Okay, then name all the people you knew in your past lives. Where are they now? Would you be able to call them up and have them post on this forum confirming that they are indeed the people you knew in your past life?
I don't belong to a religion that espouses reincarnation, nor do I personally believe in it.
You are trying to make my statement into something it isn't, and then claiming a strawman. An elf doesn't believe they are a reincarnation, they ARE a reincarnation. They don't need to claim it, they can go and speak to the people from their past lives memories and reminiscence about those times. They don't need special spiritual awareness, they just are.
This has NOTHING to do with religion and I'd appreciate you not trying to make this into some anti-hindu or anti-buddhist statement. Those belief systems have nothing to do with the biological and mental reality elves are dealing with. Because even in the context of those religious beliefs, elves are dealing with something ENTIRELY different.
This is what I wrote:
"...Unless you are claiming that D&D humans have to follow a particular religious model based on an Abrahamic-style reskinning of the Greco-Roman pantheon? Or that any D&D human religion that involves reincarnation is automatically false?"
I take it by your lack of response to what I actually wrote and your attempt to deflect by saying I was being bigoted, that you
do believe
humans in D&D can't be reincarnated or have a religion that involves reincarnation.
I can imagine such a religion just fine. I'd have to go back and check but I'm pretty sure the main religion in the setting my friends and I built together involves reincarnation for
every sentient race (I would not be the one DMing this world, so I don't know how the DM plans to handle such things mechanically). I can also imagine a religion for elves that
doesn't involve reincarnation--i.e., the way elves were treated in all previous editions. In fact, the elves in my current setting don't reincarnation; they turn into nature spirits. I also don't use Correllon or Lolth.
I can also imagine a world where some humans get reincarnated and some go to an afterlife and some dissipate into nothingness. That MToF says that elves reincarnate literally means nothing beyond "here's our idea for elves, we're going to use it in our books."
The fact that you are altering definitions of human to include whatever you feel like to descredit my points. Which you completely missed the sarcasm of me redefining shield and sword to be human. I thought at least that much would be obvious.
No, I just ignored it because it was dumb.
You really should. He absolutely doesn't want halflings to be magical. If you want magical halflings you really should care that him and others would want to remove that as an option.
Oofta says otherwise.
Shadar-Kai don't come up because their history of recently being human is very confusing, since many people still imagine they are humans it is strange for them to think they are elves.
Also, Pallid elves are not truly very different from other types of elves. They don't really need mentioning since they don't break the mold. However, in the assertion that all halflings are unremarkable and non-magical, magical halflings would break that mold and be quite notable.
And here's you missing
my point.
Wow that is a whole lot of saying nothing. Everything after your first sentence is just pointing out that there isn't a distinct halfling/gnome mixed race option, which is true for 99% of all mixed race options, so not exactly breaking ground.
Then, instead of actually PRESENTING evidence, you simply say that their differences are cultural and mechanical. Which, hey, I can give you mechanical, halfling mechanics are pretty forgettable after all and don't really add much useful flavor compared to gnome mechanics, but can you actually... give some examples of what makes a forest gnome culture completely and utterly different from a lotusden halfling culture? And then explain why cultural differences aren't enough to make them simply sub-races like Mountain Dwarves and Hill Dwarves who only really had cultural and mechanical differences?
You know what the cultural and mechanical differences are, because they're listed in the PHB, MTF, SCAG, and EGW. It's not my job to read for you.
The point is, nothing I said about what she can do would be seen as unusual for a DnD gnome. In fact, it fits perfectly into DnD gnomes and no one bats an eye at it. I should know, I put it into my DnD gnomes and not a single player ever went "wait, gnomes can't do that!". In fact, they just accepted it as a fact of gnomish life.
So? All that shows is that the person who wrote that probably based it on D&D.
Except that it isn't pointless. I'll agree with you that gnomes are no longer earth elementals, just like kobolds are no longer goblins. That isn't exactly a difficult point. Garden gnomes are a type of statuary, so also not relevant, just like garden dragon statues aren't dragons.
As for the rest, what are their characteristics? What makes them different from other gnomes? I'm not familiar with them. Well, I think the Nomes of Oz do stick closer to their earth elemental roots, which is fine, and I would also not that Nomes not being Gnomes is the same as Porcs not being Orcs. Different names are different it turns out.
Which leaves us with a slasher fic, probably based on garden gnome statuary, and then Discworld and Warhammer, both of which tend to have extreme deviations from normal fantasy. However, they are still called "gnomes" so there has to be a reason for that, right?
Yes. The reason is that the writers chose that name.
So, I'm confused.
See, for the last three threads I've been repeatedly berated about what the definition of a halfling is. It has been a major point of contention, because I want to change a few things about them, and I have been told that changing any of those factors would make them decidedly not halflings.
However, now, you are berating me for sticking to the definition that I have had thrown at me over and over and over again.
Who, precisely, has told you that "changing any of those factors would make them decidedly not halflings"? I ask because you repeatedly misrepresent people and what they say, and so I am inclined to believe that in reality, maybe
one person has said that changing a halfling would make it a not-halfling, and you decided to claim that tons of people have said that.
So, here, I'll just step back for a second. What is a halfling? Is a halfling just whatever you decide is a halfling, or is there some sort of definition for them? Because I'm not going to continue being yelled at for both using and not using the definition everyone else has. That way lies madness.
What type of halfling are you talking about? A D&D halfling? A Tolkien halfling? A halfling as presented from a different, non-D&D game?
Because each of those types of halflings are entities unto themselves, so if I'm talking about a D&D halfling, then I will point you at the PHB, MTF, SCAG, and EGW.
So, halflings go to war. Because any halfling community bigger than a small village is typically depicted as part of a human community. Much larger than that and they would need things like... kings, armies, you know all those things that you claim they can't have.
