have* to create such a ridiculous people from
>> which to draw his heroes?
Brad Prentice <bpre...@julian.uwo.ca> wrote:
> Yes he did.
Well, he didn't exactly create them. They're based on hobs, traditional
English household fairies. They're the sort of elf who mend shoes, sweep
the floor, and do other chores in exchange for cookies and milk. If
you've read the Harry Potter novels, Dobby the house-elf is basically a
hob.
Tolkien's other races had similar legendary sources. The dwarves come
from Germanic trolls. The elves are a combination of gnomes (craftsmen),
sylvan spirits, and Seelie Court fairies. Note that the "Noldor" were
originally supposed to be gnomes, but at some point Tolkien decided to
make them tall and beautiful like the other elves.
The Professor's main contribution was to portray these traditional
fairies as civilized races instead of the usual mish-mash of fairy
tales. Hobs lurk around human houses looking for chores to do; hobbits
are an independent race. They look like hob fairies, and they keep the
house clean like a hob fairy, but they aren't subservient to humans --
they don't do housework in exchange for cookies and milk.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.concentric.net/~Bradds
Hunter
wrote:
>The Professor's main contribution was to portray these traditional
>fairies as civilized races instead of the usual mish-mash of fairy
>tales. Hobs lurk around human houses looking for chores to do; hobbits
>are an independent race. They look like hob fairies, and they keep the
>house clean like a hob fairy, but they aren't subservient to humans --
>they don't do housework in exchange for cookies and milk.
That's ironic, I'm makng the Halflings a former subservient race in my
world. The bulk of the race are now nomadic with a good portion
traveling in the wilderness, the rest migrate between cities.
Jasin Zujovic
> Note that the "Noldor" were
> originally supposed to be gnomes, but at some point Tolkien decided to
> make them tall and beautiful like the other elves.
Just a nitpick: the Noldor were originally called Gnomes, but they looked
and behaved pretty much the same as they do in the later versions. They
were shorter, but then, all Elves were, and they were already beautiful,
nowhere near the short, big-nosed, big-eared D&D gnome.
BTW, what are the D&D gnome supposed to be like, anyway? They seem to
have an affinity for technology, an affinity for magic (illusions), and
an affinity for nature. Yet, these things are often seens as opposites:
magic vs. technology, technology vs. nature.
So, what are the typical gnome supposed to be like? The alchemist/tinker?
The hobbit-like burrower who converses with rabbits and badgers? The
mischievous illusionist?
--
Jasin Zujovic
jzuj...@inet.hr
Stephenls
> BTW, what are the D&D gnome supposed to be like, anyway? They seem to
> have an affinity for technology, an affinity for magic (illusions),
> and an affinity for nature. Yet, these things are often seens as
> opposites: magic vs. technology, technology vs. nature.
> So, what are the typical gnome supposed to be like? The
> alchemist/tinker? The hobbit-like burrower who converses with rabbits
> and badgers? The mischievous illusionist?
Just because things are often seen as opposites doesn't mean they are.
And gnomes are weirdo paradox creatures anyway.
I see a gnomish settlement as a collection of burrows and huts, some
with odd steampunk or clockpunk technology built into the walls.
Gnomish technology might be partially magical in nature, or they might
use magic to augment their alchemy, and it would be the sort of
technology that doesn't really impact on the environment much (like
waterwheels). Except when it, y'know, explodes, but what are you gonna
do?
--
Stephenls
Geek
I have the coolest Hell in gaming. -Geoffrey C. Grabowski
Jasin Zujovic
> > It seems to me that halflings in 3E are completely different than before. In
> > 1E and 2E they were obviously based on hobbits from Tolkien's novels. Now they
> > are mostly like kender from Krynn. Which are your player's prefrences?
> > "When I look back on my childhood I wonder how I survived at all. It was, of
> > course, a miserable childhood: the happy childhood is hardly worth your while."
> > Frank McCourt
>
> The new halflings. Hobbits don't work outside Tolkien's mythos.
>
> @ @ Nockermensch, also, the new halflings are cuter.
Yes. Frex, Lidda's way hotter than Mialee.
How much can reduce alter your size, again?
--
Jasin Zujovic
jzuj...@inet.hr
Talen
<jzuj...@inet.hr> wrote:
50%, the wizard way...
