D&D General So how do Half-Elfs feel different to Elfs?

[Willie the Duck]

Elves are fates, they literally personify the future and preparing momentous change.

Are you talking about Norse elves? Because those aren't the traditional D&D elf.

Come now, they're clearly talking about Keebler elves.

 

[AlViking]

They've always been humans in hats. The fact the hats were more elaborate than a Royal Wedding guest's doesn't change that. Humans in hats is all we can do. In Star Trek, in D&D, in any speculative fiction. Some people just demand everyone where the same style of hat.

We were discussing a best guess at what they would be like. I was responding to the statement "Living longer means accomplishing bigger, more ambitious, more impactful goals. Longevity motivates more productivity, more innovation, more responsibility." I don't think that is the only or even most likely conclusion.

I personally like to consider what it might be like and truly differentiate different species even if I'm the only person that does. Just because we can't accurately know what it would be like doesn't mean every species shouldn't at least attempt to understand how their perspectives on life could be different. It's no different than trying to understand what it would be like to live in a world with magic even though it's impossible to really understand. I can at least think about how it would impact life and make some guesses whether or not it's 100% accurate.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Depends on what you mean by bigger, more ambitious and impactful. Someone with a very long life may decide that taking a century to finish writing an epic poem that spoke to the heart of fellow elves was the most impactful. Perhaps redirecting the flow of water to slowly carve away subtle images on the side of a cliff is more ambitious. Planting, pruning and guiding a forest into what they consider the most balanced is a project taking generations that will never even be noticed by humans is bigger.

Humans have different motivations and perspectives on life so their goals and ambitions, what drives them, will be different as well.

You're correct that there's no telling what longevity will do to motivations. Excepting, at least, that anything that (successfully) lives for hundreds of years cannot be too impulsive or risk-seeking. But yes, they could endlessly spin their wheels, do things we can't conceptualize as progress, or make the most ridiculous 'long-term-thinking' endeavors ever on a regular basis. It is all going to depend on their psychology (which will be influenced by their longevity, but still could have nigh infinite variation).

I was discussing what I think they should be like, not how fiction depicts them. For D&D most species have slowly become more "humans in costumes" over the years. Doesn't mean I have to agree with that depiction any more than I think they need to do things we would consider grandly ambitious in the fiction.

I just looked at my copies of oD&D, AD&D, and BX, and I have to say that D&D elves were pretty 'human in costume'-y back in the day as well. I'm sure 2e's Complete Book of Elves went overboard in making them absolutely all things mysterious and special (that was kind of its thing), but otherwise I don't think there was a time when D&D elves were all that inhuman.

Of course, and I hate to say it, that's kind of elves thing too. Both the Norse Eddas and Sagas and the works of Tolkien get (deserved) praise for their poetry and evocative imagery in the description of their elves (among other things). However, in both we're told much more often than shown how unearthly and inhuman their respective elves actually are. When we get actual stories of individual elves (such as Völund/Weyland the smith), they are often magically powerful but very human in their behavior. The Seelie faeries, more than elves, really have more depictions as alien mindsets, and even then it's often their moral framing (good? bad? just don't accept food in their home. etc.) that is depicted as alien more than their overall psychology.

I agree though, that it would be interesting to see an RPG creature type with truly orthogonal thinking, and not in some trivial 'their maps aren't North-East-South-West, but instead 3-way-split' or 'they don't think in terms of good and evil, so much as what would make the best story' kind of way. I just don't know how to do it in a way that any two gamers would agree is both interesting and fun to explore. Particularly not one to ground an entire published game system (coming up with something for an individual campaign is probably doable).

 

[Remathilis]

We were discussing a best guess at what they would be like. I was responding to the statement "Living longer means accomplishing bigger, more ambitious, more impactful goals. Longevity motivates more productivity, more innovation, more responsibility." I don't think that is the only or even most likely conclusion.

I personally like to consider what it might be like and truly differentiate different species even if I'm the only person that does. Just because we can't accurately know what it would be like doesn't mean every species shouldn't at least attempt to understand how their perspectives on life could be different. It's no different than trying to understand what it would be like to live in a world with magic even though it's impossible to really understand. I can at least think about how it would impact life and make some guesses whether or not it's 100% accurate.

The issue of course is that since we're all just guessing, everyone puts different amounts of effort and uses different metrics to measure it. Maybe I play my elf like a bored immortal seeking even the smallest sliver of new experience to interest him. Maybe I play the artist devoting centuries to one pursuit. Nether view is bad.

A different approach. We all know what a cat is and how it acts. The question of "what if cat, but sentient?" Is an easy question with hundreds of possible answers. Maybe they are just giant housecats content to lounge around. Maybe they are remorseseless hunters who toy with their prey. Both are valid and still contradictory. And both are still assigning human "logic" to the instinctual actions of a feline.

