The problem with elves take 2: A severe condemnation [merged]

[gizmo33]

It's debatable whether or not the OP even accurately describes medieval life. Apparently there is some confusion about where charcoal comes from or what the principle fuel of ironworking was in the medieval period. Understanding actual medieval life, conditions and technology, IMO, is an important part of this reasoning, and IMO the OP is not convincing in this area - as others have described. There are also issues of the frequency and fatality of spider bites, whether or not rattlesnakes and elves share the same habitat - etc.

Secondly, and just as importantly, is the relevance that this would have to a fantasy species anyway. Elves are not the same as humans, biologically or culturally. I think you're inferring too much from the similarity of the rules governing PC humans and PC elves. For example, I'm not convinced that elves are allergic to poison ivy - some humans aren't even - so why would you list that in a list of the hazards of the forest facing elves?

Why would you expect the DnD Players Handbook to enumerate the thousands of cultural details that would explain why elves live in the forest? Does the PHB have to tell you that elves are immune to poison ivy? Doesn't it seem reasonable was that their approach is to assume that elves live there, and have whatever technological and social requirements are needed? I don't think it would take any sort of extraordinary magic to live in the forest.

Also, in terms of culture you also assume that humans learn skills, spells, classes, etc. as easily as elves. This may be true for PCs, but again, I think you infer too much from the PHB. IMO the PHB is not a manual for campaign world simulation. If a player wants to be a wizard, he simply makes one up. But this does not have to be the case for NPCs! An NPC would have to have a background to make the opportunity of being a wizard available. Certain cultures are good at certain things because of a history of supporting the activity - elves could produce more wizards than normal simply because their culture prioritizes taking care of spell books, study, etc. The PHB rules are not going to deal with this issue - it's irrelevant from the point of the players, who are assumed to be able to play whatever character type they want.

 

[billd91]

Indeed. But there are other models of living at very high population densities in forests without any clearing at all. I have already mentioned pre-Columbian California.

Nice post. But I wouldn't necessarily put too much stock in Native American cultures not engaging in significant clearing. It is becoming generally accepted among archaeologists that the various tribes used to clear areas to exploit and then move on to exploit new areas while the old one regenerated. I think I was reading about the Powhatan and maybe the Wampanoag as well, both tribes that had cleared areas that English colonists were then able to move into without having to initially clear so much land on their own.

So, I would expect other native cultures probably did a lot more clearing as well compared to popular conception, just on a more cyclical basis.

As for my elves, they engage in clearing of wild forest too. They do it for the development of orchards and vinyards, just not on such massive scales as modern cereal crops.

 

[monboesen]

Edena as several posters have already spotted and commented on you IMO wrongly assume that the D&D rules should apply to the world you game in. They should not. Those rules are only there to have a framework for the player characters abilities and can (and should) be ignored for most other purposes.


If you insist on using the actual rule mechanics to guide your worldbuilding to the extent you do that world will never make sense.


Forget the rules, relax a bit and have some more fun by actually planning exiting gaming experiences rather than reason out how obscure mechanics will change the whole world.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

Nice post. But I wouldn't necessarily put too much stock in Native American cultures not engaging in significant clearing. It is becoming generally accepted among archaeologists that the various tribes used to clear areas to exploit and then move on to exploit new areas while the old one regenerated. I think I was reading about the Powhatan and maybe the Wampanoag as well, both tribes that had cleared areas that English colonists were then able to move into without having to initially clear so much land on their own.

So, I would expect other native cultures probably did a lot more clearing as well compared to popular conception, just on a more cyclical basis.

As for my elves, they engage in clearing of wild forest too. They do it for the development of orchards and vinyards, just not on such massive scales as modern cereal crops.

It is believed that many of the huge trees in the East Coast were the result of Native American brush clearing. Plus, by the utilization of fire to clear the forest floor they also reduced fire danger, improved visibility against ambush, ease of travel, encouraged the growth of food plants (and flipping at a book on edible plants of North America...hoo boy there's a lot), plus with clearings that encourage the growth of brush game animals were thereby encouraged to forage there, placing game animals within easy access. Similar practices to "channel" game were also practiced throughout the Great Plains prior to the re-arrival of the horse to North America. North America, once considered a howling, undeveloped wilderness has been shown to be very heavily cultivated, but not in the sense that most people are used to seeing cultivation as. Much of it did revert to wilderness, however, once most of the natives died off beginning en masse in the 16th century and thus later European explorers found many unpopulated districts that actually were quite populated two centuries before.

In Europe, the Corsicans, historically dwelled in the central forests of their island to avoid malaria and the depredations of raiders on the coasts. They lived quite well with boar and the use of chestnuts as a staple.

ANYWAYS: Forests, lots of food when shepherded properly and I would assume that elves would raise this beyond levels that even humans could accomplish.

 

[BlackMoria]

The mindset of elves... ok, then - this is a bone we can gnaw on together.

