I'm afraid I have to accuse you of intellectual dishonesty.
You could accuse me of being the Tooth Fairy and be as accurate as that accusation there.
Law and Chaos where a major feature of the game in earlier editions (5e downplays alignment, but you seem to be trying to pretend it was never significant, which is simply not true), and it was directly and openly based on Moorcock. The Great Wheel, and all the planer stuff stems directly from that. Without Moorcock and with only Tolkien D&D would only have one world.
If by "you seem to be trying to pretend it was never significant," you actually mean that I am flat out saying it was significant, you would be correct!!
I specify the original alignment system, because that was the Law vs. Chaos alignment system where alignment was much like Moorcock described in his books, though Zelazny also had a strong Law vs. Chaos influence. With the advent of 1e and the 9 axis system, law and chaos didn't mean nearly what it did in the original game. In fact, it bore almost no resemblance at all to Moorcock's system at all, other than the names Lawful and Chaotic.
And to say a sword (actually several swords) is "kinda sorta like Stormbringer" is equivalent to saying that "D&D orcs are kinda sorta like Tolkien's Orcs". Without Moorcock D&D would have no sentient weapons.
The Nine Lives stealer had very little in common with Stormbringer who could take hundreds of souls and convert them to much more than the Nine Lives Stealer. It was only kinda, sorta like Stormbringer, and now you're being intellectually dishonest by arguing otherwise.
And perhaps you aren't aware that Tolkien had a sentient weapon as well. Gurthang was intelligent and spoke. "And from the blade rang a cold voice in answer,"yea I will drink thy blood, that I may forget the blood of Beleg my master, and the blood of Brandir slain unjustly. I will slay thee swiftly""
So you can scratch Moorcock off as being the reason for them to exist in D&D. He has to share that distinction with.............Tolkien!!
Anyone who tried to downplay Tolkien's influence on D&D is being intellectually dishonest, but anyone who downplays Moorcock's influence is equally dishonest. Both where incredibly important in shaping the game.
I'm not downplaying either one. I'm saying, and saying it factually, as I have shown with my posts on what Tolkien contributed, that Tolkien contributed far more.
Whether or not you like either of them, whether or not you think either are good writers are open to debate. But to suggest either was not a significant influence on D&D is either ignorant or dishonest.
You can cut out all the Strawmen now. I think both of them were significant, or I wouldn't have named Moorcock on my small list of authors to upvote.