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"Name three things a cow can do which a carton of milk cannot
do" (3 marks)
- Actual GSCE Science Paper Question
The Gurus love you
Brad Prentice
his
> >> stories are, did Tolkien *have* to create such a ridiculous people from
> >> which to draw his heroes?
>
> Brad Prentice <bpre...@julian.uwo.ca> wrote:
> > Yes he did.
>
> Well, he didn't exactly create them. They're based on hobs, traditional
> English household fairies. They're the sort of elf who mend shoes, sweep
> the floor, and do other chores in exchange for cookies and milk. If
> you've read the Harry Potter novels, Dobby the house-elf is basically a
> hob.
>
else's? Just curious.
Brad P
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Well, [Tolkien] didn't exactly create [hobbits]. They're based on
>> hobs, traditional English household fairies. They're the sort of elf
>> who mend shoes, sweep the floor, and do other chores in exchange for
>> cookies and milk. If you've read the Harry Potter novels, Dobby the
>> house-elf is basically a hob.
Brad Prentice <bpre...@julian.uwo.ca> wrote:
> Is this Tolkien's own interpretation of where he got hobbits from or
> someone else's? Just curious.
That's my interpretation; I don't know whether Tolkien ever pointed it
out himself. I don't think it's any accident that hobbits look and act
like hobs. Tolkien was usually pretty obvious about it when he borrowed
from folklore. I remember reading something of his where he apologized
about the dumb name "Shelob"; the words "cob" and "lob" are slightly
archaic English for "spider," so the name "She-Lob" is only a little
less silly than "He-Man."
By the way, "hob" usually means "good household fairy," like the tooth
fairy or the dirty dishes fairy. (We need one of the latter in our
home.) However, it also got tacked onto the front of "goblin" as an
intensifier, resulting in "hobgoblin," a very bad household fairy.
Stephenls
> 50%, the wizard way...
Wizards do it reduced?
Brad Prentice
> Bradd-with-two-Ds wrote:
> >> Well, [Tolkien] didn't exactly create [hobbits]. They're based on
> >> hobs, traditional English household fairies. They're the sort of elf
> >> who mend shoes, sweep the floor, and do other chores in exchange for
> >> cookies and milk. If you've read the Harry Potter novels, Dobby the
> >> house-elf is basically a hob.
> Brad Prentice <bpre...@julian.uwo.ca> wrote:
> > Is this Tolkien's own interpretation of where he got hobbits from or
> > someone else's? Just curious.
>
> That's my interpretation; I don't know whether Tolkien ever pointed it
> out himself. I don't think it's any accident that hobbits look and act
> like hobs.
Probably a good guess ... but I suppose one could still, then, also argue
that Tolkien *did* create hobbits (moreso IMO than one could say he created
dwarves or dragons). IOW, I'm fairly convinced by your arguments that
hobbits are really some form of hob ... but I'm not sure that's enough here
to say he didn't create them. Anyway.....
> Tolkien was usually pretty obvious about it when he borrowed
> from folklore. I remember reading something of his where he apologized
> about the dumb name "Shelob"; the words "cob" and "lob" are slightly
> archaic English for "spider," so the name "She-Lob" is only a little
> less silly than "He-Man."
>
Ha! I wonder why Tolkien never owned up to the hob connection? Perhaps he
didn't see it? Doesn't seem likely. Maybe he had more invested in them
than in old Shelob...
> By the way, "hob" usually means "good household fairy," like the tooth
> fairy or the dirty dishes fairy. (We need one of the latter in our
> home.) However, it also got tacked onto the front of "goblin" as an
> intensifier, resulting in "hobgoblin," a very bad household fairy.
> --
Very interesting!
Brad P
Arivne
>> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bra...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>> Well, [Tolkien] didn't exactly create [hobbits]. They're based
>>> on hobs, traditional English household fairies. They're the
>>> sort of elf who mend shoes, sweep the floor, and do other
>
>> Is this Tolkien's own interpretation of where he got hobbits
>> from or someone else's? Just curious.
