Unearthed Arcana: Travelers of the Multiverse

[strangebloke]

I feel pretty gneutral about gnomes, but I see people tend to hate them, why is that?

There's nothing wrong with them, but they are often seen as discordant with the rest of the setting, in the same way that warforged or tabaxi or thri-keen or giff or kender might be.

IMO, anyway.

They're meant to be keebler elves. Santa Elves. Cheerful Tinkerers who ride badgers and live in toadstools and have magical hearts full of whimsy. They're fairy tale characters. Garden Gnomes with adventurer levels. But if you're not doing a fairy tale setting, you're trying to do something more... realistic isn't the right word. Bleak? Austere? Gnomes make less sense. I don't usually see them run in the manner they're intended. I've never seen a party run across an honest-to-bahamut gnome village in the forest. More often I've seen gnomish inventors in urban workshops. That's a pretty narrow typecasting, and runs into the problem I described above where it feels like they're a race of hats moreso than a real people group.

[Ralanr]

My headcanon is that gnomes are descended from dwarves who settled in the Feywild, becoming more whimsical and nature-loving over generations while keeping their love for gems, metals and craftsmanship. In any case, I see them as an interesting blend of dwarven and elven traits.

Plus, their gods are in Bytopia, which is, in my opinion, the best of the Upper Planes. So yeah, I actually really like gnomes.

Whereas halflings... only become interesting to me when they start riding dinosaurs or eating people in the desert.

I have never considered gnomes to be related to dwarves but I'll admit your connection makes some sense. I still can't see it because gnomes are not nearly hairy enough to be somewhat related to dwarves in my mind.

[KorvinStarmast]

More often I've seen gnomish inventors in urban workshops. That's a pretty narrow typecasting, and runs into the problem I described above where it feels like they're a race of hats moreso than a real people group.

My brother has a 'gnomehome' area in the main campaign area that is the central part of the continent's homeland. And of course, pranksters who like to use illusions and drink beer. As a player, I put up with it and restrained my more murderous instincts since the rest of the players were mostly cool with the whole thing.

[strangebloke]

My brother has a 'gnomehome' area in the main campaign area that is the central part of the continent's homeland. And of course, pranksters who like to use illusions and drink beer. As a player, I put up with it and restrained my more murderous instincts since the rest of the players were mostly cool with the whole thing.

Why are they happy! Why should they be happy?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I assumed it was tinkering/being more foresty compared to them.

Like the elf version of halfings.

Meh. But that's got the same sort of heavily split-brain issue that elves do (and that 4e tried to fix, but then got reverted in 5e):
* One side is the "I'm a sylvan forest lover"
* The other side is a steampunk (gnome) | crystal-spires-and-arcane-magics (elf) freak.

Both in the same base race. And dwarves have the tinkering, and restricting gnomes to just forests seems...narrow.

My headcanon is that gnomes are descended from dwarves who settled in the Feywild, becoming more whimsical and nature-loving over generations while keeping their love for gems, metals and craftsmanship. In any case, I see them as an interesting blend of dwarven and elven traits.

Plus, their gods are in Bytopia, which is, in my opinion, the best of the Upper Planes. So yeah, I actually really like gnomes.

Whereas halflings... only become interesting to me when they start riding dinosaurs or eating people in the desert.

Halflings are the product of magical fallout affecting goblins. They're matriarchal and almost eu-social, with a third neuter "gender". They breed in large packs and defend themselves in human (ok, halfling) waves, throwing the neuter "workers" at the problem until it goes away.

I've finally decided that gnomes are similar to plane-touched--it's what happens when a fey influence sits on a group of goblins for long enough. So forest gnomes are goblins whose ancestors were strongly influenced by "naturey" fey forces. "rock" gnomes are the result of more civilization-obsessed fey[1] influencing a group of goblins. All gnomes have the natural curiosity of goblins, tempered by the lack of the goblin shared-memory space and influenced by the obsessive nature of the fey. So instead of being fad-driven at the tribal level[2], gnomes just get obsessed about something as individuals.

[1] My fey are what you get when you take nature spirits (normally bodiless, genderless, and really not particularly human in thought) and get them obsessed with something relating to mortals. Could be an emotion, could be a lifestyle pattern, could be an idea. This makes fey basically "trying to act like mortals" without really understanding them. And being effectively caricatures of one small area, taken to extremes.

