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

[TwoSix]

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.

Right. Having a non-human perspective is certainly possible, but its utility is in telling a story that reflects somehow on our shared human condition. You can tell a story about elvish immortality, but that story exists to hold up a mirror to our own human desire to understand death, memory, and how our own transience impacts our sense of identity.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

3e did it as well. The 5e elves from Mordenkainen's are also pretty darn different from humans if you read the lore.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Simmer down. All I'm saying is that you may want some deeper exploration of what non-human life would be like, and someone else wants a pretty elf hat. Neither way is wrong.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Right. They are humans in lion suits. Or car suits. But the point is that we don't need a human or half-human pov to understand them.

Remember the Michael Bay Transformer movies? (If you don't I envy you). Bay put a half-dozen human characters in there as pov characters because the studio didn't think we could relate to giant sentient robots in their own movie. Even after three sequels they were cramming new human characters in despite the fact we cared more about Optimus Prime than we ever did Sam Witwicky. The human characters were superficial because the giant robots were more than human enough to understand them.

My point was that Spock, or the attempt at half-humaning the Doctor, was superfluous because we can already relate to a Vulcan or a Gallifryian because they are human enough already. The idea we need something that looks like us or is us to understand is a major disservice to the audience.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

Right. They are humans in lion suits. Or car suits. But the point is that we don't need a human or half-human pov to understand them.

Remember the Michael Bay Transformer movies? (If you don't I envy you). Bay put a half-dozen human characters in there as pov characters because the studio didn't think we could relate to giant sentient robots in their own movie. Even after three sequels they were cramming new human characters in despite the fact we cared more about Optimus Prime than we ever did Sam Witwicky. The human characters were superficial because the giant robots were more than human enough to understand them.

My point was that Spock, or the attempt at half-humaning the Doctor, was superfluous because we can already relate to a Vulcan or a Gallifryian because they are human enough already. The idea we need something that looks like us or is us to understand is a major disservice to the audience.

Bay put humans in his movie because even in 2008 rendering the transformers was causing computers to catch fire and it's cheaper to film real flesh and blood humans.

No one actually empathizes with Shia LaBouef. Trust me, an ex dragged me to see Von Trier's Nymphomaniac once.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Most stories are written by humans, and accordingly most stories are fundamentally about the human experience. Sometimes we explore that experience though contrast with something we imagine to be a non-human experience; sometimes we explore it through analogy to non-humans who seem to display human-like behaviors sometimes. Very often we do a bit of both.

Whether an alien or fantastical species is a “human with prosthetics” or something more intentionally inhuman like a xenomorph, it’s still ultimately saying something about human experience.

 

[TwoSix]

No one actually empathizes with Shia LaBouef. Trust me, an ex dragged me to see Von Trier's Nymphomaniac once.

I do, however, identify with Actual Cannibal Shia LaBoeuf.

 

[AlViking]

Most stories are written by humans, and accordingly most stories are fundamentally about the human experience. Sometimes we explore that experience though contrast with something we imagine to be a non-human experience; sometimes we explore it through analogy to non-humans who seem to display human-like behaviors sometimes. Very often we do a bit of both.

Whether an alien or fantastical species is a “human with prosthetics” or something more intentionally inhuman like a xenomorph, it’s still ultimately saying something about human experience.

I agree to a certain point and we can never truly understand how a different species would think. We certainly don't know (or perhaps accept) how much evolution has shaped our ideas, morality and view of the world. A certain level of evolutionary convergence is likely and it's quite possible that much like we have multiple species that all look like crabs many other species would think and look much like us. But I also think we could better explore what it means to be human by sometimes having a contrast instead of a mirror.

 

[AlViking]

Simmer down. All I'm saying is that you may want some deeper exploration of what non-human life would be like, and someone else wants a pretty elf hat. Neither way is wrong.

In order to simmer much more I'd have to take a nap. Why the insistence that I'm irrationally upset? Why would you think I'm telling anyone else how to play?

 

[TwoSix]

But I also think we could better explore what it means to be human by sometimes having a contrast instead of a mirror.

But that's the same thing. Exploring "not X" is also just a way to understand X. A story about immortality is really a story about understanding mortality.