Let's talk Faerun, since you seem to have a passing familarity with the game setting.

1. Elves in Faerun can have a very dark side when turned to war. Proof: The Crown Wars

Therefore, the assumption must follow that elves are very capable of adopting a mindset that allows them in engage in warcraft on an ongoing basis. And that that mindset is a natural state of mind, not elves emulating humans because the Crown wars were fought before the rise of human empires. This flies in your assumption that the elves don't have the psyche for war and violence.

2. The Retreat - while no clear cut reasons for the Retreat appear in print, the general consensus is that the elves became wearied of defending themselves against a tide of encroaching humanity. Assuming long life spans, a majority of elves chose to go to Evermeet and other places (some otherworldly, like the Star Elves). However, the older elves chose retreat and the younger elves chose to remain, supported by references in various references in sourcebooks and novels.

Therefore, the assumption is that Retreat to isolation was because the older elves are tired of strife and the younger elves failed the call to retreat. It is hinted at in publications that the Retreat was not a final solution for a doomed people but a solution barring a better solution. And the Retreat is over, since the attack on Evermeet and Evereska has shown that a policy of isolationist was not a solution. The elves are coming back to claim their own. So much for doomed, pacifist elves.

3. Those elves that remained built enclaves. Evereska was guarded by magic enhanced secret routes in which invaders or the curious became hopeless lost. Other magic defences meant that Evereska didn't have to field a large standing army to watch their borders. The Phaerimm incident showed the fallacy of putting all your home defence eggs in one basket, namely, trusting the magic defences to be infallable.

Even mythals were constructed to make elven lives easier, to facilitate defence and to aroint hostile magic, putting an attacker at an disadvantage. Some mythals even forbid entry by certain creatures (supported in publications). Mythals made elven settlements easily defended and the failure of mythals like Myth Drannor to prevent incursion was largely due to internal threats or corruptions rather than external threats (again, supported in publications).

If anything, the Faerun elves had and used powerful magic almost unrivaled by Netheril and Imaskar (high magic destroyed a elven nation and destroyed the Jhannather(sp?) human empire in the Vilhon Reach, elven magic produced the wonders called Mythals and mantle spells, high magic created Evermeet and protected Evereska for millenium). The Crown wars is proof that the image of elven pacifism, of psyche fragile elves, of peaceful, frolicking, vulnerable elves is absolute nonsense.

And the notion of doomed elves. Rubbish. The retreat is over and the elves in Faerun are writing a new chapter in the history of Faerun.... and by blood if necessary.

 

[Turjan]

Actually, the average human has increased in mass 50% and in longevity by 100% since the year 1800 (according to The Escape from Hunger and Premature Death by Robert Fogel). Much of the undeveloped world is still "stunted" by modern standards -- just look at the difference one generation can make for children born to Vietnamese parents in the US, or to Japanese parents in Japan, after the war and reconstruction.

Which fits quite well what I actually said .

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

I still don't get the point about these two posts at all Edena.
You are (trying) to prove that your interpretation of elves in your games makes them inherently unplayable and even unable to survive as a race. So what?
I have played in many games and elves have been potrayed and interpreted in just as many ways as there was games. Elves as a race will be what the game master of that particular game wants them to be. Elves as PC's will be as the player of that particular elf want it to be. In none of those games have elves been seen as treehugging pacifist or humans with pointy ears.
It is your own special view of elves in your world that in your opinion makes them unsuited for survival. If that is so, why don't you either a) change your elves to make them work the way you want to, or b) remove them from your game.
A good start might be to stop using source material as diverse as Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, 2nd edition splat books, Al-Quadim, Tolkien, Conan etc. IMO most of these sources have their own kind of elves, and drawing general conclusions about elves from them is pointless.

Let me answer posts as I read them, starting with this one.
Did you read my post marked (long post) at the bottom of page 1?
I am explaining my frustration at a conceptualization within the game. As a young person, I would never have done so ('I have the character rolled up: let's play, and let's go kill something!' )
Now, knowing I'm speaking to older and experienced players and designers, I am simply expressing frustration at a concept that I can't, and never could, seem to make fit.
I honestly think that elves are looked down upon, partially because the concept doesn't fit.

But you could take the problem I expressed in my (long post), and apply it to dwarves just as well. And to gnomes, even more. And especially to halflings, who seem to survive only because other races protect them.
For that matter, you could apply it to paladins, any exalted characters, rangers, and other good characters. For the Bad Guys can kill anyone, any time they feel like, and get the goods (in 1E, we would have said: they can get the gold, and thus the experience points, whenever they please.) In a game based on killing, the Bad Guys seem to have a built in advantage.
Well, orcs are Bad Guys. Ditto kobolds. And gnolls. And drow (and they should have exterminated the surface elves long ago ...) And illithid (snackthings should not protest their lot!) And phaerimm. And dragons. And undead and fiends. And a million other monsters.
The Bad Guys have no moral compunctions as humans know them. Just a lot of firepower to throw on the hapless Good Guys. And throw it they do.

