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



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 6, 2007)

*The problem with elves take 2:  A severe condemnation*

Elves are not winners, not successful, not able to adjust or cope, not able to survive.  These realities are built into the race in 3rd edition (as it was in 2nd and 1st edition and OD&D)

  We as players ignore this reality, even as we ignore the problems of kender when we play them.  Nevertheless, the underlying reality remains, and nobody has an answer that negates it.
  Or do they have an answer?

  First, let's look at the problem.

  In the real world, back in medieval Europe, life was - to use a clique - hard and short.  The people faced trouble from both the natural world and the manmade world, and from their own needs.
  Their own needs meant 90% of the population had to engage in farming, from sunup to sundown, their whole lives, if society was to exist.  The remaining 10% of the population could do something else.  This assumed good weather, good crop yields, and peacetime.
  The natural world was not very nice to these people.  Bad weather ruined crops and brought famine.  Plagues swept through cities, towns, and fiefdoms alike.  A host of personal illnesses saw sky-high birth mortality for women, sky-high mortality among children under 5, and an unpleasant life for the survivors (if you count having all your teeth decay and fall out as unpleasant ... or convulsing in tetanus because you suffered a minor, dirty injury ... or repeatedly ravaged by influenza ... or working until you drop dead from it.)
  Manmade troubles included wars (nothing like the Hundred Years War to engender merriment), taxes (medieval taxes ...), conscription, forced labor, and a social feudal system from deepest nightmare.

  Let's take this reality, and assume for a moment that the Fantasy World reflects it.  In the Fantasy World, reality for the human race is this bad.  Humanity must endure medieval conditions as we think of them in our own history.
  This is a reasonable assumption to make.  The Greyhawk Wars exemplify the suffering of the human race in the Flanaess.  The War of the Lance, Test of the Twins, Rise of the Knights of Takhisis, and War of Souls exemplify the suffering of mankind on Krynn.  On Toril, this suffering is shown in the detailed history of that world, with it's countless wars, humanoid invasions, beholder and djinn empires, drow assaults, illithid deprivations, collapse of one civilization after another, and as usual the uproar produced by the elves, phaerimm, Shade, Thayvians, Zhentarim, and other groups like that.  On Athas, harsh takes on a whole new meaning as all life there is caught up in a final, twilight effort at survival.  (Of course, in Hyboria it wouldn't be Hyboria if it wasn't a harsh place for harsh endeavors.  In Nehwon, the Gray Mouser strides through a harsh world and thrives therein.)
  In other worlds, life stinks, it is short and grim, and it's joys fleeting and to be grasped at while one has hands to use (or, as the Norse thought, make a big splash in your world.  And hope Wotan approves of it.)

  Now we understand the predicament of humans.  So what of elves?  Well ... in the Rules as Written ...

  Elves have all the problems of humans.
  They have all the problems of humans because they 1: have no special immunities to the horrors of nature, and 2: have no special immunities to manmade (and other races and monster) horrors, and 3: have to eat like anyone else.

  But elves have handicaps that humans do not have, in their endeavor to compete and survive.

  -

  Humans in the medieval world had eight children.  In good times, they could expect four to survive to adulthood.  This occurred over a thirty year period.  Thus, in a thousand year period, assuming good times (but if it is bad times, remember the bad times affect the elves also) you have around 8,589,934,592 descendants (2 x 2 for every 30 years.)
  In that same time, a typical elven couple will have had 2 children, and their 2 children may or may not have had their first children yet.  Total cumulative elven population?  5.  Two older adults, two younger adults, and one child.
  And again, remember that if bad times stop those two humans from producing eight billion descendants in a thousand years, bad times affect elves too!
  8,589,934,592 versus 5 are large odds.  And the humans will gladly accept resurrection.  Elves never do.  Or so I've been told.  That stacks the odds more.  And now it is said that elves believe those who chose baelnornhood and nymphdom and the like were insane (FOR5 Elves of Evermeet) which stacks the odds further:  plenty of humans are glad to choose lichdom.

  Furthermore, humans have this bad tendency to find longevity magic (you know exactly what I'm talking about ...)  And in some settings, longevity is easy to obtain, or perhaps even semi-immortality as well.