[2] Goblins don't think as individuals much. But if one of them gets an idea, the others around will tend to cluster on that idea...until someone else gets a grand idea, which sends the tribe careening off in a different direction. Makes them insanely creative...but hopeless at organization and putting consistent thought to things. Basically, they're a race of self-reinforcing ADD sufferers. One of the reasons they make hobgoblins is that hobs aren't tied to the tribal memory as strongly, so they can act as leaders and as a stabilizing influence. This means that a tribe of goblins working hand in hand with a more stable race can do wonders--the more stable race acting as a brake and an anchor to the flighty goblin minds.

[Amechra]

I still can't see it because gnomes are not nearly hairy enough to be somewhat related to dwarves in my mind.

Their culture calls upon them to spend two hours a day shaving.

This is, coincidentally, why dwarves and gnomes are perpetually at war.

[Ralanr]

Their culture calls upon them to spend two hours a day shaving.

This is, coincidentally, why dwarves and gnomes are perpetually at war.

Dwarf: “You dare bring a straight razor? How do I know you won’t shave my beard in my sleep?”

Gnome: I’m sorry, but last I remembered you were the one pilfering our loot on your watch. If you’d been watching Steve would be ok.

[EggKookoo]

I have never considered gnomes to be related to dwarves but I'll admit your connection makes some sense. I still can't see it because gnomes are not nearly hairy enough to be somewhat related to dwarves in my mind.

In pre-AD&D, I think gnomes were specifically called out as a type of dwarf.

My setting gnomes are subterranean and weird and unearthly, almost alien. They also turn to stone when they sleep, or at least some do.

[Millstone85]

They're meant to be keebler elves. Santa Elves. Cheerful Tinkerers who ride badgers and live in toadstools and have magical hearts full of whimsy.

Exactly! Look, this could be a Christmas illustration:

They're fairy tale characters. Garden Gnomes with adventurer levels. But if you're not doing a fairy tale setting, you're trying to do something more... realistic isn't the right word. Bleak? Austere? Gnomes make less sense.

Speaking of moving gnomes to a bleak setting, it ever amuses me that where you get duergar instead of dwarves, drow instead of elves, and grimlocks instead of humans, you "only" get svirfneblin instead of gnomes.

[Ralanr]

Speaking of moving gnomes to a bleak setting, it ever amuses me that where you get duergar instead of dwarves, drow instead of elves, and grimlocks instead of humans, you "only" get svirfneblin instead of gnomes.

And out of all of those, the svirfneblin are actually good*

*For the Underdark.

[Millstone85]

And out of all of those, the svirfneblin are actually good*

*For the Underdark.

That's what I was referring to, but thank you for clarifying.

[Dork_Forge]

There's nothing wrong with them, but they are often seen as discordant with the rest of the setting, in the same way that warforged or tabaxi or thri-keen or giff or kender might be.

IMO, anyway.

They're meant to be keebler elves. Santa Elves. Cheerful Tinkerers who ride badgers and live in toadstools and have magical hearts full of whimsy. They're fairy tale characters. Garden Gnomes with adventurer levels. But if you're not doing a fairy tale setting, you're trying to do something more... realistic isn't the right word. Bleak? Austere? Gnomes make less sense. I don't usually see them run in the manner they're intended. I've never seen a party run across an honest-to-bahamut gnome village in the forest. More often I've seen gnomish inventors in urban workshops. That's a pretty narrow typecasting, and runs into the problem I described above where it feels like they're a race of hats moreso than a real people group.

Huh, I can see it I guess I've just never taken that much of a thought towards world building. In my homebrew setting they're just people that live anywhere, but they have a denser population in the city that leans towards magic (forest Gnomes) and the city that leans towards invention (rock gnomes), the magical city has a Gnome based mafia. The Barbarian had a bare knuckle brawl with the Gnome leader wearing a belt of giant strength.

All with what was described by my players as 'a Joe Pesci style accent'

[Brookshw]

My brother has a 'gnomehome' area in the main campaign area that is the central part of the continent's homeland. And of course, pranksters who like to use illusions and drink beer. As a player, I put up with it and restrained my more murderous instincts since the rest of the players were mostly cool with the whole thing.

You've got the wrong person quoted, FYI

To the question, little narrative purpose, no real discernable cultural default to distinguish them, and there's just something about them that reminds me of those little dogs you secretly want to punt though would never admit that. Dragonlance made them a bit interesting with tinker gnomes, not enough for me to want them in a setting (and they could get real annoying in DL, real fast), but sort of interesting.

