Gnomes! (HUH) What are they good for? Absolutely nothing!

[Ruin Explorer]

Sad to see all this gnome hate. I love me some gnomes and have seen them in play many times. Dragonborn however, ugh, talk about a Mary Sue race. I've banned those guys from anything ever.

Do you mean 3E Dragonborn, or 4E ones? They're totally different. The 3E ones, you could make a case for using the phrase "Mary Sue", because whilst it's technically misuse, being "part dragon" is a very common trait amongst "Mary Sue"-ish characters in fiction (esp. fan-fiction, of course), and they got chunky bonuses from the template and so on. They were certainly favoured by players who liked to be the most special of special snowflakes and to lord it over the other PCs.

4E Dragonborn, however, are no better than any other PC race, aren't "part dragon" in the same sense (if at all), and don't have any kind of particularly romantic backstory or the like. There's no way they can be considered "Mary Sue"-ish. Totally different origin and appearance.

As for Gnomes, I've tried to use them, but I've never found anything that they were better used for than some other small race with a bit more character. They have this illusionist thing going on, but it seems vaguely inappropriate and Elves make for better "Forest Tricksters", thematically and style-wise. They have this "mechanic" thing going on, but that doesn't fit non-Steampunk settings, and in Steampunk ones, any race could be a mechanic. Further, as they're non-hostile, generally, they can't even be used as "trapmasters" or the like (Kobolds or whatever are used instead).

I did get some mileage out of the really scary-looking 4E versions, at least. Svirfneblin or however it's spelled, those guys I kind of like. They are sufficiently bizarre and creepy as to justify their existence.

 

[Umbran]

As for Gnomes, I've tried to use them, but I've never found anything that they were better used for than some other small race with a bit more character.
They have this illusionist thing going on, but it seems vaguely inappropriate

In the same paragraph you complain about them not having character, but then complain about their character?

and Elves make for better "Forest Tricksters", thematically and style-wise.

Tolkien-style (meaning, by extension D&D) elves are in no way, shape, or form thematically tricksterish. They are far too self-conscious and self-important and *serious* to be decent tricksters. Individuals may always vary, I know, but the culture presented? Not trickster.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In the same paragraph you complain about them not having character, but then complain about their character?

No, the issue is that they have no character. They don't have a "Forest Trickster" character, but they randomly have illusion spells. Sometimes people assert, without building them up, that they are, but it doesn't match with the culture they have described (such as it is) or anything else about them.

Tolkien-style (meaning, by extension D&D) elves are in no way, shape, or form thematically tricksterish. They are far too self-conscious and self-important and *serious* to be decent tricksters. Individuals may always vary, I know, but the culture presented? Not trickster.

Tolkien-style Elves are not D&D's Elves, so I must disagree with your "by extension", nor the Elves of most RPGs, though. Tolkien's Elves are tall, immortal, superhuman beings. Superior beings. D&D's Elves are largely forest-dwelling, short, light, lithe, agile, and whilst they're long-lived, it's often implied that they're not immortal. They're not "superior beings" in the same way at all. Thinking about it, though, even Tolkien's Wood Elves are kind of deceptive/illusion-y. Remember all the stuff with the Wood Elf party? I think it was in the Hobbit but I may be misremembering and it was in LotR, but there was definitely stuff going on there that was classic illusion/deception/trickster elf. By trickster I mean more Loki than some grovelling con-artist, to be clear. Convincing some petty mortal to dance for you is trickster, y'know.

Many D&D Elf cultures contain a significant "trickster" element, too, from all over. Taladas has a particularly well-rendered "Forest Trickster" Elf type with the Huldrefolk, who are frankly, more Elf-y than most Elves.

Further, Elves in mythology, even the big, pretty ones, are very often tricksters/deceivers. They're constantly lying to people, abducting people, causing time to pass at funny rates and so on.

 

[amerigoV]

Thinking about it, though, even Tolkien's Wood Elves are kind of deceptive/illusion-y. Remember all the stuff with the Wood Elf party? I think it was in the Hobbit but I may be misremembering and it was in LotR, but there was definitely stuff going on there that was classic illusion/deception/trickster elf. By trickster I mean more Loki than some grovelling con-artist, to be clear. Convincing some petty mortal to dance for you is trickster, y'know.

Twas in the Hobbit (but it did not make it to the movie(s)).

 

[Jester David]

And elves are small little folk a foot tall.
Dwarves are little antisocial men that turn to stone in the sun.