>
> That's my interpretation; I don't know whether Tolkien ever pointed it
> out himself. I don't think it's any accident that hobbits look and act
> like hobs. Tolkien was usually pretty obvious about it when he borrowed
In an old (1942) dictionary I own, one definition of hob is "A clumsy,
awkward rustic: clownish countryman". This sounds a lot like the way
Tolkien described hobbits in "The Hobbit" and the Prologue of
"Fellowship of the Ring", especially the way they were perceived by
other races. He may have combined it with the "fairy" definition and
come up with hobbits.
Arivne
Jasin Zujovic
> >> @ @ Nockermensch, also, the new halflings are cuter.
> >
> >Yes. Frex, Lidda's way hotter than Mialee.
> >
> >How much can reduce alter your size, again?
>
> 50%, the wizard way...
Just enough to make you a *half*ling.
--
Jasin Zujovic
jzuj...@inet.hr
JDJarvis
> 1E and 2E they were obviously based on hobbits from Tolkien's novels. Now they
> are mostly like kender from Krynn. Which are your player's prefrences?
They are now pretty much like Kender only in their general social
pattern and general build, they aren't all mandated to be obnoxious,
foolhardy, kleptomaniacs.
If somone really likes hobbits instead of modern 3e halflings just
file off ther seral numbers,give them pot bellies and pick a pleasant
and mostly boring homeland.
I've played the little folks (halflings that is ofd course) like
Hobbits, hobbits from Phineous Fingers, Warrow, Nelwynn (little guys
from Willow), D&Ds own Hin and even those darned Kenders and they are
all Halflings when you get down to it.
Old Toby
>
> BTW, what are the D&D gnome supposed to be like, anyway? They seem to
> have an affinity for technology, an affinity for magic (illusions), and
> an affinity for nature. Yet, these things are often seens as opposites:
> magic vs. technology, technology vs. nature.
Like the Hobbit/Kender debate, this seems to go back to
Dragonlance, although DL (and TLOTR) didn't give us convenient
terms to discuss the varients.
1st ed. Gnomes seemed to be loosely based on garden gnomes, with
a touch of the traditions in which "gnome" refers to something
close to the Dwarves of Scandinavian mythology. Thus Gnomes
were diminutive beings closely tied to nature and a tendency
to care for small furry animals, who had beards and funny hats. But
they were also larger than garden gnomes and liked to dig.
Somewhere in there (perhaps from their fairylike associations,
they picked up a penchant for trickery as well.
But Dragonlance Gnomes were quite different. They had no links
to nature or woodlands, and were hardly tricksters. Instead,
they were hyperactive mad scientist types who lived a cloistered
existance in a hollowed out mountain where they worked on a
variety of contraptions of the Rube Goldberg variety.
3rd Ed seems to have tried to include both interpretations
of gnomes in their discription, without reconciling or
distinguishing the two.
Personally, I would make the DL "Tinker Gnomes" a sort of
Dwarf, and intergrate the "woodland earth spirit" aspect
into Halflings. Having _three_ distinct types of "little
people" is excessive.
Old Toby
Least Known Dog on the Net
Darwinian Road Kill
: It seems to me that halflings in 3E are completely different than before. In
: 1E and 2E they were obviously based on hobbits from Tolkien's novels. Now they
: are mostly like kender from Krynn. Which are your player's prefrences?
Count me as one who prefers Hobbit rip-offs to 3E's psedokender -- though
I may just make a gameworld that has both...
Ryan :>
"People who like penguins are nice people" -- Eric Bennett
(Fact: If my .sig gets over 10 lines, you can hit me)
My half-baked site: www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Garden/8720
Bradd W. Szonye
> BTW, what are the D&D gnome supposed to be like, anyway? They seem to
> have an affinity for technology, an affinity for magic (illusions),
> and an affinity for nature. Yet, these things are often seens as
> opposites: magic vs. technology, technology vs. nature.
I own a book called /Gnomes/, by Poortvliet and Huygen. It describes the
life cycle and lifestyle of gnomes, little bearded men and matronly
women with pointy hats. They basically look like garden gnomes. They are
excellent craftsmen and occasional pranksters. They focus mostly on
domestic crafts like shoemaking and carpentry, but they also practice a
little medicine -- especially veterinary medicine -- and they like to
build clockwork devices. The book also describes a few other fairies,
like elves, goblins, and trolls.