[strangebloke]

You've got the wrong person quoted, FYI

To the question, little narrative purpose, no real discernable cultural default to distinguish them, and there's just something about them that reminds me of those little dogs you secretly want to punt though would never admit that. Dragonlance made them a bit interesting with tinker gnomes, not enough for me to want them in a setting (and they could get real annoying in DL, real fast), but sort of interesting.

It's really hard to express, but I think the simplest way to put it is this. Some players really like being a big muscly Arnie-looking dude to justify their 18 strength. Other people like being a tiny gnome child with 18 strength. These people do not enjoy each other's company.

[Joe the Rat]

And here I thought Gnome hate was something else I could blame Hickman for. Tracy Hickman has a penchant ...no, obsession, with comedy races. Gully Dwarves, Tinker Gnomes, Industry-worshipping protosoviet dwarves in the Deathgate Cycle, Post-industrial cargo cult goblins in the Bronze Canticles. Dude's got issues.

Dragonlance Tinker Gnomes are a big part of the "Whoops! Mad science!" aspect which seems to have taken over the core of their identity in other settings, with slightly less explosions.
...but I keep them in because my mentor was a traditionalist, and I have a player that will play the closest approximation to a borderline insane Gnome Artificer available, well and in a way that actually helps the game, so I let it slide.

(Given my own penchant for dog-faced kobolds, I can't argue the Gnome Questiogn too much, other than for ecclesiastical reasons)

[Luccan]

I've always liked gnomes and it's often quite disappointing to me to see hate for them online, particularly from people I respect in the D&D-space. But as someone who still hasn't read Dragonlance, to me gnomes have always been arcanists, particularly illusionists, not steampunk engineers. I've accepted the tinker archetype being thrust upon them, though I think that's more directly Warcraft's fault than Dragonlance's. But I do think Dragonlance is directly responsible for dragging people's grievances with them across the last several decades, even if gnomes have never really been DL Tinker Gnomes as a baseline. Even though this edition's Rock Gnomes have a tinker ability they aren't described with any of the more obnoxious qualities I've seen come up around Tinker Gnomes

Anyway, I've seen enough gnome hate that I've sworn to give them an equal place to elves and dwarves in any games I have where they exist going forward.

[Sigreid]

In pre-AD&D, I think gnomes were specifically called out as a type of dwarf.

My setting gnomes are subterranean and weird and unearthly, almost alien. They also turn to stone when they sleep, or at least some do.

AD&D they were stated to be cousins. So probably like a chihuahua to a Rottweiler.

[Wildstag]

What were they originally?

Sorry for the late reply, I only really check when I'm at work and not actually working (so around lunchtime).

The Goliaths were originally featured in 3.5's Races of Stone supplement. They were an independent race with a lot of interesting features (at least to me). They could breed with giants, but the result was the ugliest of ducklings (and a huge LA for not much).

Physically, they're not sexually dimorphic in size; males and females are the same heights unlike basically every other race out there. However, they are still dimorphic in body hair: males can't grow hair on their head, while females can.

Additionally, their skin markings were more random in the original artwork. They COULD mean something, but that required a specific feat. Because those skin patterns were culturally significant, tattooing was worthy of exile because it would be seen as trying to manually change the fate the Gods laid before you. But if you look at 5e artwork of Goliaths, there seems to be a significant disregard for that principle. The mottling looks intentional and designed, and the VGtM goliath clearly has ink (half his face is artificially blue).

They also had these bumps all over their skin. If you look at any of the artwork in Races of Stone, there are rocky-looking bumps and growths all over their body of all shapes and sizes. This has been completely forgotten in 5e's art design.

And then to top it all off, they had a unique language called Gol-Kaa. Their naming system was also really cool to me, and I love pulling from it. Gol-Kaa is described as being entirely spoken in the active voice, and without articles. And for their culture, they were introduced with five games you could play with them and mechanics on how to run them (including one game that relied on Perform checks!).

which has only thirteen phonetic elements: a, e, g, i, k, l, m, n, o, p, u, th, and v. Recently the goliaths have picked up the alphabet of the Dwarven language, though the concept of a written language hasn't spread to all tribes yet.

Names: Every goliath has three names: a birth name assigned by the newborn's mother and father, a nickname or honorific assigned by the tribal chief, and a family or clan name. The birth name tends to be short - often only a syllable or two - but the clan names often have five syllables or more and always end in a vowel... When introducing themselves for the first time, goliaths always use the first name/honorific/family name construction, translating the honorific into the listener's language if possible. Thereafter they refer to themselves and each other by the honorific alone.