 

[Morlock]

Gnomes. Let's talk about gnomes. I don't get the appeal.

First of all, what niche are they supposed to fill? They live underground and they make stuff, like dwarves. But I guess they're thinner? And more annoying? Or maybe they're just halflings that live underground. Regardless, they don't seem to have a well-defined place in the small races ecosystem.

Is there some fantasy literature tradition they are supposed to reference? If there is I'm not familiar with it. When someone says 'gnome', I think of this guy:

View attachment 60173

That's right ladies! He's single!

Don't get me wrong, I have players that like to play gnomes. Interestingly they almost always play gnome rogues. That may be just for mechanical reasons. Although to me halfling is a perfectly good alternative.

Why do people like to play gnomes? And how did a lawn ornament get to be a core race in D&D?!?

They're the only race I have considered banning at my table. Somehow I feel like having gnomes in the game automatically makes the whole game sillier. Anyone else feel this way?

I've always hated gnomes. Then came the Tinker Gnomes, and I hated them even more (I've never been much on Steampunk in my D&D and Tinker Gnomes & the like are the gateway drug for Steampunk in D&D, so there's another layer of vitriol, right there).

Recently I happened to look through Friend & Foe: The Gnomes & Kobolds of Tellene (Kingdoms of Kalamar) and saw the illustration on page 10. Lots of cognitive dissonance. They look cool. They look more like halflings, but they're armored up like dwarves. But they have an elvish aesthetic and mien, and no beards. It's almost like they just carved out their own niche in my imagination right there on the spot. I could see them played as a well-equipped, well-trained race with a Napoleon complex (little guys are usually scrappers).

So, I still hate the traditional gnomes, but those gnomes have earned themselves a spot. I'm not going to start writing up gnome characters, or anything. But I'll be okay with gnomes in a setting from now on, because I'll just rewrite them to be like the gnomes in that illustration.

They still kinda suffer from the "furries" thing, IMO; better for a side campaign/adventure where everyone's furries/little folk/etc.

Yes, I'm an artist and very visually-oriented. In fact I'm a total whore for good art. Kudos to Keith DeCesare.

Do you mean 3E Dragonborn, or 4E ones?

I give both the bum's rush. Draconians own the niche for me. Elmore's illustrations have a lot to do with that (told you, I'm a whore for good art).

 

[Lwaxy]

Gnomes have no character? *insert long laughing break*

Gnomes have more character than the overused elves will ever have.

I don't dislike elves either

 

[Dungeoneer]

A Theory of Gnome Evolution

So I've been re-reading this thread with, I'll be honest, a great deal of amusement. The truth is that I find the gnome to be inherently ridiculous. I"m not saying that he truly is ridiculous, but that's how I automatically perceive him, and judging by this thread I'm not alone in that prejudice. I think gnome defenders would be wise to take into account how many people perceive their favorite race when employing them. The gnome comes with baggage, that much is clear.

That said, there is a serious, historical side to this discussion. What quirk of happenstance made this oddball fellow with very few antecedents in fantasy literature part of the D&D canon? Based on several of the contributors to this thread (@JRRNeiklot, @the Jester, @Quickleaf, @steeldragons, @Umbran), a trip to Wikipedia, and a brief scan of some old PHBs I give you this:

THE EVOLUTION OF THE GNOME IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS

1974 - The gnome makes his first appearance in the original edition of D&D.

1975 - The gnome shows up in the Blackmoor supplement.

1977 - The gnome makes his first appearance in the Monster Manual. Gnomes are described (and illustrated) as smaller 'cousins of the dwarves', complete with beards and armor. They can see in the dark, they are described as 'resistant to poison and magic' and they are miners who live in clans. In short, they have nothing in common with the modern day gnome.

1978 - Gnomes appear in the first Player's Handbook as a playable race. They are just as described in the Monster Manual and they can take Illusionist as a class.

1980 - Gnomes get their own god, Garl Glittergold, in the Deities and Demigods cyclopedia.

1982 - Gnomes are detailed exhaustively (including their drinking habits!) by Roger Moore in Dragon Magazine #61. Moore describes gnomes as differing from dwarves in that they also enjoy the above-ground world. Gnomes are also associated with jokes and trickery, although confusingly they are also said to be usually aligned with Lawful Good. Moore also hints at an interest in crafts, which will shortly become an important feature of this race!

