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

[fusangite]

From the 1st Edition Dungeon Master's Guide, page 20:

'A moment of reflection will bring them to the unalterable conclusion that the game is heavily weighted towards mankind.'

Okay. Two problems with this one:
1. This rule pertains to all gnomes, halflings, dwarves, half-orcs, etc. as well. It in no way singles elves out.
2. It hasn't been in effect for 20 years.
3. The statement is that humans are the most successful species; it does not conclude that all other species in the universe are doomed.

'Advanced D&D is unquestionably 'humanocentric', with demi-humans, semi-humans, and humanoids in various orbits around the sun of humanity. Men are the worst monsters, particularly high level characters such as clerics, fighters, and magic-users - whether singly, in small groups, or in large companies. The ultra-powerful beings of other planes are more fearsome - the 3 D's of demi-gods, demons, and devils are enough to strike fear into most characters, let alone when the very gods themselves are brought into consideration. Yet, there is a point where the well-equipped, high-level party of adventurers can challenge a demon prince, an arch-devil, or a demi-god. While there might well be some near or part humans with the group so doing, it is certain that the leaders will be human. In cooperation men bring ruin upon monsterdom, for they have no upper limits as to level or acquired power from spells or items.'
'The game features humankind for a reason. It is the most logical basis in an illogical game. From a design aspect it provides the sound groundwork. From a standpoint of creating the campaign milieu it provides the most readily usable assumptions. From a participation approach it is the only method, for all players are, after all is said and done, human, and it allows them the role with which most are most desirous and capable of indentifying with.'

Once again, same three problems.

From the 1st Edition Player's Handbook, page 14:

Elven classes allowed and level limits:

Cleric: 7th (NPCs only)
Druid: No
Fighter: 7th (elven fighters with less than 17 strength are limited to 5th level; those with 17 strength are limited to 6th level)
Paladin: No
Ranger: No
Magic-User: 11th (Elven magic-users with intelligence of less than 17 are limited to 9th level; those with intelligence of 17 are limited to 10th level)
Illusionist: No
Thief: Unlimited
Assassin: 10th level
Monk: No

But this is specifically and directly contradicted by the current rules of the game. You cannot argue that elves are doomed because of a rule that no longer applies to them.

From the 2nd Edition Player's Handbook, page 21:

' ... ((elves)) concerning themselves with natural beauty, dancing and frolicking, playing and singing, unless necessity dictates otherwise. They are not fond of ships or mines, but enjoy growing things and gazing at the open sky. Even though elves tend towards haughtiness and arrogance at times, they regard their friends and associates as equals. They do not make friends easily, but a friend (or enemy) is never forgotten. They prefer to distance themselves from humans, have little love for dwarves, and hate the evil denizens of the woods.
Their humor is clever, as are their songs and poetry. Elves are brave but never foolhardy. They eat sparingly; they drink mead and wine, but seldom in excess. While they find well-wrought jewelry a pleasure to behold, they are not overly interested in money or gain. They find magic and swordplay (or any refined combat art) fascinating. If they have a weakness it lies in these interests.'

Okay. Not to get repetitive but
1. These rules are, once again, not part of the current core rules nor have they been in nearly a decade.
2. These rules describe what elves do and don't like to do; they make no statements whatsoever about what elves can and cannot do. I don't like cleaning bathrooms but I do clean mine every week.

From the 2nd Edition Player's Handbook, page 24:

Elves: base age (starting PCs) 100 years, plus variable 5d6 years

Again, this rule has not been in effect since the start of 3E and is now superseded by PHB 109.

From the 2nd Edition Player's Handbook, page 20:

'The human race has one special ability in the AD&D game: Humans can choose to be of any class - warrior, wizard, priest, or rogue - and can rise to great level in any class. The other races have fewer choices of character classes and usually are limited in the level they can attain.'

Again, all races have had this ability since the release of 3E.

From the 2nd Edition Dungeon Master's Guide, page 22:

Racial Class and Level Limits

Elves: Cleric 12th, Fighter 12th, Mage 15th, Ranger 15th, Thief 12th, Other Classes no

As above.

From the 2nd Edition Dungeon Master's Guide, page 21:

'The DM can, if he chooses, make any class available to any race. This will certainly make your players happy. But before throwing the doors open, consider the consequences.'
'If the only special advantage humans have is given to all the races, who will want to play a human? Humans would be the weakest race in your world. Why play a 20th-level human paladin when you could play a 20th-level elf paladin and have all the abilities of paladins and elves?'
'If none of the player characters are human, it is probably safe to assume that no non-player characters of any importance are human either. Your world would have no human kingdoms, or hur powerful wizards. It would be run by dwarves, elves, and gnomes.'
'This is not necessarily a bad thing, but you must consider what kind of world nonhumans would create. Building a believable fantasy world is a daunting task; creating a believable alien fantasy world (which is what a world dominated by nonhumans would be) is a huge challenge even for the best writers of fantasy.'