  -

  Elves, for some reason, like forests.  They do not clear these forests.  Witness Qualinesti and Silvanesti Forest, or the elves skulking around in assorted Flannae forests, or the great Forest Nations of the elves of Toril (such as Cormanthor.)
  That is all fine and well.  But you cannot grow crops in forests.  Wheat, corn, barley, oats, rye, will not grow under the trees.  Grass for grazing, will not grow under a canopy of branches.
  You cannot build houses in forests, unless of course you clear away the trees necessary to make room for a house.  If there are thousands of elves wanting thousands of houses, this would require considerable clearing.
  You *cannot* set up forges in a forest, unless you use wood (a great deal of wood) to fire them.  If you try to use coal instead, say hello to some serious air pollution (and exactly where is this coal being mined?  Not under the forest in question, I hope ...)  But without forges you cannot produce anything made of bronze, iron, or steel, which means no elven armor or weapons.

  Forests are not exactly comfortable places even in real life.  Poison ivy and oak proliferate.  Brambles trail away from thickets of thorns.  Branches slap at the face and body.  Footing is difficult, and falls and injuries easily obtained.  Stagnant water is undrinkable, and what little food there is comes only in Season (witness Mirkwood, from The Hobbit, in which Thorin and Company almost met their demise.)  
  Of course every form of disease imaginable occurs in forest settings, and critters make things worse (that's right, there is no anti-venin for that rattlesnake bite, and yes there *are* black widows living in that tree and countless others, and yes the ticks, fleas, mosquitoes, and others bite, annoy, and carry horrible ailments for the victim's pleasure.) 
  In short, you can't build a civilization - even a civilization in the medieval sense of the word - in a forest.  
  Yet for some reason, elves insist on living in forests.  Which means that, realistically, they never progress past the Stone Age (and the famous Elfquest strips and novels bear that out.)

  For some reason, elves like to dance and sing, frolic and be merry.  They apparently like to waste their time (purportedly because they have so much time to waste.)
  But frolicking does not put supper on the table.  It does not purify polluted water.  It does not create weapons or armor.  It does not cure illnesses or wounds.  It does not even protect from the occasional rainstorm and the pneumonia that can cause (didn't someone mention that -2 penalty to Constitution for elves?  LOL ...)
  Now, the OTHER races do *not* waste time.  Orcs procreate like bunnies and make war.  Humans build vast empires (clearing forests along the way.)  Illithid plot and scheme to dominate utterly the snackthings.  Phaerimm plan world destruction.  Manshoon (all 50 of him) creates anarchy.  Aerdi destroys Almor, and the Adri will probably be next (after they wipe the floor with Drax.)  Qualinesti Forest is burned, because the Knights of Takhisis got themselves a world class champion.  The Dragon rose in a certain Athan city, destroying plants, animals, and humans to achieve ultimate supremacy.
  But elves waste their time.  It says so in the book.
  Nothing like playing a game of RISK, and the Elven Player decides to take Australia and sit there.  He does not take his 3 Armies per turn, he does not pick up cards, and he does not make attacks ... although he does defend and holds Australia.  Until, of course, someone gets 50 Armies from a card and obliterates him along with all the other players.
  But that is how elves supposedly work.  Or, in this case, *not* work, but dance, sing, frolick, and make merry.  *Humans* must slave away from sunrise to sundown just to survive, but elves need not do so.  Or so it says.

  So elves:

  1:  Do not procreate.
  2:  Live in forests under conditions that make any civilization beyond the Stone Age impossible.
  3:  Waste time in singing, dancing, and making merry.

  And:

  4:  Humans and other races are on the aggressive against elves
  5:  Monsters infest the lands and forests, making survival even more difficult
  6:  Many of the other races are supercompetitive, superpowerful, and hate the elves like bad spinnach

  Result:  extinction.  (Or, as the Daleks would say:  Exterminate!)

  -

  The upshot of the above is that players invariably play elves as humans.  And elven civilization is depicted as being humanlike (sometimes, it is more humanish than the humans make things, which is nasty ... witness the drow.  Witness Melnibone, if you call those people elves.)
  But what if some of us don't like elves as humans?  What if we don't want that?
  What if we want elves as ELVES?  As a people who actually *do* procreate slowly, *do* live in forests, and *do* spend a lot of time in merriment?

  The question is, how to approach that - in D&D terms, and these terms and rules make it possible and even easily done - and make it work.  How to have your elves as elves, in spite of all of the above, and still have them as winners.