1987 - Gnomes appear in Dragonlance Adventures substantially reworked as 'Tinker Gnomes', a brown, clever race which are the ancestors of both dwarves and kender. This seems to be the first appearance of the tradition of gnomes having long names.

1989 - The second edition of AD&D is released, and the PHB contains gnomes, closely based on Roger E. Moore's version. Various monster manuals introduce several gnomish sub-races.

1993 - The Complete Book of Gnomes is so complete that it also contains halflings. The two races are described as sharing a diminutive size, and affinity for larger races and the ability to 'disappear into the woodwork' when threatened. This book treats gnomes as more 'fey' than the dwarves (who are still their cousins) as they enjoy a good stroll above ground in the moonlight.

2000 - D&D 3rd Edition changes the gnome's favored class from illusionist to bard and opens up spellcasting to all races. The PHB says that 'gnomes are welcome everywhere as technicians, alchemists and inventors', implying that the 'tinker gnome' archetype has taken preference.

2008 - D&D Fourth Edition is released, but gnomes appear only in the Monster Manual. They will have to wait for the second PHB for their playable race write-up.

2009 - The PHB2 contains gnomes, as promised. They are now definitively associated with the Feywild, a major component of 4e lore. They are a race of magical tricksters, and their ability to turn magically invisible is now explicit. They appear to have lost their beards.

2014 - Gnomes will appear in 5e... but what form will they take?

THERE'S NO PLACE LIKE GNOME

As you can see from the above timeline, gnomes have taken quite a convoluted journey to their present form. They started life as, well, basically dwarves with a knack for illusions. At some point they started picking up a mischievous trickster flavor that differentiated them from their 'cousins'. They also took a detour into the Dragonlance 'tinker gnome', which honestly seems to describe another race entirely.

3e attempted to unify the divergent strands of gnome-dentity. But apparently this only produced a confusing grab-bag of characteristics that didn't resonate, as the gnome was demoted to the PHB2 for 4e. At least in 4e the gnome found a clear niche as a fey creature with some nice abilities to boot. Along the way the gnome changed physically, too. He shrank, lost weight, and trimmed his beard to the point where he was often portrayed as beardless.

In some ways, it seems as though the gnome has been constantly losing his ecological niche. Originally the gnome fulfilled a role as dwarven illusionist. Somehow this evolved into a sideline in trickery and mischief. When Dragonlance arrived, it had no use for this notion of the gnome, thanks to the Kender, so he was reworked entirely as a tinkerer.

Nonetheless, the trickster gnome who was kin to dwarves stuck around until at least 2e, although by that time he had trouble making a case for why he wasn't a halfling. In 3e the gnome attempted to reinvent himself as a wacky bard. When that didn't work out, he left this plane entirely to try his luck as a dangerous fey. However, assuming that Fifth Edition doesn't feature a fully-developed Feywild, the poor gnome will be forced to reinvent himself yet again!

As I write this, what really strikes me about the gnome is his adaptability. He's a survivor, a remnant of a race that has been driven from their homes time and time again.

So, I humbly suggest that the next incarnation of the gnome embrace this idea: the gnomes are a wandering people, making their homes wherever they can and adapting to survive, whether that be as underground miners, wandering bards, crafty illusionists or eccentric tinkers. Gnomes change themselves to suit their circumstances, even shaving off their beards and wearing boots with lifts if it helps them blend in.

The gnome realizes that this makes him a bit ridiculous, but hey, he wouldn't have made it this far if he hadn't held onto his sense of humor!

Strangely, I think that reimagining the gnome as a race without a niche would in fact provide him the niche he has sought for so long.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

3e attempted to unify the divergent strands of gnome-dentity. But apparently this only produced a confusing grab-bag of characteristics that didn't resonate, as the gnome was demoted to the PHB2 for 4e.

Part of that is because even 3E couldn't make up its mind about gnomes. In 3.0 their favored class was illusionist (remember Nebin?); in 3.5 it became bard.

So, I humbly suggest that the next incarnation of the gnome embrace this idea: the gnomes are a wandering people, making their homes wherever they can and adapting to survive, whether that be as underground miners, wandering bards, crafty illusionists or eccentric tinkers.

Can Yiddish gnomes be a thing? 'Cause I could totally see that.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Can Yiddish gnomes be a thing? 'Cause I could totally see that.

That's actually not meshuggeneh, though the goyim might need a cheat sheet like this website for the "gnomenclature"...

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/Yiddish_Words/yiddish_words.html