Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9466429" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Yes...but to claim that because they influenced perception, these are the only things that should be allowed as PCs is both ridiculous from a "what was Tolkien doing" stance, and from a "what actually happened within the world of Middle-Earth" sense.Because creating a Fellowship of the Ring where nearly half of the members are hobbits is the in-Middle-Earth equivalent of a council of Elves, Dwarves, and Humans choosing a cadre of champions where about half of them are dragonborn, tabaxi, kobolds, gnomes, or whatever else. It's literally choosing to put about half your trust in an obscure, barely-known species when you literally could, right then and there, assign every spot on the Fellowship to Men, Dwarves, Elves, and Gandalf. Hell, Gandalf himself is a weird aberration, being an incarnated angel! So less than half of the Fellowship of the Ring, entrusted with the solemn and incredibly dire duty of saving the world from Sauron and completing the task that even Isildur could not bring himself to do, are any of the three races actually deciding who should go. How is that in any way different from a typical humanocentric setting setting up a group that is more than half not human or "vanilla"?You act like this choice is somehow deeply, profoundly ridiculous--your exact words were "patently ridiculous to have their champions made up of Kobolds, a Rakshasa and a pair or Tortles". But if that's the case, then the very foundations upon which this alleged tradition was built were already "patently ridiculous," yet nobody batted an eye then. Why should we bat an eye now when we do the same thing, just in our context, rather than Tolkien's?</blockquote>

Verification