D&D (2024) Should 2014 Half Elves and Half Orcs be added to the 2025 SRD?

[Maxperson]

Why is that? On the other side is jsut some random prick with pointy ears, you make assumptions betraying preexisting biases and expect everyone to share them.

Not everyone. Just most people. As evidenced by the most popular races played not including kobolds anywhere on the list. Elves and half-elves place quite highly. The only one letting bias cloud his vision is you.

And I reject validity of that "something", therefore it is an assumption based on nothing.

Yeaaaah, that's not how reality works. Try it again, this time reject the validity of the sun rising tomorrow and see how that works out for you.

And why exactly is a species of short people with beard on their faces and a species of short peopel with beard of their feet and a species of tree-hugging hippies (I can't tell you how often I've heard that joke. The racie just is not taken seriously) inherently more "respectable" and serious than Kobolds or Tortles? How exactly is "variation of human apeparance" inherently respectable? I'd argue it makes them look dumber.

Because that's human nature. That's why.

1. No. Hobbits are not humans.

Didn't say they were. They LOOK human, though. Which IS what I said. Try arguing what I say, not what you want me to have said. I'm cutting out the rest of your Strawman.

2. Horton Hears Who is one of Dr. Seuss' msot famous and beloved stories. Clearly people in the whole world have found Horton interesting and relatable. You could not use worse example unless you picked up the Grinch.

Not as relatable as other humans.

 

[pemerton]

Tolkien rejected claims of allegory lie "Hobbits are the British".

JRRT was a professor of language and literature. When he said that he "detests allegory in all its form" (I think that's a quote, and in any event is a fairly close paraphrase), he was meaning allegory in it literal sense: a form of storytelling in which each element and event in the story stands as a proxy for an element or event in some other story which is the "real" story being told. And he denied that LotR is an allegory in that sense.

But he was not making the (absurd) assertion that there is no symbol, metaphor or allusion in his work. It is replete with them.

And one of the obvious ones is that the Hobbits express a certain sort of English self-conception. @Hriston actually provided us with the relevant quote, not all that far upthread; but it is not necessary. One only needs to read the works.

Considering Frodo is considered young at 50, I do not belive Hobbits were meant to just be humans.

You are mistaking a plot device for something of substance. The age of Hobbits is like the immortality of Elves, or the thousands of years of the Third Age. These are set dressing, no more.

The story tells us that Minas Tirith has existed for longer than the time between me writing now and Aristotle and his peripatetic students in classical hens, yet has been basically in cultural and technological stasis for that entire time. We can accept that proposition for the purpose of following along with the story, but it is just a trapping, no different from Aragorn being around about 80 years old during the events of the LotR. And no different from Frodo's age.

The reason that Hobbits are relatable is not because readers identify with some strange beings, but because readers identify with human beings, and the Hobbits are quintessentially modern humans.

I mean, Watership Down is ostensibly about rabbits, but its rabbits are presented basically as human also; every now and then the author reminds us that they are not. Likewise Pooh and Piglet and Mole and Rat and other non-human characters in fairy stories and children's tales.

Whether presenting your human protagonists as rabbits or teddy bears or anthropomorphic tortoises or Edwardian fairy-folk is silly or not is a further question. It works well for children. JRRT pulls it off - although I have known some people who do think it is silly. Perhaps because of my knowledge of TMNT I find anthropomorphic chelonians a bit hard to take seriously; but I could probably learn to take them seriously if I was exposed to them in a serious context.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

JRRT was a professor of language and literature. When he said that he "detests allegory in all its form" (I think that's a quote, and in any event is a fairly close paraphrase), he was meaning allegory in it literal sense: a form of storytelling in which each element and event in the story stands as a proxy for an element or event in some other story which is the "real" story being told. And he denied that LotR is an allegory in that sense.

But he was not making the (absurd) assertion that there is no symbol, metaphor or allusion in his work. It is replete with them.

Try telling that people who screech whenever you point out World War I pararells in his work, they will tell you he 100% did not mean any symbol, metaphor and you are bad person (they'll probably throw in some slurs for leftists here) for even suggesting a single phrase in his writing could be a symbol or metaphor for anything.

You are mistaking a plot device for something of substance. The age of Hobbits is like the immortality of Elves, or the thousands of years of the Third Age. These are set dressing, no more.

And tell me exactly, how is this set dressing in any way inherently better from the set dressing of "turtle"? or "small green people that pee in the milk?". Why is Hobbit inherently more relatable from Kobold or Elf from Dragonborn?

The reason that Hobbits are relatable is not because readers identify with some strange beings, but because readers identify with human beings, and the Hobbits are quintessentially modern humans.

