Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7904742" data-attributes="member: 42582">On the last point - Elros was not physically indistinguishable from elves, but rather chose to be human. I'm also not sure about Earendil - as a half-elf was  he more evlish or human?In any event, it's true that D&D's implementation of half-elves is different from JRRT's but that's true of most elements. All 10th level rangers, even the King of Keoland, can use palantirs. Nevertheless the derivation from JRRT is pretty transparent.And there is nothing stopping a particular table treating half-elves as rare, or the ranger class as very distinctive - much as a GH campaign would be expected to treat open-hand monks.There was at least one post upthread which suggested that GH should be confined to "traditional" fantasy races (by which seemed to be meant JRRT + gnomes). I am disputing that claim. I think that GH as a setting has ample room for non-JRRT humanoids, and that the issues with playing (say) a dragonborn are no different from those with playing (say) a valley elf or an open-hand monk.What's the basis for saying that Gygax didn't like MUs. He played them (eg Mordenkainen).I agree with [USER=21169]@Doug McCrae[/USER]'s post not too far upthread. But I'm also not sure what the contrast is you're drawing between Earth mythology and Tolkien mythology - JRRT's material is drawn from traditional folklore, but treated and developed in a way that tries to make sense of it within the context of a 19th-century style novel rather than the earlier feel of stories like Beowulf, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, etc.That said, D&D is much better suited to playing JRRT-type fantasy than much mythology. Eg I think it's quite hard to play an Argonauts or Iliad game in D&D, because martial PCs aren't presented in the right way for that. Which is a legacy of the game's wargaming heritage.</blockquote>

Verification