Again, this is rule is not only no longer in effect; it posits elves as intrinsically more powerful than humans.

Those are, as stated, excerpts from the 1st and 2nd edition books.

That was a lovely trip down memory lane Edena but I'm not sure how they bear on our current discussion.

Consider the settings based on the 1st Edition rules: Mystara (the Known World), Greyhawk (Oerth), the Forgotten Realms (Toril, Faerun, the Hordelands (Toril, central part of continent), Oriental Adventures (generic, then Toril, eastern part of continent), Dragonlance (Ansalon, Taladas, Krynn) and the Ravenloft module I6 which inspired the Ravenloft setting.
Then consider the 2nd Edition settings: Zakhara (AL-QADIM), Aebrinis (Birthright), Athas (Dark Sun), Maztica (continent on Toril), Mystara (Red Steel), Planescape, and Spelljammer (Realmspace, Greyspace, Krynnspace, etc.)

In every single one of these settings, humans dominate.

(a) "Humans dominate" <> "elves are doomed." (b) What is the relevance of this to my request for current rules that apply to elves.

Consider the 2nd Edition Arcane Age setting.

Why?

* Only in 3rd Edition, do I concede that this may not be the truth of matters.

Okay. But when you started this thread, you didn't tell us that the rules you were using as the basis for your theory were all rules that are all no longer in effect or are part of published settings that are not in the core rules.

Now we could have a conversation about 1E elves, or about 2E elves or about one of the settings your mentioned or we could talk about the game is it is being played now. Where do you want to go in our responses to your questions?

 

[Banshee16]

I feel sorry for the Elves of Dragonlance (which is saying something, considering their attitude problem.) They have had a genuinely hard time of it.
It was the dwarves who perfected the first iron and steel weapons and armor, then humans got into the act, and elves had to purchase both. All this while fighting numerous wars against the dragons, while the dwarves remained untouched in Thorin and the humans got out of the way.
Then along comes the War of the Lance, and they are all exiles. They get back home in time for the War of Souls, and now they are *really* exiles.
The elves of Ansalon really never figured out how to make it. With Takhisis waging perpetual war against them, and their own infighting and cultural problems, they never had a chance.

The elves of Dragonlance have definitely received the short end of the stick. However, I suspect it's because the authors have a goal/story in mind for them than anything else. And what's written about them in the fiction has very rarely meshed well with what was done in the game.

I look up into temperate trees, and there isn't much there to work with (it's not like you could put a 2,000 square foot house there) in those small maple branches - or linden branches, hickory, elm, oak, or pine branches. Even in the bigger trees, it'd have to be a small tree-house.
Now, go to sequoia trees or redwood trees, and that's another matter (ala Caras Galadon.)

Something to keep in mind is that if you live in North America, most of the forests we see have been logged at some point, so the trees we see today are likely far smaller than they used to be. Sure sequoias and redwoods are huge, but a 60+ year old oak or maple could likely hold a tree house, and I'm pretty sure they can get a fair bit older and larger than that. Our cottage has a pine in front of it that's about 50' or so high...well taller than a 2-story building, and the circumference of the trunk is several feet. Yet I suspect that tree likely isn't *that* old. Maybe 50 years or so? They grow fairly fast. Most of the trees in the area are younger, because it's been logged several times over the hundreds of years that Europeans have inhabited Canada and the U.S.

Further, the contention that you can't get anything useful out of the tree doesn't sound quite right. The natives who were there before the Europeans made weapons and armor from wood, stone, and bone. The wooden armor *was* effective against muscle powered weapons. They ceased using it when firearms entered the equation. But given firearms aren't really used much in core D&D, and aren't available in some campaign worlds (ie. DL, BR, EB, etc.) then the armor becomes a valid choice. Likely not as good as iron weapons....but as far as we know, it was good enough to allow the natives of the east coast to drive off Vikings, who had access to steel weapons and armor.

Again, the Game Mechanics provide a simple solution to an insurmountable problem: Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion, Elven Version (it is mentioned, too, somewhere in the supplements.)
You can cast that spell and make it permanent a lot of times on a single tree. Which means there may be far more elves than meets the eye (Forrester, eat your heart out.)
Or the elves could dig down and cast the spell on tree roots, then cover and ward that entrance. Perhaps the elves could find a way to make all the different Mansions interconnect, producing an extra-dimensional realm from which they sojourn into the forest for the joy of green and sun.
Add appropriate background and other Fluff, and you could have a viable city of countless thousands in the middle of nowhere.

