|
|
Post by doctorx on Dec 23, 2011 14:23:04 GMT -6
My guess (and it is just a guess I hasten to add) is that hobbits appear to have been a bit of a last minute addition to the original rules. I suspect they simply got missed off the end of the list in the spell description.
I've always played them as Raise-able. (Although you could build a rather neat myth around why they aren't - maybe the hobbit Gods got hungry and made off with all the Celestial pies and the other Gods took it out on the hobbit faithful - "No Raising for you furry-toed heretics until I get my ambrosia tart back!" ZAP!)
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Dec 23, 2011 15:57:54 GMT -6
Mostly, I would guess, because it never occurred to Gary that anybody would ever want to play a hobbit. They get left out of a lot of stuff for that very reason.
Naturally, as the referee, you can always say that in your world they can indeed be raised (although I realize that that wasn't what you asked).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2011 16:32:32 GMT -6
I'm with Doctor X ... I think hobbits were an oversight.
To extend that thought a bit, I also believe the wording of the sentence was meant to exclude other "man-types" such as goblins, orcs, etc.
Of course, this is all merely a guess, an opinion ... nothing more. It just seems to fit but that certainly doesn't make it the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Dec 25, 2011 22:00:15 GMT -6
Yeah, I think it was an oversight. What's more interesting is how elves were later excluded from the spell in later editions; definitely not an oversight, and it developed into the concept of elves not having souls and thus being unraisable.
|
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Dec 26, 2011 11:49:15 GMT -6
... becasue, when the party's hobbit is dead and someone ask "Do we raise the hobbit back from the dead ?", there's a lways another player to suggest "maybe you should roll 3d6 six time".
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 26, 2011 15:28:09 GMT -6
hobbits appear to have been a bit of a last minute addition to the original rules. I suspect they simply got missed off the end of the list in the spell description. Mostly, I would guess, because it never occurred to Gary that anybody would ever want to play a hobbit. Most likely a combination of the two above. If you look at the hobbit entry (in Chainmail or M&M, I forget which) Gary says about hobbits "should a person want to play one" or something to that effect. I suspect that most gamers didn't want to play a hobbit (since OD&D started out as more of a miniatures game than a "role" game) and why bother to develop rules for something that no one wanted to do anyway. Remember that the original rules didn't have thieves, either, and that's one of the things that hobbits do best! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2011 17:38:51 GMT -6
Because Gary hated "Lord of the Rings" and loathed Hobbits, and included anything that even vaguely smelled of Tolkien only because ALL his players clamored for it incessantly.
|
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Dec 31, 2011 19:14:43 GMT -6
Because Gary hated "Lord of the Rings" and loathed Hobbits, and included anything that even vaguely smelled of Tolkien only because ALL his players clamored for it incessantly. Hated?! Got a quote? The overwhelming popularity of LotR in the late 60's set the spark for fantasy wargaming which led directly to the creation of RPGs. Without Tolkien, there would likely have been no RPGs...at least until the appearance of Harry Potter or Twilight (shudder), but then again perhaps Rowling herself may be indebted to JRRT too (and Meyer being indebted to Joss  ). I think 'hate' is a bit strong. Maybe he hated the fact that the rabid fandom of Tolkien's books caused other, equally-worthy authors (Vance, Leiber, REH, HPL, Moorcock, etc.) to be marginalised. |
|
). I think 'hate' is a bit strong. Maybe he hated the fact that the rabid fandom of Tolkien's books caused other, equally-worthy authors (Vance, Leiber, REH, HPL, Moorcock, etc.) to be marginalised.