I think you'd immediately recognize the book and its gnomes if you saw
it. This is how I pictured gnomes when I was growing up. (That's in the
USA; gnome traditions may be different or unknown in Croatia.)
All of the fairies in the book, including the gnomes, look very much
like scaled-down and slightly comical versions of D&D races. The book is
humorous, but in a very subtle way; it uses the seriousness of an adult
scholar to describe a childish subject. Anyway, these tiny gnomes are
almost exactly like D&D gnomes. The only real difference is their tiny
size.
The book was published in 1976, and IIRC it was extremely popular when
it first came out. I think it may be as famous as Brian Froud's fairy
books. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it were a major influence on
D&D.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> BTW, what are the D&D gnome supposed to be like, anyway? They seem to
>> have an affinity for technology, an affinity for magic (illusions),
>> and an affinity for nature. Yet, these things are often seens as
>> opposites: magic vs. technology, technology vs. nature.
Old Toby <plai...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Like the Hobbit/Kender debate, this seems to go back to Dragonlance,
> although DL (and TLOTR) didn't give us convenient terms to discuss the
> varients.
>
> 1st ed. Gnomes seemed to be loosely based on garden gnomes ....
> But Dragonlance Gnomes were quite different.
It goes back a lot farther than Dragonlance. At least as far back as
1976; see my other response. D&D gnomes are almost exactly like the
little carpenter/veterinarian/prankster/tinker garden gnomes from the
"Gnomes" coffee-table book.
Hunter
wrote:
>Jasin Zujovic <jzuj...@inet.hr> wrote:
>> BTW, what are the D&D gnome supposed to be like, anyway? They seem to
>> have an affinity for technology, an affinity for magic (illusions),
>> and an affinity for nature. Yet, these things are often seens as
>> opposites: magic vs. technology, technology vs. nature.
>
>I own a book called /Gnomes/, by Poortvliet and Huygen. It describes the
>life cycle and lifestyle of gnomes, little bearded men and matronly
>women with pointy hats. They basically look like garden gnomes. They are
>excellent craftsmen and occasional pranksters. They focus mostly on
>domestic crafts like shoemaking and carpentry, but they also practice a
>little medicine -- especially veterinary medicine -- and they like to
>build clockwork devices. The book also describes a few other fairies,
>like elves, goblins, and trolls.
It was also used as the basis for a cartoon.
Old Toby
Ah, that's what I was thinking about when I mentioned "garden
gnomes", but I didn't remember them having a pronounced tinker
aspect. Certainly, I don't remember any of that getting into
the 1st ed. Gnomes (aside from Dragonlance stuff, of course).
Stephenls
> It was also used as the basis for a cartoon.
Oh, thanks. Yeah, getting that theme song stuck in my head again is
what I /really/ wanted.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> ["Gnomes"] was also used as the basis for a cartoon.
Stephenls <step...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Oh, thanks. Yeah, getting that theme song stuck in my head again is
> what I /really/ wanted.
Which cartoon? I don't remember it. Unless you're talking about the
Smurfs, which are vaguely similar, and which also had a ... catchy ...
theme song. By the way, my apologies for getting the Smurf theme stuck
in your head too.
You know, it would be kinda cool to run a "Gnomes" D&D campaign. It
would also be kinda cool to replace D&D gnomes with Smurfs, in an
annoyingly retro way.
Hunter
wrote:
>> Hunter wrote:
>>> ["Gnomes"] was also used as the basis for a cartoon.
>
>Stephenls <step...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Oh, thanks. Yeah, getting that theme song stuck in my head again is
>> what I /really/ wanted.
>
>Which cartoon? I don't remember it. Unless you're talking about the
>Smurfs,
Nope, this was a different one. I don't know if it was a one-shot or
an actual series though.
>You know, it would be kinda cool to run a "Gnomes" D&D campaign. It
>would also be kinda cool to replace D&D gnomes with Smurfs, in an
>annoyingly retro way.
A-hunting we will go, A-hunting we will go. The only good smurf is the
one on the end of a pointy thing.
Nockermensch
a bad cartoon.
@ @ Nockermensch, knowing that "Smurfs" does that sketch better.