My biggest issue with 5e is just the way that races have been tossed aside so much. 3.5's supplements such as the Races series and Stormwrack/Frostburn/Sandstorm are all about fleshing out an environment and/or cultures. They expand upon the setting in interesting ways. Hell, Eberron's has a whole section about Changelings and gender, and it doesn't look tacky or that dated.

Goliaths, when introduced, were genuinely interesting. The way that they've been reduced to "big humans with quasi-tattoo-stripes" and "generic barbarian names" is just so disappointing, and it shows how far the creative team has fallen, or at least what their priorities aren't.

P.S. I've always wanted to just sit down and talk to the person that wrote the chapter on Goliaths, partially because the language is heavily inspired by Hawaiian, and partially because a lot of their lore was just "new" to D&D in a fun way.

TL;DR: The Goliaths were their own thing. Unrelated to anything else, a "new kid on the block" so to speak.

[Sigreid]

I've always liked gnomes and it's often quite disappointing to me to see hate for them online, particularly from people I respect in the D&D-space. But as someone who still hasn't read Dragonlance, to me gnomes have always been arcanists, particularly illusionists, not steampunk engineers. I've accepted the tinker archetype being thrust upon them, though I think that's more directly Warcraft's fault than Dragonlance's. But I do think Dragonlance is directly responsible for dragging people's grievances with them across the last several decades, even if gnomes have never really been DL Tinker Gnomes as a baseline. Even though this edition's Rock Gnomes have a tinker ability they aren't described with any of the more obnoxious qualities I've seen come up around Tinker Gnomes

Anyway, I've seen enough gnome hate that I've sworn to give them an equal place to elves and dwarves in any games I have where they exist going forward.

The gnome hate probably comes from That Guy leaning into the practical joke aspect in the description.

[Temperjoke]

Yeah, I think a large part of the gnome hate stems from how people play them, rather than the race itself. At least that's been my experience. I know a lot of gnome players lean heavily into the chaotic aspects.

[strangebloke]

Anyway, I've seen enough gnome hate that I've sworn to give them an equal place to elves and dwarves in any games I have where they exist going forward.

Good for you! Seriously. As I said there's nothing wrong with them, they just feel out of place in the settings I typically run.

The gnome hate probably comes from That Guy leaning into the practical joke aspect in the description.

Personally, I've never read a dragonlance novel they appeared in and I've never played any Warcraft related property other than Hearthstone, but I've always disliked them in my settings and so did most if not all of my gaming group in college. So I think its incorrect to say that people hate them because of one bad portrayal or one annoying blurb of text. I mean maybe its all just a meme? But there's usually some kind of underlying reason behind these things.

I think people just don't like their aesthetic. I've seen people similarly complain about dragonborn, Tabaxi, halflings, elves (though these people are severely in the minority lol) and dwarves. But Gnomes are for whatever reason the one that comes up the most commonly. I've seen this in multiple editions of DND and in multiple non-DND properties. People disliked them in WoW too from what I heard secondhand.

IMO, it's just a simple matter of aesthetic preferences. Gnomes are pretty common fairy tale creatures, one of the most common after fairies and ogres and such. It's very common to have a magical dwarf. The issue is that they're generally not player characters. Of course, in fairy tales, wizards and elves are also not main characters, but there are other formative works like LotR and Chronicles of Narnia and others that changed things.

Legimitately the only 'gnomish' media I can really think of is, uh. Elf. The christmas movie with Will Ferrel.

Suffice to say that it just feels weird to have a player who's using the 'quirky NPC wizard template.'

Yeah, I think a large part of the gnome hate stems from how people play them, rather than the race itself. At least that's been my experience. I know a lot of gnome players lean heavily into the chaotic aspects.

This is true. There's definitely a stereotype of gnomes being the race for players who don't want to take things seriously, and my one friend who loved gnomes was, uh. Definitely fitting the stereotype. He played a gnome in my game twice, both times in 3.5. The first time he was a chaotic evil serial killer and the second time he was a self-proclaimed "disco wizard" that specialized in flashy effects like hypnotic pattern and just wanted to PAAAARTAAYY.

Which of course neither of these is inherently bad, its fine to not want to take things seriously. But its important the group is on the same page here.

[Arkhios]

Yeah, I think a large part of the gnome hate stems from how people play them, rather than the race itself. At least that's been my experience. I know a lot of gnome players lean heavily into the chaotic aspects.