Citation needed.
In fact, other than the Talentas barbarian halflings of Eberron, is there a halfling location you know of that is bigger than a couple of villages? I'll put forth that human villages also typically only have militias and not armies, though it isn't because humans as a race are peaceful, but because they can't support armies with a village's worth of supplies.
The number of official settings I know and care about enough to comment are:
Ravenloft.
So, Delagia and Rivalis, in Darkon. I seem to recall a fan-brew halfling domain as well.
In my own game? Every major above-ground settlement.
I really feel like I'm dealing with Schrodinger's halflings here, since suddenly we have halfling cities and maybe even small halfling countries, when previously they just had small villages. Where is all of this coming from?
Beats me. I said "communities" and "settlements." But here's you misrepresenting what I said to mean cities and countries, as well as failing to understand how big (or how small) an army actually needs to be in a setting where you can throw around
fireballs.
Ah, you got me, egg on my face. I'm sure there are human settlements without halflings. In fact, humans seem to exist just fine without halflings.
How many halfling cities with zero humans can we name? Not countries, cities.
I dunno. Why don't you do some research and come up with a list?
Can they overrule the king who commands the land their village sits on?
"Sorry, High King Etheril, the Halfling Mayor of Gallybrooke said you are not allowed to go to war, we must call it off"
Why would they? The halflings own the land, not the king.
Unless it's different in your setting, of course. Or you can find some bit of text in a D&D book somewhere that says that halflings always live on human lands.
Until you can find that bit of text, however, you are talking about something that
may be true in, what, your personal setting? The Realms or Greyhawk maybe? Not something that's a universal fact in D&D.
Shouldn't we know the answers to these questions instead of you having to answer me?
Why? Do you insist that the books spell out every single aspect of daily and political life in every single setting?
Why is it that halflings turn to a life of crime so easily? Halflings live with humans constantly how do they interact with the humans and deal with their supposedly conflicting natures. Do human kingdoms make exceptions when they create peasant levies and ignore halflings? Why? How does this change the dynamic of the races?
I can make up things, but if halflings are supposedly defined by their peacefulness and unwillingness to go to war (but not to kill things during adventures) then shouldn't this be a major thing discussed in the books?
It usually is. You seem to have missed those bits.
And, to quote Observer, "My race is pacifist and does not believe in war. We only kill out of personal spite."
How is it on me? I didn't create halflings, you won't find my name listed in the PHB. Why is it my fault that halflings lack anything that can possibly define them besides just vague platitudes?
I suppose you only use official settings rather than make your own, then.
And, again, if it is just cultural, why can't halflings be a sub-race of Gnomes, just like hill dwarves and mountain dwarves? It is all only cultural after all.
Sure, if you want that to be the way for your setting, go ahead.
So, I can't point to a better designed version of something to say that the other version is poorly done? Meanwhile, others are allowed to constantly harp on Tolkien like he was somehow involved in the writing of Dungeons and Dragons?
Way to dodge the questions again. You do that a lot, you know.
And sure, halflings are "playable" but they aren't good. As we have been discussing, you don't even seem to have a consistent definition of what a halfling is, since they keep morphing every time you find another point of mine you don't like.
Opinion, not fact. We had this discussion before. And the players of the three halflings in my setting think they're plenty good.
Also, citation needed.
To answer the first point, it is because halflings cooking for halflings isn't special. It would be like a human cooking for a human, kind of obvious. But, again, you decided to phrase it thusly, "So in that case, being the best, most cheerful hosts and chefs is equally as useful as whatever abilities elves and dwarfs are. Probably more useful, in fact, because you being able to change your gender over night doesn't affect me in anyway, but you being able to cook me a good breakfast does."
You were the one who decided that the elvish expierence of Gender doesn't matter, because it can't provide anything for humans (or other races, I guess). That wasn't me. That was your take away. You need to defend that, especially since...
And again, you misunderstand and misrepresent. You can change gender. That's great for your character. It literally doesn't matter for anyone else's character, though, except in the hands of a good roleplayer.
- Dragon's hoards are tied directly into their magic and their afterlife.
According to one book, published for this edition, which will probably be changed the next time they come up with a Draconomicon for another edition.
- Mind Flayer's eat sentient brains, not just human brains.
But mostly humans, as evidenced by basically every single time they've ever been used.
- Mimics look like treasure chests to lure in adventurers, adventurers are not solely human. Additionally, mimics can take on a variety of forms and adapt to what is most useful for their environment.
And how often have you seen mimics take the form of rocks or something like that?
So... you were wrong about every single one of these
Nope.
Yep, common is the human language. Took them long enough to acknowledge that. Luckily, languages are not defining. Whether or not you speak common holds no bearing on whether you are an elf, dwarf, or dragon. As for the rest, yes, it is a game played by humans. So therefore the only way that halflings should be defined as a race is how useful they are to humans?
I'm going to say yikes to that, and recommend you take a different stance, because that is a very very poor way to define a race of people.
<sigh> You really don't get the difference between in-game reasoning and out-of-game reasoning, do you.
Why not? They are a fantasy race, if they aren't fantastical then what's the point? At that point they may as well just be humans.
Because sometimes, too much fantasticalness is boring.
No, other people have declared that halflings need to be non-fantastical. That is there definition. I want them to be more fantastical, and you seem to think my pointing out the cognitivie dissonance between people insisting they are non-fantastical and the existence of rarely discussed fantastical options is somehow me trying to gas light you.
Your understanding of the situation would be aided if you stop assuming I am a malicious agent.
My understanding of your maliciousness on this point out be better if it weren't for every single one of your posts on the topic was filled with deliberate misinterpretations.