  In fact, it is my opinion that, only through being Elven elves, do the elves have *any* chance at survival.  Playing human inevitably destroys them.  So it's either be true to themselves, or face obliteration.
  The simple question is how to do that, within the game mechanics.

  The answer starts with spells like Lifeproof (see the AL-QADIM Setting Boxed Set)  Because that spell alters the fundamental realities I have discussed above.
  And aren't elves supposed to be strong in magic?


----------



## Harmon (Jun 6, 2007)

I can see your point on the Elves, but... well, we kinda House Ruled their ages back, cause the twenty years of diapers (or whatever it was) was just to much tow swallow.

I have always thought that- hay, the elves live hundreds of years, and were more then likely in this land before anyone else they more then like staked out all the best land for themselves, then they learned from experience how to farm it, what the weather was gonna do, and how to handle it.

D&D has never (to my knowledge) been very good at giving Elves a better chance at survival because of their extended life span, but I think they should have something.

Also I think that with the Elves being attunded to magic, that they would utilize magic to help people with broken legs from lossing said leg to infection, or that they might use it to advance communications over long distances, etc.

Looking at gaming with a bit of reality is helpful, but to much might ruin your fun, and I think that is where you might be- looking at it with to much logic.  Step back, give the Elves and their +2 Int, and the generations before to have figured out this all out before you joined them.

fwiw- I use to think about stuff like that, but realized that magic would make a world of difference that we (without magic) can not imagine.

Good luck & have fun


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 6, 2007)

Well, that's pretty complex....among other things, fantasy worlds *don't* assume that humanity is in such poor condition as it was in the real world...particularly *because* of magic. 

Families don't *have* to be that large, because clerics and low-level magical healing are around, which have far better capabilities to sustain healthy populations than humans in reality did.  Birth control, as per books such as the FRCS, is available.

In 3E, there is very little magic to allow humans to extend their lifespans, unless you go to non-core resources.....in which case it is just as available to elves as it is to humans.  And though elves are unlikely to use it, there are very few humans with the resources to get it also.  There are no potions of longevity or philters of youth in 3E.  Scarred Lands had a few spells which could reduce age....but you're looking at needing an arcane spellcaster of at least 9th level to cast them.  And how many of *them* are there around?  Not nearly as many as there are characters of non-arcane spellcaster classes, and especially, not nearly as many as you have commoners, experts etc. of all levels, who have no access to that magic.

In DL, you've got a few longlived human characters....not many.  Fistandantilus and....um....that's about it.  All the other greats, like Par-Salian, Justarius, etc. lived within the normal human limits.  In GH, you've basically got the Circle of Eight, I guess.  And in FR, the Chosen.  And at last count, there are, what, 10 of them?  Out of millions of humans?  I think the availability of that magic is far less than you've portrayed.

As to other elements, such as elven slow reproduction, etc. most of the references to it tend to be in non-core supplements.  I think the only WotC 3rd Ed. books which even come close to talking about it are Drow of the Underdark, and the Complete Wild.  I'd need to review those to check.  Most other references are in books about elves, which often combine the whole slow reproduction thing with rules/text about how resistant they are to regular diseases.  So if you want to take the optional negatives, you should also likely take the optional positives as well.....which makes it more like:

Elves live long
Elves have few children
Elves are very resistant to non-magical diseases, and are generally immune to most ailments that humans fall prey to.

Similar to with the other thread....it's your campaign, you can do what you want.  But according to the rules as written, most of those limitations don't exist.  Much of your argument regarding baelnorns, nymphs etc. draw on resources such as Cormanthor, which in turn include assumptions from the Complete Book of Elves in 2nd Ed.  You can't really have one without taking the other.

Your point regarding making merry etc. is valid.  I don't have an answer to that one.  I'd assume that they simply eat different things....more "forest food" than humans do....stuff that can be easily hunted and gathered.  The rest, they probably manage through magic, since they have mages and clerics who aren't spending all their time figuring out better ways to blow stuff up or make themselves live forever.  Maybe their spellcasters spend more time figuring out magic to help support their populations.

Frankly, aside from disease, I'd be wondering, on a statistical level, what are the odds that an elf (or a human with longevity magic) would ever make it to the limits of their lifespan in the first place?  Assuming good health that whole time, statistically, what are the odds that they'll get kicked in the head by a cranky horse, fall down an open sewer and drown, get a piano dropped on them, slip in the shower, or otherwise fall victim to some lethal accident before they ever reach 600 years of life?