Now here's a thought ... could one make the Mansion so it was entirely dirt, so the 'land' inside it could be farmed? Thus, a vast network of little extradimensional farms, and never so much as a leave of the actual forest harmed or a single berry plucked?

The point is, the game mechanics make the impossible into the feasible once more.

Interesting ideas......how many elven spellcasters would be of the correct level to cast that spell, I don't know. But it's an interesting idea.

But it would jive with the idea of them being a race that has uses a lot of magic. Maybe they don't use fireballs very often, but are experts at using stuff like the mansion spells, plant growth, and other things that have a direct utility in everyday life.

Again, a lot of that is high level magic....and if the elves have relatively small populations, do they have enough high-level spellcasters to do what they need?

Banshee

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

The U.S. has pursued technological superiority in weapons systems because of a lower population/birth rate than other societies.

Again, the Terran nation in question has such weaponry at it's disposal, that it can destroy the entire world. This is true of one of the other great nations of that world. It may be true of several more. What meaning does birth rate have, when one can easily destroy the entire world?

In the Masque of the Red Death setting, the United States of America and other countries do as they do, because the Red Death enjoys suffering and pain, and encourages development of weapons to further those ends.
In Shadowrun, the United American and Canadian States are in a detente with the Indian Nations of Western America.
In the World of Darkness, the Technocracy insists on altering reality so that such weapons may exist. In spite of all reason and efforts by other mages, the Technocracy has succeeded in producing it's mechanized world. And Belief will not allow it any other way (not without paradox.)

In short, the realities on modern Terra (regardless of the version) are a special case. They involve situations completely outside the rules, books, and novels covering the main D&D settings. Apples and oranges, here.

 

[Jim Hague]

Again, the Terran nation in question has such weaponry at it's disposal, that it can destroy the entire world. This is true of one of the other great nations of that world. It may be true of several more. What meaning does birth rate have, when one can easily destroy the entire world?

In the Masque of the Red Death setting, the United States of America and other countries do as they do, because the Red Death enjoys suffering and pain, and encourages development of weapons to further those ends.
In Shadowrun, the United American and Canadian States are in a detente with the Indian Nations of Western America.
In the World of Darkness, the Technocracy insists on altering reality so that such weapons may exist. In spite of all reason and efforts by other mages, the Technocracy has succeeded in producing it's mechanized world. And Belief will not allow it any other way (not without paradox.)

In short, the realities on modern Terra (regardless of the version) are a special case. They involve situations completely outside the rules, books, and novels covering the main D&D settings. Apples and oranges, here.

So...wait. You can:

*Bring in 'support' for your already refuted points from any of a number of defunct or non-DnD settings

*Talk about how your personal experience and opinion supersedes the rules

*Change the rules to suit your points

But others can't do so, or are ignored? You dismiss factual information in favor of the ludicrous points you're making, and yet claim to be using (unsupported) facts yourself?

The facts have been presented, and your points repeatedly refuted, Edena. You think elves are doomed in your campaign world. Hundreds of other campaigns have successfully used elves. The argument comes down firmly in favor of elves working just fine - aside from the refutations here, there's an entire thread of counter evidence you haven't even addressed.

You think elves are doomed. We get it. That they work in thousands of other campaigns, even the vast majority of campaigns other than yours is pretty much undeniable. At this point you're not debating, you're changing the goalposts of discussion repeatedly. Let it rest, ok?

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Now we could have a conversation about 1E elves, or about 2E elves or about one of the settings your mentioned or we could talk about the game is it is being played now. Where do you want to go in our responses to your questions?

Are you conceding, then, that 1E and 2E elves are doomed, as I have debated, then?
Interesting, your point - what goes for those elves *does* go for all the other demi-human races. Perhaps even more so, than for elves (consider the poor halflings ...) So if the elves are doomed, ditto dwarves, gnomes, and halflings.
However, that's a different discussion, for a different thread. Too many variables (dwarves, for example, live underground) and this discussion is complicated enough.

Yes, in 3E elves can have it all. The restrictions of old are thrown down and kicked away.
Now elves can be of any class, any class combination, any appropriate prestige class, reach any level, and so on.

You ask where I want you to go in your response.
Let's go to 3.0. 3.0.
Let's see if, in 3.0, elves are not losers and not inferior and not doomed, shall we?

Let's look at the problems and pitfalls elves face in 3.0, and see how they should fare within that context.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

(snip)

Let it rest, ok?

