The Tielfling and The Gnome: On the Set of 4th edition

A'koss said:
We've heard in previous video interviews the designers calling them teef-lings, but it sounds silly to my ear so I still call them tief-lings. But any name with a -ling in it is going to sound a little silly anyway...


Agreed. I have always said TIE-flings, as TEE-flings sounds like someone who derives their powers from the Dread Lord Lipton.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Irda Ranger said:
But I do want to ask: why are we expected to empathize with "totally imaginary" characters like Hamlet or Othello, but not someone's Gnome character? Are the Shakespearean characters somehow more worthy?
Well... :)

Does the fact that the Gnome had bug-eyes somehow make him so inhuman that he is worthy of death and ridicule? How many people here would feel bad to see an "imaginary character" they liked (whether Optimus Prime, Bart Simpson, or whoever) killed and robbed? Are you saying it wouldn't bother you even a little?
That is actually an interesting question, I think.

As I see it, the cartoon didn't actually show a gnome character and a tiefling character. It was more like an interview with actors in full costume, only it wasn't actors, but game concepts.

Seeing the gnome getting killed didn't bother me at all because it felt like Ian McKellan dreseed up as Gandalf acting out killing Elijah Wood dreseed up as Frodo as a skit to end the interview. Which is a lot different from Gandalf killing Frodo.
 


Couple of quick points:
1) The tiefling was just portrayed just as I feared they would, as a lame attempt to be "dangerous", "ultra cool", and "Sexy". Her portrayal was really dull and irritating to me.

2) What the hell kind of gnome was that? If thats how WOTC people imagine gnomes then no wonder they are out of the players handbook. That was somesort of creepy little alien, I was not expecting the invader Zim knock off route.

3)I have zero intrest in both the tiefling and gnome as presented now. Both seem to just be lame concept knock offs. Sadly 4e is starting to look like lots of interesting new rules with irritating new fluff. I fear that I will find very very few pieces of art in this edition that I find even remotly useful or inspiring.

4)All in all the cartoon did not make me laugh like the previous one did, and all it managed to do was bum me out:(
 

Irda Ranger said:
I don't take D&D any more seriously than any other game (little), but "people" (whether real people I meet on the street or cartoon people) deserve better than that. I can't help but feel bad for them if they are mistreated. And I have to wonder about the people who made the cartoon, or laughed at it: what's funny about someone being killed? what was funny when the tiefling kicked the badger? do you laugh when you see stray dogs run over in the street?

ha ha
I couldn't possibly agree more. I've spent the last twenty years campaigning against so-called "humor" like this. Did my older brother feel any sorrow for Shemp when Moe slapped him in the face, bonked him on the head, and then poked him in the eye? No sir, he did not; he proceeded to inflict the same tortures on me. I'm actually dictating this post to a state-appointed assistant, since my vision was so severely damaged at a young age.

Don't even get me started on the numbers of cousins, friends and square-dancing partners I've lost to unfortunate accidents brought about by impossibly designed, Rube Goldberg-esque devices constructed for the singular purpose of capturing that elusive target known as a 'road runner'.

I'm currently pursuing legal action against the ACME Corporation for their dangerous products and false advertising (they should have known those rocket skates were a lethal accident waiting to happen!); any contributions you could make to my legal fund would be greatly appreciated.
 

Anti-Sean said:
I couldn't possibly agree more. I've spent the last twenty years campaigning against so-called "humor" like this. Did my older brother feel any sorrow for Shemp when Moe slapped him in the face, bonked him on the head, and then poked him in the eye? No sir, he did not; he proceeded to inflict the same tortures on me. I'm actually dictating this post to a state-appointed assistant, since my vision was so severely damaged at a young age.

Don't even get me started on the numbers of cousins, friends and square-dancing partners I've lost to unfortunate accidents brought about by impossibly designed, Rube Goldberg-esque devices constructed for the singular purpose of capturing that elusive target known as a 'road runner'.

I'm currently pursuing legal action against the ACME Corporation for their dangerous products and false advertising (they should have known those rocket skates were a lethal accident waiting to happen!); any contributions you could make to my legal fund would be greatly appreciated.

Classic......
 

jasin said:
Seeing the gnome getting killed didn't bother me at all because it felt like Ian McKellan dreseed up as Gandalf acting out killing Elijah Wood dreseed up as Frodo as a skit to end the interview. Which is a lot different from Gandalf killing Frodo.
Right on.
 

1. Very funny.

2. Not everything has to have meaning. Some things can just be funny without being meaningful.

3. Shakespeare wrote characters so you would care about them. You're not supposed to care about that gnome. It's intentional. Lighten up, people, this ain't Shakespeare.

4. One sign of a well-adjusted person is the ability to laugh at things that make fun of things that he likes, without taking offence. (Provided they're funny, of course, which this was).

5. I will never - NEVER - see gnomes the same way again.
 



Remove ads

Top