In my campaign, I've generally used the example set in the DL book "Otherlands", where it mentions that Dargonesti elves age at the same rate as humans until age 14, and then slow down, and take until about 35 to be as mature as an 18 year old human, and finally slow down to age like 1 year for every 10 (roughly) for the rest of their lifespan.  I've also gone with the assumption that they have very strong immune systems, and generally recover from most ailments, and have good healing abilities, such as that unless damage is extreme, they'll heal well from most non-life threatening injuries.  Doesn't do anything if someone wacks an arm off with an axe, or they get bitten by a werewolf, or hit by a plague spell.....but gives them a higher chance of realizing that 500+ year lifespan.  So all generally non-gaming related things, that shouldn't have an effect during an adventurer's career.  How many adventurers have you seen a DM inflict pneumonia, or tb, or bubonic plague or whatever on?  Probably very few.  But something like mummy rot, or other magical diseases?  Probably more often.  And elves would be just as vulnerable to them as humans are.

Of course, all of this is assuming logic, and most elements of the game are relatively illogical on one level or another, so...

Banshee


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 6, 2007)

Hehe ... 20 years of diapers indeed.  But that's nothing.  Then it's 80 years of teenagehood madness after that (imagine *your* children hogging the phone for 80 years straight ...)  

  Let's look at Lifeproof.  It comes from Zakhara, the Land of Fate, in Toril's southern hemisphere.
  You allow the Shadow of Your Heart to be put in a gem by the casting wizard.  If the gem (which cannot be magically protected) is destroyed, it kills you, no save.
  But ...
  So long as that gem stays intact and the SYH remains within, you have unlimited hit points.  Period.  Infinite hit points.  Every 10 points you drop below 0, your Charisma drops by 1 point, but otherwise you are not harmed.
  You *cannot* be incapacitated by a weapons blow.  If your eyes are gouged out, you can still see.  If your ears are cut off, you can still hear.  If your arm or leg is severed, you can (presumably as a Full Round Action, but perhaps as a Standard Action or even a Swift Action) put it right back on, and it grafts instantly.  Ditto your head (although that would most certainly be a Full Round Action ...)
  You feel no pain if wounded, although you know you're wounded.  
  If you contract a disease, it causes no discomfort and can neither kill nor incapacitate you (you might run around black as night from the Plague, but aside from being contagious no other problems would accrue.)

  You can still die from poison (but not poisoning of the body from disease.)  An assassin's poison will still get you.  
  Green slime can still devour you whole (leading to a Lifeproofed green slime ... ick ...)
  Looking at a nymph can still blind or kill you.  A dryad can still charm you and take you away (or something far less pleasant can charm you and ...)
  Death magic still affects you.  When Lord Soth points his finger and utters Power Word Kill, you still die.
  You can still be buried alive in rocks or mud or water and be rendered helpless.  You won't suffocate or suffer oxygen deprivation problems.  Your brain cannot be addled from such things (poison gas will addle it, but not suffocation.)

  The spell lasts forever, unless the gem is broken.

  So imagine that the Queen of the Elves and her mages throw Lifeproof on every Elf of the Realm.
  Reality is turned upside down.

  Every elf, now has the invincibility of the Frenzied Berserker while Frenzied, only it's permanent and no Frenzy is required.
  Suddenly, elves are a terror to all.  They would make Feanor and his Noldor look like weaklings in comparison.  These elves would slay Glaurung, wipe the floor with those balrogs, kill those endless millions of orcs.  Morgoth, if he were smart, would shut the doors of Angband with a bang and hide in his deepest dungeons.  Or, better yet, get Ungoliant to hide him in her webbing.
  All because of one little 7th level spell, out of one supplement out of countless supplements, out of one edition of D&D out of five editions.

  Imagine that even a single elf girl had the High Magic spell known as Nymph's Aura up in addition to Lifeproof.
  She is standing inside Minas Tirith.  And here comes the Morgul Host, 60,000 orcs and Haradrim and 9 Nazgul.
  She walks to the wall, casts off her clothing, and throws Nymph's Aura.  This 2nd Edition spell is Line of Sight.
  Considering saving throw difficulties, about half of the Morgul Host, including one or two of the Nazgul and their beasts, go down instantly.  In the subsequent rounds, those coming up to see what happened see the girl, and half of them die also.  The smart ones retreat, and soon the remnant of the Host is back beyond the Causeway Forts.

