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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 3907876" data-attributes="member: 32164">See, when I hear what races people like, and which ones they don't, what I hear the traditionalist camp saying, even the Tolkien haters, is that Tolkien-inspired races are fine, but anything else is not. Let's review, shall we?Humans - Fine.Elves - Fine.Dwarves - Fine.Halflings - Fine.Half-elves - Fine.Half-orcs - Fine.Gnomes - Fine.Goblinoids - Fine.Tieflings - Not Fine.Dragonborn - Not Fine.Let's examine this, shall we? The first 6 races are all basically in The Lord of the Rings. Gnomes are sort of a mishmash of three others (halfling-size, dwarven look, and elven magic and nature sense). And goblinoids are basically there as well. So, even races that are traditional "monsters" seem fine with people as long as they fit the Tolkien "model" of "goodly races." In the post-modern "monsters are people too" approach, orcs are mammalian and vaguely human looking, so people figure they can make a playable race.People bring up Dragonlance as an example of an "iconic D&D setting" all the time. In that vein, I have to ask, am I the only one who remembers Draconians? If minotaurs would be fine as a PC race, why the hate for another DL race?Michael Stackpole's Dragoncrown War has humans, elves, a shapeshifting short race that's like a bizarre take on dwarves, a race that's vaguely reminiscent of raptorans, and humanoid dragons. And it still feels like high fantasy, even though its only real "Tolkien-ish" races are humans and elves.It's just amusing that for all the Tolkien hate, his take on "goodly races" still holds such weight with so many gamers - even ones who will claim he's not their influence.</blockquote>

Verification