You guys are defending argument the fantasy HAS TO HAVE HUMANS TO BE RELATABLE TO THE AUDIENCES. And I think nothing proves how indefensible it is than the fact you constantly run into denying Hobbits in LotR are separate race. You are so close to getting the truth and still run away last minute to pick dumbest hill to die on.

I mean, Watership Down is ostensibly about rabbits, but its rabbits are presented basically as human also; every now and then the author reminds us that they are not. Likewise Pooh and Piglet and Mole and Rat and other non-human characters in fairy stories and children's tales.

So you agree? That we don't need to force humans into the story to make it relatable? That literally anything, even freaking rabbits and moles and rats and piglets and bears, can be made relatable to the audience?

Whether presenting your human protagonists as rabbits or teddy bears or anthropomorphic tortoises or Edwardian fairy-folk is silly or not is a further question. It works well for children. JRRT pulls it off - although I have known some people who do think it is silly. Perhaps because of my knowledge of TMNT I find anthropomorphic chelonians a bit hard to take seriously; but I could probably learn to take them seriously if I was exposed to them in a serious context.

And yet, the whole argument I am arguing against is that it will always be inherently stupid and silly to have Kobolds or Tortles be the heroes because human audience will inherently reject them and favor human (AND ONLY HUMAN) perspective. I think you guys are just biased and refuse to let go of tradition.

And, for the record, while it begun as a parody, TMNT has a long history of stories of all kinds of tone and theme. So do many long-running franchises, like Transformers or Sonic the Hedgehog. Again, this is extremely arbitrary that I'm supposed to find decades of stories that dwelt into horror, tragedy and uplifting as often, as they dwelled into comedy, inherently sillier and stupider than whatever the f is Spider-Man doing, just because he looks human. This line of thinking is what leads to humans being shoehorned into Transformers stories. And trust me, it is veeery hard to make Transformers fans like the humans, despite this assumption they should be inherently more relatable. We can relate to giant robots jsut fine, we don't need forced human perspective, arguing we do is condescending nad treating us like morons.

 

[AnotherGuy]

@Not a Decepticon perhaps you should tell us why you think within the comic industry that Peter Parker and Bruce Wayne are the generally considered the favourites within Marvel and DC respectively?

And not the likes of Silver Surfer, The Thing, Martian ManHunter or the Green Lantern Corps....

 

[Not a Decepticon]

@Not a Decepticon perhaps you should tell us why you think within the comic industry that Peter Parker and Bruce Wayne are the generally considered the favourites within Marvel and DC respectively?

I literally got banned from forums for sharing my low, low, loooooooooooooooooooooow opinion on Batman, so I won't. And if you are going to tell me how a supergenius playboy billionaire who is master of every skill he ever tried once is "inherently more relatable" than BETTER heroes and BETTER characters, just because "he's human". I'm going to call you delusional.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I literally got banned from forums for sharing my low, low, loooooooooooooooooooooow opinion on Batman, so I won't.

I'm not asking for your opinion on Batman, I'm asking why you think he is usually a lead for DC in terms of popularity - so the question still stands.

 

[AnotherGuy]

And I think nothing proves how indefensible it is than the fact you constantly run into denying Hobbits in LotR are separate race.

Despite being a separate race for story purposes could you provide us with a list of all the ways Hobbits are different to humans?

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I'm not asking for your opinion on Batman, I'm asking why you think he is usually a lead for DC in terms of popularity - so the question still stands.

Because the marketing department forces him down our throats despite th fact it makes no sense for him to be here. AGAIN, I have nothing positive to say about Batman nor his fandom, I look down on people who like Batman because I absolutely loathe him. I will not participate in this derail.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Despite being a separate race for story purposes could you provide us with a list of all the ways Hobbits are different to humans?

How about you first provide me with list of evidence they are just humans. And it better not be "human perspective" because that can be attached to anything. If you argue Hobbits are humans because they have relatable perspective, then Winnie the Pooh and Bugs Bunny are humans.

 

[pemerton]

Try telling that people who screech whenever you point out World War I pararells in his work, they will tell you he 100% did not mean any symbol, metaphor and you are bad person (they'll probably throw in some slurs for leftists here) for even suggesting a single phrase in his writing could be a symbol or metaphor for anything.

Why would I want to speak to people whose idea of literary criticism is analysing Transformers episodes?

I'm relying on JRRT's own work, the work of serious critics (eg Shippey's The Road to Middle Earth) and my own reading. The metaphorical/symbolic elements in JRRT's work and many and evident and very very purposeful.

You guys are defending argument the fantasy HAS TO HAVE HUMANS TO BE RELATABLE TO THE AUDIENCES.

I've not expressed any view on that question. I've addressed a particular point, namely, about Hobbits and the role of Hobbits in JRRT's fantasy works.