What's with the Gnome Hate?

[I'm A Banana]

Where does this gnome = fey angle come from?

When I was playing 1e/2e, gnomes were tied with DWARVES and were most assuredly not fey/forest dwellers.

Mostly myth, I think. Gnomes and dwarves have quite close mythological roots, and while D&D dwarves have moved a bit more "germanic" in their style, and have become complexified in an interesting way, the gnomes were more of a harkening back to a spiritual world, sort of a "greek" way of looking at the natural environment. Gnomes have always been tricksters (like sprites and pixies and other fey), and they've always been illusionists (like...well...sprites and pixies and other fey. ), even in D&D, so it's not an entirely odd conclusion to draw. Then you have the whole "earth spirit" connection (with the fertility and beauty of the earth, which they share closely with dwarves) and the "wisdom" connection (gnosis), while the dwarves are "earth spirits" with strength and endurance.

Halflings haven't been tricksters or illusionists or earth spirits or anything like that....until they started stealing some of the gnome's schtick because they couldn't rely on Tolkein's homebodies anymore.

 

[Wormwood]

Where does this gnome = fey angle come from?

When I was playing 1e/2e, gnomes were tied with DWARVES and were most assuredly not fey/forest dwellers.

I daresay that for many children of the 70's, this book is the primary reason why gnomes are not taken seriously. I mean, I've been playing D&D for well on 30 years, and I still think of that ****ing book whenever I hear the word, "gnome".

 

[Desdichado]

Where does this gnome = fey angle come from?

When I was playing 1e/2e, gnomes were tied with DWARVES and were most assuredly not fey/forest dwellers.

Where's this fey = forest dwellers angle coming from? You realize that dwarves were fey creatures from way back in folklore right?

 

[Desdichado]

Mostly myth, I think. Gnomes and dwarves have quite close mythological roots, and while D&D dwarves have moved a bit more "germanic" in their style, and have become complexified in an interesting way, the gnomes were more of a harkening back to a spiritual world, sort of a "greek" way of looking at the natural environment. Gnomes have always been tricksters (like sprites and pixies and other fey), and they've always been illusionists (like...well...sprites and pixies and other fey. ), even in D&D, so it's not an entirely odd conclusion to draw. Then you have the whole "earth spirit" connection (with the fertility and beauty of the earth, which they share closely with dwarves) and the "wisdom" connection (gnosis), while the dwarves are "earth spirits" with strength and endurance.

Eh... I'd be very surprised if you could demonstrate that it was ever that clear cut. The word gnome may come from the Greek word Gnosos (or it may not; the OED gives several alternatives) and they were simply small fairy-like nature folk. Totally fey.

Also, totally just yet another word that described pretty much the same folkloric body that also gave us the words goblin, kobold, dwarf, brownie, etc. The idea that all of these have individual and separate folkloric roots is patently false, even when the words go back into Classical time, they were simply different words (often reflections from different languages of the same word, as a matter of fact) for the same body of folklore.

Ergo, even in mythology and folklore, gnomes were superfluous and redundant. Their role in D&D has been the same; without Tolkien spelling out differences between them by tying certain characters from mythology specifically to the word and separating them out, he probably condemned them to the relative obscurity that they suffer in D&D.

Although, it's interesting that in his drafts of the First Age tales, he does use the word gnome to refer to the Noldor, based on the idea that gnome was probably derived from the Greek word gnosos and therefore implied that the Noldor were wise, knowledgeable and crafty.

This idea that gnomes have a strong correllation with some kind of trickster or illusionist archetype in folkore; I've certainly never heard of it, and I've done a fair bit of reading on fairy folklore. I think whoever it was that was making that argument is completely incorrect.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'd be very surprised if you could demonstrate that it was ever that clear cut.

Clear-cut? Heck no. Nothing is, and that's doubly so with regards to the mythos/legend stuff.

The idea that all of these have individual and separate folkloric roots is patently false, even when the words go back into Classical time, they were simply different words (often reflections from different languages of the same word, as a matter of fact) for the same body of folklore.

Sure, I agree. I don't think I ever tried to argue that these words somehow were inherently diverse? In fact, I point out that the "gnome" and the "dwarf" are basically mythologically the same thing, but that D&D dwarves went in a particular direction and D&D gnomes went in a different direction.

even in mythology and folklore, gnomes were superfluous and redundant

Sure.

Their role in D&D has been the same;

I disagree. Or at least, my experience is vastly different. Maybe its because I played up the differences more than others, maybe I'm just some sort of horrible aberrant, but the gnomes were always able to be very distinct from halflings, from gnomes, and from elves, carving out their own archetypal niche as primordial faery trickster earth-spirits.

without Tolkien spelling out differences between them by tying certain characters from mythology specifically to the word and separating them out, he probably condemned them to the relative obscurity that they suffer in D&D.

The only reason I brought up JRR was because that was obviously the inspiration for the D&D halfling, originally. They've come a long way since then, mostly at the expense of the gnomes, and they're still kind of a mish-mash of tropes (though they didn't have to be).

This idea that gnomes have a strong correllation with some kind of trickster or illusionist archetype in folkore; I've certainly never heard of it, and I've done a fair bit of reading on fairy folklore. I think whoever it was that was making that argument is completely incorrect.