Hunter
wrote:
Wouldn't know, it was only on for a few minutes. And that to see what
it was.
Christopher Adams
>> But Dragonlance Gnomes were quite different.
>
> It goes back a lot farther than Dragonlance. At least as far back as
> 1976; see my other response. D&D gnomes are almost exactly like
> the little carpenter/veterinarian/prankster/tinker garden gnomes from
> the "Gnomes" coffee-table book.
I've read that book (albeit split up in a weird Australian edition where
each chapter was a different little hardcover book), and I always thought
that the "tinker" aspect of *those* gnomes was more like the European
folklore thing of "little folk" who'll fix shoes and tools left out over
night in exchange for milk and cookies.
Dragonlance's gnomes are obsessive little mad scientists, really. Kind of
different.
--
- Kit -
Are you on the Global Frequency?
"We shall rule! There is a bad
smell, and dwarves are unpleasant!
And gnomes, too, are illegal!"
- Fea, YAMARA
Hunter
<mhacde...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>>> 1st ed. Gnomes seemed to be loosely based on garden gnomes ....
>>> But Dragonlance Gnomes were quite different.
>>
>> It goes back a lot farther than Dragonlance. At least as far back as
>> 1976; see my other response. D&D gnomes are almost exactly like
>> the little carpenter/veterinarian/prankster/tinker garden gnomes from
>> the "Gnomes" coffee-table book.
>
>I've read that book (albeit split up in a weird Australian edition where
>each chapter was a different little hardcover book), and I always thought
>that the "tinker" aspect of *those* gnomes was more like the European
>folklore thing of "little folk" who'll fix shoes and tools left out over
>night in exchange for milk and cookies.
>
>Dragonlance's gnomes are obsessive little mad scientists, really. Kind of
>different.
Well DL gnomes were twisted to become that way.
Christopher Adams
>> Kind of different.
>
> Well DL gnomes were twisted to become that way.
By Reorx, yeah. Point being, though, the designers made them that way, and
came up with an in-setting explanation for it.
Yes, even though the story changes EVERY time it's retold.
RemyDionne
>
I'm having a very vague recolection of this cartoon. I don't remember any
theme song but it seems to be that Tom Bosley (Howard Cunningham on Happy Days)
did the voice of the main gnome.
Shadow Wolf
news:3d94e85c...@news.bellatlantic.net:
And it seems to me the original D&D gnomes (in the Known World setting)
were also portrayed as mad tinkerers (cf. Book of Wondrous Inventions,
among others).
I'm not sure if this predates DL or not, though.
--
Shadow Wolf
shado...@softhome.net
Stories at http://www.asstr.org/~Shadow_Wolf
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Hunter
wrote:
>cypher...@netscape.net (Hunter) wrote in
>news:3d94e85c...@news.bellatlantic.net:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 09:19:54 +1000, "Christopher Adams"
>> <mhacde...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>>> 1st ed. Gnomes seemed to be loosely based on garden gnomes ....
>>>>> But Dragonlance Gnomes were quite different.
>>>>
>>>> It goes back a lot farther than Dragonlance. At least as far back as
>>>> 1976; see my other response. D&D gnomes are almost exactly like
>>>> the little carpenter/veterinarian/prankster/tinker garden gnomes from
>>>> the "Gnomes" coffee-table book.
>>>
>>>I've read that book (albeit split up in a weird Australian edition where
>>>each chapter was a different little hardcover book), and I always thought
>>>that the "tinker" aspect of *those* gnomes was more like the European
>>>folklore thing of "little folk" who'll fix shoes and tools left out over
>>>night in exchange for milk and cookies.
>>>
>>>Dragonlance's gnomes are obsessive little mad scientists, really. Kind of
>>>different.
>>
>> Well DL gnomes were twisted to become that way.
>>
>
>And it seems to me the original D&D gnomes (in the Known World setting)
>were also portrayed as mad tinkerers (cf. Book of Wondrous Inventions,
>among others).
>
I think that they were Tinkerers and builders, but not mad ones.
Shadow Wolf
news:3d94f0f5...@news.bellatlantic.net:
It's true that their inventions generally appeared a _lot_ more reliable
than the DL Tinker Gnomes -- but many of their inventions in the source
above were more than a little crazy :-)
In any case, the modern D&D gnomes which the OP complained were ripoffs of
DL seem (to me) to be a lot more like the Known World Gnomes than DL Tinker
Gnomes.