  Now some poor soul must go to Sauron and tell him that some slip of a girl destroyed his beautiful army.  Any volunteers?  

  Even the first level Regenerate spell (from Polyhedron #28) makes a world of difference if the elves have it.
  For now, after the battle, they are all still alive, and many of their enemies are not.

  Agnakoks come from the Complete Book of Mages.  So if the elves are magic inclined, why not make them Agnakoks, and state Temperate Forest as a horrendous place?  Because, after all, it is.
  If elves are going to live in the woods, we might as well make them *comfortable* there.  Granting them Agnakok powers does that.  Agnakoks have alterations in their appearance from the norm ... which is why elves have pointy ears!  And which is why elves come in different flavors like gold, silver, green (literally), blue, purple, pure white, and pure black.

  Within the Game Mechanics, within the Rules, are all the answers a DM could ever need to fix elves, to make elves competitive and more competitive with the other races.  Background information (what you'all call Fluff) can be added as needed.
  Play human?  A little, yes.  Maybe even a lot.  (Otherwise, we humans couldn't rp elves at all, could we?)
  Play with the rules to find a winning combination?  Absolutely and all the time.

  They say elves are smart, with around 15 Intelligence being average (150 IQ.)  
  If that is true, and if elves are magically inclined, there is no question that they use it to win.  
  And since this falls under the complicated Rules for Spells and Feats and Prestige Classes, it is to those rules the elves must look for supremacy!

  I would daresay, then, that every elf has his or her Player's Handbook, and a host of other supplements and gaming magazines, on hand.  Reading them is compulsory.  Using what is learned therein is most mandatory!


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jun 6, 2007)

Edena said:
			
		

> Elves, for some reason, like forests. They do not clear these forests. Witness Qualinesti and Silvanesti Forest, or the elves skulking around in assorted Flannae forests, or the great Forest Nations of the elves of Toril (such as Cormanthor.)
> That is all fine and well. But you cannot grow crops in forests. Wheat, corn, barley, oats, rye, will not grow under the trees. Grass for grazing, will not grow under a canopy of branches.
> You cannot build houses in forests, unless of course you clear away the trees necessary to make room for a house. If there are thousands of elves wanting thousands of houses, this would require considerable clearing.
> You *cannot* set up forges in a forest, unless you use wood (a great deal of wood) to fire them. If you try to use coal instead, say hello to some serious air pollution (and exactly where is this coal being mined? Not under the forest in question, I hope ...) But without forges you cannot produce anything made of bronze, iron, or steel, which means no elven armor or weapons.




I have to agree with most of your analysis, but I don't agree with this part (or at least some of this part of the analysis).

Elves often use magic to alter forests, so they're not as harsh. Plus they're basically survivalists. They also live in tree-houses, not particularly realistic, but this is a fantasy setting, and they do have a small population.

Elves do build cities in a lot of settings, although these cities are eco-friendly (often surrounded by forest), so they have some cleared land for some purposes. Sometimes the cities are built into the trees, but that's not particularly realistic. I think the elves figure nature is important (more than humans think so), but elves are still arrogant enough to put themselves before nature.

In the Dragonlance setting, humans created metal weapons and then sold them to elves. (So much for elves making "superior" weapons!) Ironically this means elves pay humans to pollute!

I have to agree that elves couldn't feed a huge civilization. Their lower population numbers could mean that hunters could supply them with meat without wiping out the prey animals, but as for their vegetable needs? There's not enough space in an elven city to farm all that stuff, at least as far as I see it, and picking berries isn't particularly efficient either.


----------



## Slife (Jun 6, 2007)

> Every 10 points you drop below 0, your Charisma drops by 1 point, but otherwise you are not harmed.



But, wait.  You lose charisma?  Each elf then has, at max, 180 hp, which, true, is a lot, but once they lose them, they can't regain them.  And at 0 charisma, they withdraw into a coma.  

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.


so many commas!


----------



## Roger (Jun 6, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> The upshot of the above is that players *invariably* play elves as humans.



Alright...



> But what if some of us don't like elves as humans?  What if we don't want that?  What if we want elves as ELVES?



_Invariably_ means without variation.

The first assertion precludes the possibility of achieving the second.



