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

Drkfathr1 said:
The original presumption that Elves are "doomed" as written in all editions of D&D is false to begin with, therefore, the rest is irrevelant.

LOL. Blame those 1st edition rules.
They were limited to 9th level (those with 17 intelligence 10th level, 18 intelligence 11th level, and 19+ intelligence 12th level.)
Heh. And 7th level as fighters (17 strength, 6th level; 18 strength, 7th level; otherwise 5th level was the maximum.)
I call that doomed. :D

In any case, I think 3rd Edition elves could do better than they do. Especially if they could borrow some 2nd edition rules.

You go tell the authors to let the elves rule in Keoland, Furyondy, Nyrond, Aerdi, Ergoth, Solamnia, Istar, Waterdeep, Cormyr, Sembia, Thay, Calimshan, and elsewhere. I'm sure the elves would just love to own all that real estate, and have all that power.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

mmadsen said:
The cliche is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, and it's from Hobbes' Leviathan. It's not meant to describe life within an agrarian society but outside of civilization and its laws.

At any rate, medieval folk, like people in the less-developed world today, lived on the equivalent of approximately $600 per year -- almost enough food to eat, and little else.
Presumably the elves have mastered some kind of polyculture agriculture, where they grow multiple different kinds of edible plants and animals in those forests, not as cleanly separated crops, but as an intertwined ecosystem.

Thus, they can get similar energy out of forest land as humans get out of cleared land, but with a greater variety of foods with a better nutritional profile, and they do it efficiently enough -- through magic? -- that they have plenty of leisure time for singing, dancing, etc.

(Imagine what modern post-industrial American society would look like without everyone at home on their couches watching TV.)

Sounds interesting, this polyculture agriculture. Neat idea.
 

Umbran said:
Aside from Edena's apparent desire to assume a whole lot more than most of the rest of us...

I think there's an issue with so strongly trying to force the D&D elf into the mold of the European fey elves. The rules simply don't support it, as written. Elves get played rather like humans because, as far as the rules are concerned, they're rather like humans.

You'll note that European fey don't live in the human forests - they live in their own fey realm that humans can't invade. When Tolkien put elves in the human world (even though his are immortal, and more powerful than humans) they didn't compete well with the mortal creatures, and eventually faded.

it isn't easy to have it both ways - as an ECL 0 race, you can't make them mechanically all that dissimilar to the other humanoid races, and that means that all the things the other humanoids are victim to may also affect elves.

Making them Fey wasn't my intention. The Fey *really* live in a separate reality from humankind. All the rules are different, all the social customs, all the daily activities of life, everything.
Besides, in D&D no place is truly safe ... if the DM wills it so. I could see a nasty DM allowing the Numenorians to actually attack Valinor. Then finis the elves there, since Ar-Pharazon was a real nasty fellow.

I see your point. Perhaps elves should be ECL 1 or 2? Maybe 3?
But innate power alone won't save the elves, not with their weaknesses. They need something more, something esoteric, something that sets them truly apart. The concept in FOR5 Elves of Evermeet, where elves can choose to become baelnorn or nymphs or other beings, instead of dying and going to Arvandor, based on a uniquely elvish love of the world and community, is one concept I think might really work. (Kudos to those who wrote and published that supplement and others like it!)
 

BlackMoria said:
"I reject your reality and substitute my own."
--Adam, Mythbusters--

The above quote sums up my feelings. Many people have already articulated why your assertions are not factual and the flaws inherent in your arguments.

What surprises me is why are we on this merry-go-round a second time. One thread is enough to debate the merits or lack of merits of your assertions. But a second thread?

Simply go with elves or discount them. Pure and simple. It is a game after all and we are not historians arguing why the Clovis culture went extinct.

We are older and wiser gamers here, this is a gaming messageboard, and I desire to discuss an aspect of the game ... in a congenial, in-depth way, with those who understand the concepts well enough to discuss them in-depth.
I did not articulate myself well the first time around. I am rectifying that mistake now. If I have not rectified that mistake yet, I *will* rectify it, in the most blunt terminology appropriate to ENWorld.