My interpretation of elves? Yes, it is my interpretation. I see so many interpretations of elves ... most of them very humanlike. I prefer elves to be more alien. That's just me.
But yes, my interpretation makes elves especially vulnerable as Good Guys, to a world full of Bad Guys. It does.
Should others bow to my intepretation? Of course not. This is a philsophical discussion, or meant to be one, about fantasy concepts.

I did create my own version of elves. Haldendreevan types.
I respect the concept of elves for the settings and the books for those settings as laid forth, just as I respect the authors who have written for those settings.
If the Qualinesti are like they are, then so be it. I respect that. And my players are welcome to play Qualinesti as Qualinesti. My NPC Qualinesti will act like Qualinesti. I would be true to the setting.
The same goes for the Olvenfolk of the Flanaess, the Gold, Silver, and Green Elves of Faerun, the cosmopolitan elves of Zakhara, the elven tribes of Athas, and the elves bothering (well, they once bothered) Lord Soth in Ravenloft.
If any of *my* elves showed up in these settings, they would definitely be outlanders, and I'm sure the native elves would consider them so, and then some.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Not a bad idea. Solves most of your problems.

I prefer thinking of elves as hunter-gatherer types myself (we were totally different animals before we started farming, as in the essay "Agriculture - Demon Engine of Civilisation" from Apocalpse Culture I,) and this suits my version of them.

When I think of hunter-gatherer elves, the elves of Elfquest come to mind. Or the savage elves of the Great Swamp (the home of Acererak, but don't tell anyone that!) Or the Kagonesti of Ansalon.
Funny thing, but the hunter-gatherers have suffered less than the civilized types in the settings, except on Athas. Perhaps it is because they are less of a target.

 

[WayneLigon]

I want to create a race of believable elves, while taking in all the realities of the D&D game mechanics and the reality of the settings. Those realities are the ones I have described above, and they dictate that the elves are crushed.

You're doomed to a thankless task, then, since there is no 'reality' to the D&D game mechanics by themselves. They are the barest of bones that you have to flesh out. A good chunk of the rules work the way they work for convience and balance's sake, not from any passing attempt at modeling reality. You have to provide the common sense part of that equation.

The settings are meaningless as far as you creating the race of elves the way you want. Junk Faerun, forget Tolkien, burn Greyhawk. You can do any damn thing you want, and to hell with what some setting came up with. Forget the bizarro third party spells, most of which are just in there to pad out the product and don't look at any of the spell lists as the sum total available to the races.

I have the first answer: magic. What is the answer to the psychological problem?

Why should elves have human psychology? In most of the campaigns I've done, I'd go one of two ways to the problem you mention above:

Elves, due to their long lives, simply don't let things 'get' to them like humans do. They don't collapse from stress save stress that would kill a human. They don't go mad; in fact, they're incapable of that kind of madness. An elf subjected to hundreds of years of war would finally 'tire' and one day he'd walk into the woods and never be seen again by mortal eyes, but he wouldn't go mad.

Or, Elves, due to their long lives, forget much easier than humans do. Five years is like a passing dream to an elf, one he will forget soon enough. A hundred years of war is endurable to an elf because he's forgotten all but the last couple of years.

In our real world, there are psychological types called 'invulnerables', people who do not succumb to stresses that would break the spirit of another person. They can endure tremedous continual stress and be no more affected than a person whose worst care is making it to the movie in time for the good previews. No-one knows why they're like this, but they are. Maybe all elves are like that?

 

[mmadsen]

I honestly think that elves are looked down upon, partially because the concept doesn't fit.

I'm confused. Where have you seen this view expressed? From what I've seen, people used to roll their eyes at elves in 1E and 2E -- and in Tolkien's works -- as too good, or as the master race. They were tall, slim, cultured, etc., but they were on the decline, as we entered an Age of Men.

I don't think Tolkien saw it this way, but we could look at his depiction of elves as a Romantic view of the Noble Savage. Hunter-gatherers arguably had plenty of free time and a lifestyle that later hardworking peasants would envy. They ate better than later agriculturalists too, growing taller and stronger. (Aristocrats maintained much of that lifestyle, living in leisure, eating meat, and reserving the right to hunt "their" lands.)

But they were on the inevitable decline, just like our elves. Hunger-gatherers cannot maintain the population density of agriculturalists, so they can't muster much of an army, even if man-for-man the hunters might outfight the farmers. So the tall, fit, frolicking forest-dwellers are displaced by peasants doing back-breaking labor.

In a game based on killing, the Bad Guys seem to have a built in advantage.

Do the bad guys always win real wars and dominate the globe? Not so much. Certainly strength and ruthlessness help in a war, but being evil isn't typically productive, and military strength can come from having the resources to spend.