D&D General elf definition semantic shenanigans

[Clint_L]

I think it's important to distinguish between an entire species and the player character, who can easily be an outlier. In my campaign, orcs are generally bigger and burlier than elves. But if a player's fantasy is to play a big, burly elf barbarian, or a lithe, bookish orc wizard, I don't want to penalize them because of RAW. So they're just an atypical elf, or whatever. Cool. Variety is the spice of life. That's why I like the new way of doing species, where it's all about the cultural flavour and maybe a few physical traits, but the player can decide on stat bonuses according to their background.

That also makes more sense to me. Maybe that elf was a blacksmith. Maybe that orc was a scholar.

 

[Hussar]

So, this is already other threads. But. I honestly dont understand why a Halfling isnt a Human.

What is the "essence" of a Halfling species? What makes it not a Human?

breaks out the popcorn

 

[Corinnguard]

They just aren't separate species; they're separate expressions of one, but there are intense differences in what that means.

Phenotypical expressions brought out by magic as magic ushered in the Sixth World on our own planet. Anyone remember the Earthdawn RPG series? Well it also took place on our world during a period of time known as the Fourth World. A very D&D-like world.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Oh is this yet another "I need my +2 in my bounded accuracy game" thread? I thought it was about broad general themes.

if we know themes we know what mechanics should be thus it is both.

So, this is already other threads. But. I honestly dont understand why a Halfling isnt a Human.

What is the "essence" of a Halfling species? What makes it not a Human?

being short and in proportion and being fundamentally lacking in ambition.

 

[Corinnguard]

What is the "essence" of a Halfling species? What makes it not a Human?

I think you first you need to address what is the essence of the human species. Then and only then should you address the essence of the other species in D&D.

 

[CreamCloud0]

i think the root of the problem that started this thread is that elves specifically, while generally following a theme aesthetically and in general concept have massive thematic variation in the stories and fairy tales that the DnD elf was built on.
elves are immortal
elves are wild and care about the good of nature
elves are proud
elves are cautious
elves are nurturing of other species
elves are dangerous and vicious
elves are beautiful
elves are kind and care about the good of the entire world
elves are bound by their word
elves are humble
elves are wise
elves are a dying outdated relic of the past
elves are curious
elves are dismissive of other species
elves are liars
elves are learned masters of the arcane sciences
elves are peaceful, sometimes far too much so
elves are wary of other species
elves are serious
elves are solitary and care only about their own good and needs
elves are uncanny and ugly
elves are fickle and childlike
elves are trailblazers into the future
elves are forever young
and probably more i forget, but the point is elves have a much wider conceptual pool to draw from than most other species in DnD, sure there might've been a few dwarves or orcs-trolls-ogres around too but even if they did have their own variation they were either less prominent an idea or conceptually closer knit.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So, this is already other threads. But. I honestly dont understand why a Halfling isnt a Human.

What is the "essence" of a Halfling species? What makes it not a Human?

For my part, recognizing that I prefer to fold halflings and gnomes together into a combined "hinnfolk" race:

Humans live on land, make use of land, perhaps even care for and nurture that land. But it is, always, a thing apart from them. Hinnfolk do not and cannot relate to the land this way. They are part of it as much as it is part of them; they are deeply connected to it in a way no human can ever really grok. This is why the lightfoot hinn, who tend the trees, will brook no trespass. This is why the stoutheart hinn, who range o'er grassland wide, defend both flock and wild beast with the unity of the former and the ferocity of the latter. Etc.

Their essence is the land's essence. If you respect that essence, you will find a warm home and lively company. Disrespect it, and expect danger. Desecrate it...and reap the whirlwind.

 

[bedir than]

For my part, recognizing that I prefer to fold halflings and gnomes together into a combined "hinnfolk" race:

Humans live on land, make use of land, perhaps even care for and nurture that land. But it is, always, a thing apart from them. Hinnfolk do not and cannot relate to the land this way. They are part of it as much as it is part of them; they are deeply connected to it in a way no human can ever really grok. This is why the lightfoot hinn, who tend the trees, will brook no trespass. This is why the stoutheart hinn, who range o'er grassland wide, defend both flock and wild beast with the unity of the former and the ferocity of the latter. Etc.

Their essence is the land's essence. If you respect that essence, you will find a warm home and lively company. Disrespect it, and expect danger. Desecrate it...and reap the whirlwind.

This works really well for Forest Gnomes, but the Rock Gnomes of traditional D&D don't do this (they're much more like Dwarves).

One of things I like about Black Flag/Tales of the Valiant is the combining of Halfling and Gnome.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'd kill the gnomes and divide their stuff among halflings and dwarves. Halflings can get hippy animal friendship stuff and dwarves can get the tinkering. I think dwarves in particular would benefit from this; they're conceptually very narrow.

Elves are kinda hard to do well. In theory I like them, but I have come to dislike how they seem to have just become "pretty humans." I'd like them to be more ethereal and weird. They often come across just as humans with pointed ears. In my current setting I don't have elves, and the closest equivalent is a species of small weirdoes with horns and tails, which discourages their use as human replacements. In another setting I have been contemplating, I have leaned more into the Celtic origins of the elves, making them more fae and otherworldly.

Also, am I imagining this, or have D&D elves gotten taller over the years? Like I recall that in my redbox D&D they were quite short, but as people didn't think that's cool enough for elves they have gotten progressively taller?

 

[Remathilis]

So you have two fundamental problems with trying to define ELF in D&D: subspecies and setting.

D&D has several species of elf: High, Wood, Drow, Sea, Eladrin, Shadar-kai, Astral, Averial, and Wild just to name the most common/recent ones. The overlap shared between ALL these subraces is rather small.

THEN you add on the fact D&D has several settings, each producing different cultures of one or more of the above-mentioned subspecies. Grey elves, valley elves, sun elves, moon elves, Aerenal elves, Tarinadal elves, qualinesti, kagonesti, silvanesti, dusk elves, shadow elves, Vulkoor, Sulatar, Umbragen, Udadrow, Aevendrow, Lorendrow, Athasian elves, and probably even more obscure variants I'm missing elsewhere.

And all of these elves are supposed to be represented by one set of stats in the PHB? I don't think so.

D&D elves HAVE to be bland because look at what they are trying to fit under one roof. If you wanted ELF to have some meaning beyond pointy ears, you set fire to about half those subraces all most of those alternative D&D worlds. Then you might be able to create a consistent vision of elf in D&D.

But nobody is willing to sacrifice 90% of the current D&D settings and their favorite variant of elf to achieve that. So elf will remain broad and vague because of all it has to mean.