Varl
> You know, it would be kinda cool to run a "Gnomes" D&D campaign.
Imagine a region in any campaign world where gnomes are the majority and
humans are the "curious tall folk". Blingdenstone is such a place imc, a
gnome city which is constantly at war with Drow, and a bit xenophobic
when it comes to strangers entering their city proper.
It
> would also be kinda cool to replace D&D gnomes with Smurfs, in an
> annoyingly retro way.
Annoyingly. You nailed that one accurately.
--
"Trials of Ascension- How an mmorpg should be."
Stephenls
> Which cartoon? I don't remember it. Unless you're talking about the
> Smurfs, which are vaguely similar, and which also had a ... catchy
> ... theme song. By the way, my apologies for getting the Smurf theme
> stuck in your head too.
Nope. The Gnomes was a running series, complete with trolls that turned
into stone at sunrise (but I think they turned back into trolls at
sunset, because otherwise that would be Death In A Children's Cartoon
and therefor Bad). I don't remember the Smurfs's themesong, although I
remember the Smurfs, so I can only guess that their song was blessedly
mediocre. But The Gnomes had a theme song that was really and truly
/bad/.
Jasin Zujovic
> > BTW, what are the D&D gnome supposed to be like, anyway? They seem to
> > have an affinity for technology, an affinity for magic (illusions),
> > and an affinity for nature. Yet, these things are often seens as
> > opposites: magic vs. technology, technology vs. nature.
>
> I own a book called /Gnomes/, by Poortvliet and Huygen. It describes the
> life cycle and lifestyle of gnomes, little bearded men and matronly
> women with pointy hats. They basically look like garden gnomes. They are
> excellent craftsmen and occasional pranksters. They focus mostly on
> domestic crafts like shoemaking and carpentry, but they also practice a
> little medicine -- especially veterinary medicine -- and they like to
> build clockwork devices. The book also describes a few other fairies,
> like elves, goblins, and trolls.
Yes! I read this book, and loved it. Here it was published together with
one of Froud's, and a third. The titles were _Gnomes_, _Fairies_ and
_Giants_. I saw an edition in English, and it looked just like the
Croatian one, only it was, well, in English.
> I think you'd immediately recognize the book and its gnomes if you saw
> it. This is how I pictured gnomes when I was growing up. (That's in the
> USA; gnome traditions may be different or unknown in Croatia.)
Hm. I'm not sure. I *read* the book when I was growing up, so the book
pretty much shaped how I imagined gnomes as a kid.
> All of the fairies in the book, including the gnomes, look very much
> like scaled-down and slightly comical versions of D&D races. The book is
> humorous, but in a very subtle way; it uses the seriousness of an adult
> scholar to describe a childish subject.
Yes. I liked _Fairies_ best, because I like that subject best, but I
think _Gnomes_ was the best written of the three, with it's scholarly
style.
> Anyway, these tiny gnomes are
> almost exactly like D&D gnomes. The only real difference is their tiny
> size.
This is a good point! I never thought to compare D&D gnomes and the
gnomes of the book. Maybe in part because the word used to translate
"gnomes" is the same word used to translate "dwarves" in Tolkien (or for
that matter, "dwarves" in common language). And they're obviously not D&D
dwarves. So I just never thought to compare them with gnomes.
Interesting. Now I've half a mind to play a gnome sometime soon.
> The book was published in 1976, and IIRC it was extremely popular when
> it first came out. I think it may be as famous as Brian Froud's fairy
> books. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it were a major influence on
> D&D.
Froud's book*s*? I only knew of the one that was published together with
_Gnomes_. Some illustrations were by Alan Lee.
BTW, do you remember what was the English word used for the monster
that's about to put a gnome in a meat grinder? There are supposed to be
only two or three in the world, and they're supposed to be much worse
than trolls.
--
Jasin Zujovic
jzuj...@inet.hr
Jasin Zujovic
> >> >I own a book called /Gnomes/, by Poortvliet and Huygen.
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> It was also used as the basis for a cartoon.
> >
> >a bad cartoon.