This is true. There's definitely a stereotype of gnomes being the race for players who don't want to take things seriously, and my one friend who loved gnomes was, uh. Definitely fitting the stereotype. He played a gnome in my game twice, both times in 3.5. The first time he was a chaotic evil serial killer and the second time he was a self-proclaimed "disco wizard" that specialized in flashy effects like hypnotic pattern and just wanted to PAAAARTAAYY.

Which of course neither of these is inherently bad, its fine to not want to take things seriously. But its important the group is on the same page here.

In our current group, the "animal lover" -player chose probably the most perfect race for her druid, and plays it incredibly well! That said, I feel that the way they play the character is also a bit too much regarding my own preferences. The happy-go-lucky, carefree frolicking and overexaggerated cheerfulness is just beyond me. But, good for her, nonetheless.

When my old character in a campaign years ago died and got reincarnated as a gnome, I tried to make the best of it, but the character turned out to feel more like a joke than anything I could take seriously, and when he died again, and AGAIN got reincarnated as a gnome, he lost his mind and left the campaign (because I couldn't take the disappointment any longer).

That out of the way, I agree it's important that the group is on the same page when players insist on playing characters with their tongues in their cheeks. Not everyone wants that (myself included) unless it's been decided in session zero that this will be the game's attitude through and through.

[Xervous]

My issue with gnomes is partly the whole dwarf/halfling/gnome crowding, and partly the fact that gnomes don’t really contribute much to settings as per their default presentation. The supermajority of gnomes (and halflings) I remember from adventure stubs and campaign books tend to either fall on the silly side or the dark side. Oh look a gnome, is it going to be small silly guy or small evil pawn/mastermind? Happy friendly halfling baker? Oh he sells meat pies and claims to have never eaten halfling HMMM.

If you presented a group of orcs that venerated nature and were steeped in long memories and tradition people may rightly compare them to elves. Draft up a human society that’s closed off, tightly knit along family lines, and distrustful of new knowledge and people will cry dwarf. What generics do we have for halflings and gnomes? Lazy shire halflings or cannibal halflings. Tinkering gnomes or... in all the material I’ve read there’s been so little. Gnomes hate kobolds, haha pranks. Even stripping away the coat of dragon paint you retain a clear concept of what kobolds are like.


Tabaxi: haven’t read enough to comment

Dragonborn: I like my dragons, and that’s why I have come to detest Dragonborn (4e and onward). The absolute mess of partial dragon things in 3.5 was easily brushed aside because they remained monster options. Dragonborn solidified a constant whose presence diverts awesome level from all other dragony things. If the whole campaign is a frothing mug of Orcus the final fight is diluted somewhat, each obvious Orcus invoking thing before the big scenes building up the players’ tolerance for Orcus scene endorphins. Dragonborn this, Dragonborn that, I want my dragons to be impactful and memorable, not just a premium model of a mass marketed pattern.

[EggKookoo]

Taken at face value, D&D presents a very kitchen-sink setting. Like all of these kind of settings, the presence of a particular element can often take precedence over the relevance of that element or the context in which it's embedded.

As a DM, I see it as part of my job to go clean up that stuff before gameplay starts. I do a lot of streamlining. None of my players is interested in an encyclopedia of lore. They're barely interested in the lore to begin with. I have to make adventure hooks and points based on specific parts of the larger mythology if I want the players to even look at it, and honestly I'm not sure I really care that much myself. For us, the lore and history of the larger world is there to support the game, not the other way around.

Dragonborn this, Dragonborn that, I want my dragons to be impactful and memorable, not just a premium model of a mass marketed pattern.

Amusingly, that's exactly how the dragons in my setting see it. Dragons, by their own evaluation, were created by ancient progenitor entities ("The gods of the GODS!") to inherit the world. It's bad enough that there are all these mortal monkeys running around foiling their long-running schemes, but then there are these weird humanoid dragon people claiming to also be part of that same legacy. What audacity!

[Ralanr]

I mean, at this point dragonborn exist to give people who want to play draconic humanoids a chance to play them without having to get stuck with problems like how powerful half-dragons are supposed to be.

I certainly enjoy them.

[KorvinStarmast]

You've got the wrong person quoted, FYI

Arrgh, sorry, multiquote shenanigans strike again.

To the question, little narrative purpose, no real discernable cultural default to distinguish them, and there's just something about them that reminds me of those little dogs you secretly want to punt though would never admit that.

Yeah, our neighbor has two of them, and my mother in law had, for years, schnauzers.