And who says we are not historians? This is ENWorld. I would expect philosophical discourse, historical discourse, game mechanical discourse, and all manner of in-depth discourse, on the game, on ENWorld of all places.
 

WayneLigon said:
You're looking at those little piss-ant Florida trees in their so-called forests that suffer from inadequate soil and inadequate fresh water and getting blown over or were clear cut within the last 10-20-50 years, or were burned back. You've got a lot of 'forest' planted and planned for eventual lumber production, so you have a lot of pine trees and other 'useful' trees that grow tall and straight with little in the way of limbs. You know why? They were planted that way for eventual harvest, and they're easier to use for furniture production.

Most of the areas you might think of as 'wild forest', isn't. Someone owns and maintains that woodland. In most places in the US you're really looking at managed cultivated forest that exists solely for timber production. You look at true old growth forests and there is more than enough 'tree' there to support a city of massive tree houses.

I don't see elves as needing the amounts of wasteful space we do, either. A 2000-square-foot house to them would be like a mansion. I see them as very efficient users of their space; everything will have four or fives uses and they'll produce very little waste. They are typically expert craftsmen; they take a month to build a chair and that chair is going to last a 200-300 years. What waste they do produce will go into the tree, or for fodder for the compost.

Part of this outlook comes from the fact that D&D does a really poor job of mentioning how magic aids daily life; it's all about killing monsters or saving your own butt. Fine and dandy most of the time, but you're overlooking a lot of the implied Elven magics that help them survive.

Elven communities are typically not very big. They will plant crops, but not as we plant crops; they'll plant in plots, not rows. In an old growth forest, there's plenty of room on thr ground. There's not much undergrowth at all because the tree canopy so you can grow an abundance of things that do well in shade.

It's much more labor intensive but elves have an abundance of time. Planting in plots creates larger and healthier yeilds, especially since things like pixies, gorse, and other small faires are going to help them by being able to keep vermin and insects to a minimum.

In fact, elven crops are probably much healthier and thus create much larger yeilds than comparable human crops do because of their various means of insect control. Farming in the middle ages is a hugely time consuming effort that really yeilds very little. Insects ruin a tremendous amount of human produce, something like 20-25%.

Add that to the idea that elves know what works best when fertilizing soil, and an elven community is likely to do better than a comprable human community of the same size. They'll probably export to the human communities bordering the forest, especially in winter.

Also, elves don't need titanic agrarian fields of wheat and corn like large human settlements do. Why? They don't usually raise food animals or use beasts of burden or a great deal of riding animals. From what I remember, a huge percentage of that wheat and corn in a human famr goes to feed animals, not people. If elves want meat, they hunt it. Otherwise, fruits, nuts, eggs, root veggies, green veggies, and lots of mushrooms. They also probably know means of rendering edible many plants that are not normally edible by humanoids. It's also likely that their culture will eat things your Northern European doesn't consider food, like grubs, worms, many types of beetles, etc. All of it rich in protien and other nutrients.

Now, all this is without magic. With magic, they're going to be producing bumper crops of forest-based fodder.


Heh. Florida trees are heavily grown for timber, yes. Here in this area, they are stunted and infrequent. Scrub jays live on the ground, and when one looks at the trees around here, one sees why.
In Michigan, the second growth forests in parks there are simply not big enough to support large treehomes, except for the largest elms and oaks and the like.
Old Growth Forests? I haven't seen any. The loggers were too through, unfortunately. I believe you about the large trees.

You speak of implied and overlooked elven magic. I agree with that concept. There are things elves are doing, and nobody knows what they are, and the elves aren't talking about it ... but those things make all the difference in their world.
Well, the PCs might not know of what those hidden things are, but the DM should know. :)
 

Well, I declare you the King of Non-Sequitars.

