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

[Hriston]

The entire argument started from claim that adventuring parties need humans to be relatable, with Fellowship of the Ring being tangled into it. I pointed out neither of two humans in Fellowship is much relatable, while Hobbits are and serve as POW characters. This has been meet with a series of claims that Hobbits in Middle Earth are just Men, unlike Elves and Dwarves, who are separate species. In the back and forth I brought up topic of Hobbits clearly having longer life-span, which somehow devolved into arguments that Hoobbits in their 50's are the same as middle-aged humans. If I confused people, sorry, arguing with whole bunch of folks does that sometimes. I'm glad you at least agree Hobbits don't need to be humans to be relatable to the audience.

I think the argument was hobbits, as a narrative devise, are practically human for the purpose of relatability, so claiming they're a separate "species" with a different lifespan isn't all that relevant to the argument. The first claim is innacurate because, in Tolkien's works, they are considered part of the race of Men, which is why people have been posting that, to correct your inaccuracy even though it's entirely irrelevant to the argument and seems to me like a bit of a cheap shot or a technicality. The second claim (which is where I came in to this part of the conversation) is exaggerated. Their lifespans are slightly longer as depicted -- 130 years maximum as compared to 120 for humans -- but that seems to me to be within the range of variability that might be found within a single species.

 

[Hriston]

I still can't fathom how he liked the West Midlands the place is dull and depressing on a good day.

Have you been to the West Midlands in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? You might have a different opinion!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Wait until the 2024 MM. It won't be.

The MM is bound to be very interesting from an academic, history of D&D point of view, if not necessarily a gameplay or lore one). Almost worth picking up on that basis alone.

 

[Maxperson]

Wait until the 2024 MM. It won't be.

While I would hope for them to go the other way and change the lore back to humanoid, I'm afraid that you are correct and they will become some sort of demon.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I think the argument was hobbits, as a narrative devise, are practically human for the purpose of relatability, so claiming they're a separate "species" with a different lifespan isn't all that relevant to the argument. The first claim is innacurate because, in Tolkien's works, they are considered part of the race of Men, which is why people have been posting that, to correct your inaccuracy even though it's entirely irrelevant to the argument and seems to me like a bit of a cheap shot or a technicality. The second claim (which is where I came in to this part of the conversation) is exaggerated. Their lifespans are slightly longer as depicted -- 130 years maximum as compared to 120 for humans -- but that seems to me to be within the range of variability that might be found within a single species.

And we're back to making up bullmanure claims. Hobbits are not humans unless you show me on page Tolkien explicit writing down they are, and even then i'll consider it bad form from him. If Hobbits can be relatable, even if you want to use the stupid term "functiomally human", it is not the same as "just human". It just proves we don't need humans to be relatable necause anything can be made relatable or "functiomally human". Winnie the Pooh is functionally human.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Wait until the 2024 MM. It won't be.

I hope you're wrong

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think "are hobbits human" is a pointless sematic discussion. They are and they aren't, depending on your definition of human. Cladistically they are probably human in the same way than the Neantherdals (or more appropriately Homo Floresiensis) are, though Tolkien wouldn't have put it in those terms.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I don't like that change to gnolls, so I don't use it. In part because it creates an issue between PC and NPC gnolls which are the same race. Has 5e even given us a PC gnoll race to pick? I can't remember.

No, but Kobold Press 5e books did.

 

[Hriston]

@Not a Decepticon, here is the relevant passage from the LotR Prologue, Concerning Hobbits:

It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement Hobbits are relatives of ours; far nearer to us than Elves, or even than Dwarves. Of old they spoke the languages of Men, after their own fashion, and liked and disliked much the same things as Men did.​

​

And in a letter to Arthur Ransome, dated 15 December 1937, Tolkien stated (as best I can make out his handwriting):

As for hobbits no high legends deal with their origin, and having no better information I am inclined to [illegible] them as a pleasant if miniature variety of our own kind, or of some related strain.​

​

Passages like this are why some posters have pushed back on your claim that hobbits aren't human.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

@Not a Decepticon, here is the relevant passage from the LotR Prologue, Concerning Hobbits:

It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement Hobbits are relatives of ours; far nearer to us than Elves, or even than Dwarves. Of old they spoke the languages of Men, after their own fashion, and liked and disliked much the same things as Men did.​

​

And in a letter to Arthur Ransome, dated 15 December 1937, Tolkien stated (as best I can make out his handwriting):

As for hobbits no high legends deal with their origin, and having no better information I am inclined to [illegible] them as a pleasant if miniature variety of our own kind, or of some related strain.​

​

Passages like this are why some posters have pushed back on your claim that hobbits aren't human.

This effectively says Elves and dwarves qre just more distant relatives of uman. Congratulations, Middle Earth has no races, it's all just different variety if humans!