Dragonlance Tinker Gnomes are a big part of the "Whoops! Mad science!" aspect

Which Blizzard made work in the Warcraft II game, and subsequent Warcraft games. I've got a flying machine!

The gnome hate probably comes from That Guy leaning into the practical joke aspect in the description.

Ya think? I suspect that's more than a grain of truth to that.

My issue with gnomes is partly the whole dwarf/halfling/gnome crowding, and partly the fact that gnomes don’t really contribute much to settings as per their default presentation.

Thank you.

What generics do we have for halflings and gnomes? Lazy shire halflings or cannibal halflings. Tinkering gnomes or... in all the material I’ve read there’s been so little.

I recall a gnome I played in AD&D 1e who was an illusionist - didn't get very high in level, though.

Tabaxi: haven’t read enough to comment

My inclination is to not use them. Read a bunch of SF in the 80's that featured cat humanoids in space (CJ Cherryh, I think) and I got about catomorphed out.

I mean, at this point dragonborn exist to give people who want to play draconic humanoids a chance to play them without having to get stuck with problems like how powerful half-dragons are supposed to be.

It works, I have two PCs playing dragonborn now, but the game would be fine without dragonborn as PCs.

[Ralanr]

It works, I have two PCs playing dragonborn now, but the game would be fine without dragonborn as PCs.

Honestly, any game should be fine with or without X race unless you are using X race to justify heavy plot stuff or the race itself is overpowered.

Like if you use subtle racism in a game (such as humans giving dwarves better deals in the hope to mark up a business). I can't think any overpowered race that is so overpowered it causes issues at the game at large (I mean, even Yuan-ti can't be that campaign breaking).

Me playing a dragonborn shouldn't actively make the game better or worse. How I play my character would dictate that.

IDK. I might be trying to justify an explanation to a problem I'm not seeing. I read this as "Dragonborn are fine, but I'd feel better without them." And I don't think that's the takeaway.

[Sigreid]

Good for you! Seriously. As I said there's nothing wrong with them, they just feel out of place in the settings I typically run.



Personally, I've never read a dragonlance novel they appeared in and I've never played any Warcraft related property other than Hearthstone, but I've always disliked them in my settings and so did most if not all of my gaming group in college. So I think its incorrect to say that people hate them because of one bad portrayal or one annoying blurb of text. I mean maybe its all just a meme? But there's usually some kind of underlying reason behind these things.

I think people just don't like their aesthetic. I've seen people similarly complain about dragonborn, Tabaxi, halflings, elves (though these people are severely in the minority lol) and dwarves. But Gnomes are for whatever reason the one that comes up the most commonly. I've seen this in multiple editions of DND and in multiple non-DND properties. People disliked them in WoW too from what I heard secondhand.

IMO, it's just a simple matter of aesthetic preferences. Gnomes are pretty common fairy tale creatures, one of the most common after fairies and ogres and such. It's very common to have a magical dwarf. The issue is that they're generally not player characters. Of course, in fairy tales, wizards and elves are also not main characters, but there are other formative works like LotR and Chronicles of Narnia and others that changed things.

Legimitately the only 'gnomish' media I can really think of is, uh. Elf. The christmas movie with Will Ferrel.

Suffice to say that it just feels weird to have a player who's using the 'quirky NPC wizard template.'



This is true. There's definitely a stereotype of gnomes being the race for players who don't want to take things seriously, and my one friend who loved gnomes was, uh. Definitely fitting the stereotype. He played a gnome in my game twice, both times in 3.5. The first time he was a chaotic evil serial killer and the second time he was a self-proclaimed "disco wizard" that specialized in flashy effects like hypnotic pattern and just wanted to PAAAARTAAYY.

Which of course neither of these is inherently bad, its fine to not want to take things seriously. But its important the group is on the same page here.

Way back in AD&D gnomes were already described as loving practical jokes, often to an extent that annoys other races.

[Arkhios]

Way back in AD&D gnomes were already described as loving practical jokes, often to an extent that annoys other races.

This may or may not have been "grandfathered in" by later editions, and some people just don't know how to play it in "moderation", instead taking it to the extreme, that not only other races but other players are annoyed.

[Sigreid]

This may or may not have been "grandfathered in" by later editions, and some people just don't know how to play it in "moderation", instead taking it to the extreme, that not only other races but other players are annoyed.

To be fair, in folk lore gnomes while being very helpful in general were reported to also play pranks. Especially if upset/offended. Generally nothing harmful, but enough to make you regret having offended them.