The trickster archetype comes from folklore. The gnomes were the best fit for this archetype in D&D -- better than the halflings. Halflings have become better at it as they have lost their Tolkein trappings, thus stealing the gnomes' shtick.

Sorry if you misinterpreted my meaning.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Where does this gnome = fey angle come from?

When I was playing 1e/2e, gnomes were tied with DWARVES and were most assuredly not fey/forest dwellers.

Because dwarves are ALSO fey.

IMO:
Dwarves are the fey of the mountains. Solid built, fey of toil and sturdy construction.

Elves are the fey of the forests, grace and aloof. They live a long time and their products tend towards the slender and strong.

Gnomes are the fey of the hills, of inspiration and craftiness. They are the gemcutters and the craftsmen of fine works.

Halflings are the fey of cities, of anonymity and comfort. They don't make anything but cheeeeese and marijuana. They acclimate to whatever culture they're in. (Thus tallfellow=elf, stout=dwarf, hairfoot=human)

But, this is all "first edition" feel. Once the splintering came about and other imaginations came into it, the game regressed more to "hey, how does this fit with Tolkien?" and it built from there. Not knowing/ caring how the original works progressed, they built off of the basic stuff and so the gnomes lost their purpose.

 

[Desdichado]

I disagree. Or at least, my experience is vastly different. Maybe its because I played up the differences more than others, maybe I'm just some sort of horrible aberrant, but the gnomes were always able to be very distinct from halflings, from gnomes, and from elves, carving out their own archetypal niche as primordial faery trickster earth-spirits.

I'm not speaking of my own opinion here about gnomes, but my opinion about the place of gnomes in the broader player base. Although my opinion is that the broader player base shares my opinion on gnomes, so the distinction is academic.

I think gnomes have lost their place in terms of having role that players relate to and know what to do with. I don't think it's just me that has no use for them, I think that they were the least-played race by far because they lacked an easily identifiable "schtick".

Making bards (probably the least favorite class of the core classes) their favored class was just salt in the wounds during the 3.5 era.

The trickster archetype comes from folklore. The gnomes were the best fit for this archetype in D&D -- better than the halflings. Halflings have become better at it as they have lost their Tolkein trappings, thus stealing the gnomes' shtick.

Sorry if you misinterpreted my meaning.

I did. That's a pretty fair point, though.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't think it's just me that has no use for them, I think that they were the least-played race by far because they lacked an easily identifiable "schtick".

Making bards (probably the least favorite class of the core classes) their favored class was just salt in the wounds during the 3.5 era.

I think you're on the right path, but it's a little simpler. The loss of the gnomes in 4e came from their encouragement of 3e's wearing away at the archetypes that they did well in. I mentioned that halflings effectively "stole" the gnomes' schtick in looking for their own post-Tolkein shtick. But there's also the lack of class association (which 3.5 was an attempt to remedy, though it didn't do it well): Halflings = Rogues. Because gnomes didn't have an overt link to druids (which would have suited them well, but might not have been 'canon' enough) or wizards (because Elves had that) or Illusionists (because those didn't really exist in any major way), all of which would have given them good archetypes, they lost more archetypal status.

Being relegated to the bard was an attempt to fix that, because the Bard was the closest thing 3e had to a "trickster." It made for a pretty awful trickster in most cases, though, not to mention its status as the weak class and a class that was, in its own way, searching for a schtick (am I a song-mage? am I a jack-of-all trades? am I a charm/illusion mage? what the hell am I?)

4e was out on the illusions, out on the druids, had re-crafted the elf so that wizard made some sense, and continued the halfling poaching of the trickster archetype.

So the reason that the gnomes became the red-headed stepchild was because of a consistent pattern of sidelining the trickster archetype in 3.5, except for where a halfling could pull it off, leading to a gnome-less 4e under the (rather mis-lead) proposition that they lacked a schtick.

They didn't, really. They had one. It just wasn't an important one in most ways for 4e, and it was one that halflings could half-fill when it was important (halflings = rogues! rogues = tricksters!).

Gnome fans, of course, never had this problem, because they maintained the gnomes as a bastion for certain archetypes (mostly the trickster archetype, but also the nature-spirit archetype, the loremaster archetype, etc.). But obviously no one on the 4e team was much of a gnome fan.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

What's funny about this is that they are no longer a core race in D&D, so they did go somewhere.

And comic relief and the trickster archetype are not the same. Gnomes, with their traditional pointy hats, red rosy cheeks, and Santa beards, are comic relief, not the trickster archetype. Anansi would roll over in his grave if his mythological archetype was reduced to a cutesy gag like gnomes.

Again, this is criticizing gnomes for bad gnome players.

Only a halfwit gnome -- or one doing it to throw people off the scent of what he was really up to -- would be interested in gags.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I daresay that for many children of the 70's, this book is the primary reason why gnomes are not taken seriously. I mean, I've been playing D&D for well on 30 years, and I still think of that ****ing book whenever I hear the word, "gnome".

And what's the problem with that? Double them in size, and they're very close to D&D gnomes, except for those people who think that tinker gnomes are the only gnomes that exist in any edition.

If nothing else, the book gives a well-rounded view of a culture, belief system and even gnomish aesthetics. Of course, it's also a good argument for making gnomes as rangers or druids, but that's an interesting spot for them.