LOL. Blame those 1st edition rules.
They were limited to 9th level (those with 17 intelligence 10th level, 18 intelligence 11th level, and 19+ intelligence 12th level.)
Heh. And 7th level as fighters (17 strength, 6th level; 18 strength, 7th level; otherwise 5th level was the maximum.)
I call that doomed.

Non-sequitur logic. Being limited in level doesn't equate to being doomed.

You go tell the authors to let the elves rule in Keoland, Furyondy, Nyrond, Aerdi, Ergoth, Solamnia, Istar, Waterdeep, Cormyr, Sembia, Thay, Calimshan, and elsewhere. I'm sure the elves would just love to own all that real estate, and have all that power.

Again, non-sequitur. Rulership or political power isn't trump. Elves as CG are not big on structured government so consider that maybe they are just not interested in ruling huge swaths of land or imposing their will on others.
 

billd91 said:
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.
The Northeastern woodlands cultures, like the cultures of the Southeast, engaged in similar agricultural and clearing practices to the Maya along just the lines you describe. But the Californian and Northwest Coast cultures were very different; while they cleared for settlements, they did not engage in agriculture, despite having the highest population densities north of the Rio Grande.

West Coast cultures were highly exceptional not only in the Americas but globally in developing dense, culturally complex, hierarchical societies that did not depend on agriculture. While the Wampanoag and other groups of the Northeastern woodlands were amongst the many maize-based societies stretching from the Great Basin to the Great Lakes, pre-Columbian Californian and Northwest Coast societies had such rich forage and fishing opportunities that they were able to sustain shockingly high populations without abandoning a hunter-gatherer relationship to the landscape.

While I certainly accept that there was clearing for village sites, I'm not aware of any evidence that these groups engaged in clearing for other reasons.
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.
I would be wary about applying information about Algonquian and Iroquoian peoples to groups on the opposite side of the continent.
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.
This I'll go along with, although I've always tended to imagine elvish agriculture as roughly like the farming practices of the contemporary permaculture movement.
 

WayneLigon said:
(snip)

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?

This is news to me. I did not know such a group of people existed.
Can you elaborate on these 'invulnerables'?

Perhaps elves could be like that. An Extraordinary Power of the race?
 

I choose to look at elves through the prizm of the game rules because ... I feel that I'd be out in the proverbial 'middle of nowhere' if I did not.

Yes, the rules are a skeletal framework that one has to flesh out into a campaign setting. Problem is, from my point of view, is that when you do the fleshing out, you inevitably arrive with the doomed elf scenario.

I don't think of this as a flaw in the rules. I think of it as a failure on my part to consider the rules more throughly, to comprehend them better, and to make better extrapolations out of what I have read. It is my failure (as your rebuttals have pointed out.)

I would enjoy reading, if any of you wished to show how you built a viable elven civilization, nations, and cultures, from your own creativity and efforts.
 

mmadsen said:
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.

Just a lot of people don't seem to like elves. (shrugs)
I happen to like elves.
I think it is a paradox that they are considered overpowered, and yet at the same time they are on the decline.

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.

Well, of course they do. The Bad Guys are always winning. You wouldn't have much of a game setting, if the Good Guys had everything nice and peaceful and there were no troubles to deal with. :)

I cannot discuss real world politics: it's not allowed on ENWorld. So I cannot discuss real world Good Guys and Bad Guys (such terminology might not fit, anyways.)

In the fantasy settings, Ivid and Iuz and their progeny, aggressors in Ket and the nasty Scarlet Brotherhood, giants and drow, demons and devils, and Kings who overtax their people (Nyrond) are making for lots of problems.
Athas IS one big problem, in entire. At least, metaphorically.
If you've read the 2nd Edition Cloak and Dagger (FR setting) you'll see the Forgotten Realms have Bad Guys lurking under every rock (almost literally.)
And heh, Mina lead the forests of evil to triumph on Krynn.

Yeah, the Bad Guys seem to have a way of carving out big niches for themselves. And then coming to make everyone else miserable. Elves included.
 

Remove ads

Top