>
> Wouldn't know, it was only on for a few minutes. And that to see what
> it was.
Seems the cartoon really wasn't all that good?
I too have seen it, and the only thing I still remember is that it was
strange how much it *didn't* capture me, considering how much I loved the
book.
I don't even remember the theme song.
--
Jasin Zujovic
jzuj...@inet.hr
Stephenls
> I don't even remember the theme song.
"In every wish and dream and haaaapy home... you'll find the kingdom
of... the gnoooooomes!"
Bradd W. Szonye
> Seems the ["Gnomes"] cartoon really wasn't all that good?
>
> I too have seen it, and the only thing I still remember is that it was
> strange how much it *didn't* capture me, considering how much I loved
> the book.
I guess my memory was correct; the book was a huge hit at the time.
People from all over the world seem to remember it fondly. I ran across
it only recently, but I remember it vaguely from my childhood. I think
there's a really good chance that it was a major inspiration for D&D
gnomes, given the timelines involved.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> I own a book called /Gnomes/, by Poortvliet and Huygen. It describes the
Jasin Zujovic <jzuj...@inet.hr> wrote:
> Yes! I read this book, and loved it. Here it was published together
> with one of Froud's, and a third. The titles were _Gnomes_, _Fairies_
> and _Giants_. I saw an edition in English, and it looked just like the
> Croatian one, only it was, well, in English.
I've never seen /Giants/ before, but I own the other two. I was doing
some research on faerie stuff, and I ran across the books at a local
bookstore along with some others.
>> The book was published in 1976, and IIRC it was extremely popular
>> when it first came out. I think it may be as famous as Brian Froud's
>> fairy books. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it were a major
>> influence on D&D.
> Froud's book*s*? I only knew of the one that was published together
> with _Gnomes_. Some illustrations were by Alan Lee.
Froud wrote another fairy book about five years ago. Half the book is
called /Good Faeries/ and describes many traditional fairies plus many
more that Froud imagines to exist in modern life. Flip the book over,
and it's called /Bad Faeries/ -- same thing, but about goblins and
gremlins.
> BTW, do you remember what was the English word used for the monster
> that's about to put a gnome in a meat grinder? There are supposed to
> be only two or three in the world, and they're supposed to be much
> worse than trolls.
I couldn't remember, but I looked it up. They're called "Snotgurgles,"
probably meaning "the sound you make when you snort phlegm out of your
sinuses before coughing it up."
Bradd W. Szonye
> In any case, the modern D&D gnomes which the OP complained were
> ripoffs of DL seem (to me) to be a lot more like the Known World
> Gnomes than DL Tinker Gnomes.
And they also act a lot like the tiny fairies from /Gnomes/.
Jasin Zujovic
> >> The book was published in 1976, and IIRC it was extremely popular
> >> when it first came out. I think it may be as famous as Brian Froud's
> >> fairy books. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it were a major
> >> influence on D&D.
> >
> > Froud's book*s*? I only knew of the one that was published together
> > with _Gnomes_. Some illustrations were by Alan Lee.
>
> Froud wrote another fairy book about five years ago. Half the book is
> called /Good Faeries/ and describes many traditional fairies plus many
> more that Froud imagines to exist in modern life. Flip the book over,
> and it's called /Bad Faeries/ -- same thing, but about goblins and
> gremlins.
Oh, I saw that one in the same bookstore that had _Gnomes_! I didn't
notice it was by Froud. I did flip through it, though. It seemed OK, but
I didn't like it as much as _Fairies_, because it seemed it had more made
up modern stuff. Things like refrigerator light fairies, which turn on
the light just before you open the door. (This is not a real example,
just something to illustrate the impression it gave me.)
> > BTW, do you remember what was the English word used for the monster
> > that's about to put a gnome in a meat grinder? There are supposed to
> > be only two or three in the world, and they're supposed to be much
> > worse than trolls.
>
> I couldn't remember, but I looked it up. They're called "Snotgurgles,"
> probably meaning "the sound you make when you snort phlegm out of your
> sinuses before coughing it up."
Ah, thanks. Pretty much the same here: "slinavac", which is a common word
which might be used for someone slobbery/snotty/slimy.
--
Jasin Zujovic
jzuj...@inet.hr