What I'm saying is that you can't be upset if one persons elf is an exploration of the idea of a creature who is unburdened by time living in a world that is ever changing and the other is just a pretty human who lives forever. Neither is wrong.

 

[AlViking]

The issue of course is that since we're all just guessing, everyone puts different amounts of effort and uses different metrics to measure it. Maybe I play my elf like a bored immortal seeking even the smallest sliver of new experience to interest him. Maybe I play the artist devoting centuries to one pursuit. Nether view is bad.

A different approach. We all know what a cat is and how it acts. The question of "what if cat, but sentient?" Is an easy question with hundreds of possible answers. Maybe they are just giant housecats content to lounge around. Maybe they are remorseseless hunters who toy with their prey. Both are valid and still contradictory. And both are still assigning human "logic" to the instinctual actions of a feline.

What I'm saying is that you can't be upset if one persons elf is an exploration of the idea of a creature who is unburdened by time living in a world that is ever changing and the other is just a pretty human who lives forever. Neither is wrong.

Did I ALL CAPS anything? Perhaps use a different color or maybe BOLD ALL CAPS IN A DIFFERENT COLOR? Since I didn't why would you assign an emotional state to a response where I simply gave a different opinion? I wasn't "upset", so why even bring it up other then to somehow belittle my opinion?

We can only guess at how a truly different species would think. Doesn't mean we can't attempt it even if we come to different conclusions.

 

[MGibster]

Further, we don't need any humans to relate to a story. The Lion King has zero humans and we understand the story of it. Avatar uses aliens. We once had a movie featuring anthropomorphic cars. We've been telling stories about animals from Aesop to Bri'r Rabbit to Sly Coyote. The idea we couldn't tell a fantasy story without a human or half-human is tosh.

You might want to brace yourself because I've got some serious news. Animals don't behave like that. Lions do not speak to one another let alone to warthogs or meerkats, baboons don't present the future king to the savannah in elaborate ceremonies, despite being referred to as king of the jungle, lions are not monarchist and I can promise you they are not known for enacting their own version of Hamlet. (Disclaimer: I am not a lionologist.)

Within the context of the story they're lions and hyenas, yes, but the writers are telling a very human story. The same is true of Star Trek and even Tolkien. We understand the Klingons and Romulans because they're essentially human. We understand the Gimli and Legolas because they're essentially human. You're right, we don't need any humans to relate to a story. Not so long as we assign them human traits.

 

[TwoSix]

What I'm saying is that you can't be upset if one persons elf is an exploration of the idea of a creature who is unburdened by time living in a world that is ever changing and the other is just a pretty human who lives forever. Neither is wrong.

I agree here. To me, the salient point is that different ancestries in our fantasy game aren't supposed to be explorations of science and taxonomy; they're supposed to avenues for storytelling.

And the amount of stories we can tell about creatures that share none of our (humanity's) emotional needs and wants is limited to descriptive stories, since we would never have the language to describe their interior mindset (assuming they even have a consciousness like ours) without forcing it into something we can comprehend.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You might want to brace yourself because I've got some serious news. Animals don't behave like that. Lions do not speak to one another let alone to warthogs or meerkats, baboons don't present the future king to the savannah in elaborate ceremonies, despite being referred to as king of the jungle, lions are not monarchist and I can promise you they are not known for enacting their own version of Hamlet. (Disclaimer: I am not a lionologist.)

Within the context of the story they're lions and hyenas, yes, but the writers are telling a very human story. The same is true of Star Trek and even Tolkien. We understand the Klingons and Romulans because they're essentially human. We understand the Gimli and Legolas because they're essentially human. You're right, we don't need any humans to relate to a story. Not so long as we assign them human traits.

You might want to brace yourself because I've got some serious news. There's this brand-new, cutting-edge genre which explains all of this. It's called "fantasy".

More importantly, you've pointed out exactly the issue that is at the heart of this (as is so often the case in these discussions): a fallacy of equivocation, using two different meanings that are both assigned to the same term.

Because you've called out, here, that "Not so long as we assign them human traits". Presumably, you are taking that to mean that these beings are, in fact, "human", just unusual humans. Okay, fine, fair enough; if you want that meaning, I'll grant it.

But you cannot then say "so you aren't actually telling stories without humans; you're telling stories with only humans, they just look weird." Which is what has been argued here (and many, many other places)--because that's a different claim. The only way the two claims can become the same is with a silent, smuggled premise: "Anything with any human traits is completely human." I think you'll find most people you're discussing with would reject that claim as obviously false.

 

[Maxperson]

Come now, they're clearly talking about Keebler elves.

Alright. That one earned you a cookie!

 

[Maxperson]

They've always been humans in hats. The fact the hats were more elaborate than a Royal Wedding guest's doesn't change that. Humans in hats is all we can do. In Star Trek, in D&D, in any speculative fiction. Some people just demand everyone where the same style of hat.

Not quite. Players have pretty much always played them as humans in hats, but the lore over the editions isn't typically of them being humans in hats.