Not until *you* tell *me* why elves are not doomed, and not inferior.
Not until you explain to me how elves could be triumphant, could be winners, could rule the setting as humans so often do.
And all the while, remain distinctly elven (and you may define what elven *is*)

You say all these campaigns exist in which elves flourish. Very well. *Why* do the elves flourish in those campaigns?

Do not say: because the DM says so. It is a given that things go the way the DM wants, regardless of logic or illogic or rules or whatever.
Give me the logical - or in game, in character, in campaign, whatever - reasons the elves flourish in all those campaigns. And nevermind the DM!

 

[Slife]

Not until *you* tell *me* why elves are not doomed, and not inferior.
Not until you explain to me how elves could be triumphant, could be winners, could rule the setting as humans so often do.
And all the while, remain distinctly elven (and you may define what elven *is*)

You say all these campaigns exist in which elves flourish. Very well. *Why* do the elves flourish in those campaigns?

Do not say: because the DM says so. It is a given that things go the way the DM wants, regardless of logic or illogic or rules or whatever.
Give me the logical - or in game, in character, in campaign, whatever - reasons the elves flourish in all those campaigns. And nevermind the DM!

The burden of proof is on you, rather than us.

I really do recommend the Taltos series, because it takes place in exactly the world you're asking for.

 

[fusangite]

Are you conceding, then, that 1E and 2E elves are doomed, as I have debated, then?

No. I'm telling you that I haven't been having that conversation with you. Elves in 1E and 2E have their powers front-loaded, making them better than humans at low and medium levels and inferior to them at high levels, just as the 2E material you have quoted states. But we can have that conversation another time. Now that we've finally agreed on what we are talking about, let's stick to one thing at a time.

Interesting, your point - what goes for those elves *does* go for all the other demi-human races. Perhaps even more so, than for elves (consider the poor halflings ...) So if the elves are doomed, ditto dwarves, gnomes, and halflings.

Why stop there? Think of every single species with an ECL of 0 that human beings outnumber. I guess every single one of them, by your logic, is doomed.

Yes, in 3E elves can have it all. The restrictions of old are thrown down and kicked away.
Now elves can be of any class, any class combination, any appropriate prestige class, reach any level, and so on.

You ask where I want you to go in your response.
Let's go to 3.0. 3.0.
Let's see if, in 3.0, elves are not losers and not inferior and not doomed, shall we?

Okay. I was just going to describe an elven society in 3E as per your request but we could get back on the "doomed" bus if you like.

 

[mmadsen]

Let me reiterate:

Edena, I'm still not clear on your argument, and I'm not clear on your counter-arguments to SHARK's Elves Are Not Doomed thread.

If you want doomed elves, it's easy to have doomed elves. If you want triumphant elves; it's easy to have triumphant elves.​

As I said in Elves Are Not Doomed:

As others have pointed out, the elves don't have to be doomed, because there's plenty of room to make your elves militarily competent while remaining elf-like; it just depends on your campaign's model of what it means to be an elf.

The elves of Tolkien's Third Age are clearly doomed and fading. They resemble the Ancients, Greek and Roman, from a medieval perspective -- once great, but now gone -- and they serve as a metaphor for magic, which fades and disappears as we grow up.

The elves from Tolkien's First and Second Ages are more like the epic heroes of myth and legend, with great powers and great passions -- they're much more like D&D characters.

Although I don't like the notion of elves as 1960s hippies, I do like the notion of elves having almost modern sensibilities, which are totally at odds with all the races around them, which naturally have primitive sensibilities, born of constant struggle, hunger, and early death.

I think you could have a wonderful campaign playing a group of outcast elves who "get it", who understand that the orcs really do want to kill and eat them all, while the council of elders keeps excusing orc forays into elf woodlands, etc.​

Further:

I don't want to get political, so please don't read too much into the analogy, but if we give our elves fairly modern sensibilities, then that means that the top of their society is not an aristocratic class of warriors -- which puts them far apart from all other societies around them -- and their military is either a small subset of elf society that reveres the elves' martial past, or an underclass, or some outside group (of quasi-barbarians or Mamelukes), or something besides the high-status leadership of elf society.

To outsiders dealing with the elves, they would seem a nation of poets and philosophers, with no fight in 'em -- but our own history has shown that a nation of shopkeepers can spawn a global empire (and after its fall, its former colony can become a global hegemon). To a pre-modern enemy, it may not be obvious how the elves might harness their peaceful magic for war (as the US harnessed its peaceful industry for WWII); they'll have to find out the hard way.​

If you want comedy, you have the elves do the right things to maintain their place in the world. If you want tragedy, you have them see the light too late.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

Nevermind.