Cheers,
Roger


----------



## Tonguez (Jun 6, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> In the real world, back in medieval Europe, life was - to use a clique - hard and short.  The people faced trouble from both the natural world and the manmade world, and from their own needs.
> Their own needs meant 90% of the population had to engage in farming, from sunup to sundown, their whole lives, if society was to exist.  The remaining 10% of the population could do something else.  This assumed good weather, good crop yields, and peacetime.
> The natural world was not very nice to these people.  Bad weather ruined crops and brought famine.  Plagues swept through cities, towns, and fiefdoms alike.  A host of personal illnesses saw sky-high birth mortality for women, sky-high mortality among children under 5, and an unpleasant life for the survivors (if you count having all your teeth decay and fall out as unpleasant ... or convulsing in tetanus because you suffered a minor, dirty injury ... or repeatedly ravaged by influenza ... or working until you drop dead from it.)
> Manmade troubles included wars (nothing like the Hundred Years War to engender merriment), taxes (medieval taxes ...), conscription, forced labor, and a social feudal system from deepest nightmare.
> ...



 I'm not sure that I agree with this assumption. Although war is common in DnD worlds the same is not true of famine and death from disease. Druids ensure higher crop yeilds and clerics reduced suffering from disease. Therefore the only major threat is from attack - Elfs tend to be seen as a good race to deal with and have magic and forests as protection 







> Elves, for some reason, like forests.  They do not clear these forests.  Witness Qualinesti and Silvanesti Forest, or the elves skulking around in assorted Flannae forests, or the great Forest Nations of the elves of Toril (such as Cormanthor.)
> That is all fine and well.  But you cannot grow crops in forests.  Wheat, corn, barley, oats, rye, will not grow under the trees.  Grass for grazing, will not grow under a canopy of branches.
> You cannot build houses in forests, unless of course you clear away the trees necessary to make room for a house.  If there are thousands of elves wanting thousands of houses, this would require considerable clearing.
> You *cannot* set up forges in a forest, unless you use wood (a great deal of wood) to fire them.  If you try to use coal instead, say hello to some serious air pollution (and exactly where is this coal being mined?  Not under the forest in question, I hope ...)  But without forges you cannot produce anything made of bronze, iron, or steel, which means no elven armor or weapons.
> ...




Now this is entirely false. It is true that you can't have huge population expansion and the intensive grain farming practices employed by humans but then elfs don't have to. 
We have already established the elfs have low population densities this means that forest based cropping is viable. A single grove of trees can include tubers under the soil, mushrooms and other fungus, short leafy vegetables, wild fruits, fern shoots, orchid hearts and a variety of herbs. Insects and birds are useful foods which use the groves as habitat.

Now an elf tree village might have a number of groves within its vicinity each of which is indistinguishable from the surrounding forest but which are nonetheless cultivated. Elfs life in these groves too above the ground using the low level ivy and throns as defense against attack 



> For some reason, elves like to dance and sing, frolic and be merry.  They apparently like to waste their time (purportedly because they have so much time to waste.)
> But frolicking does not put supper on the table.  It does not purify polluted water.  It does not create weapons or armor.  It does not cure illnesses or wounds.  It does not even protect from the occasional rainstorm and the pneumonia that can cause (didn't someone mention that -2 penalty to Constitution for elves?  LOL ...)




What we regard as frolicking could be the social rituals of the elfs by which they form political alliances. Elfs know magic and perhaps the frolicking is part of their bardic rituals designed specifically to increase crop yeilds, purify water, fabricate armour and fortifications (Lyre of Building?), cure disease and control weather 

Elfs make best use of forest based cultivation to support their low densitity populations, they use magical rituals to fortify their position and increase crop yeilds, they form social networks with other 'good races' using elaboarate ritual 'frolicking' and avoid conflict through mastery of their terrain (the Elf Ranger who remains unseen while he shoots from the trees)


----------



## the Jester (Jun 6, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Elves are not winners, not successful, not able to adjust or cope, not able to survive.  These realities are built into the race in 3rd edition (as it was in 2nd and 1st edition and OD&D)




I'd like some rules text, from ANY edition, to back this up.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 6, 2007)

Slife said:
			
		

> But, wait.  You lose charisma?  Each elf then has, at max, 180 hp, which, true, is a lot, but once they lose them, they can't regain them.  And at 0 charisma, they withdraw into a coma.
> 
> Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
> 
> ...




  I appreciate that you go into a coma when you reach 0 Charisma in 3rd Edition.

  Lifeproof, in 3rd Edition, would supersede this rule, allowing one to go to negative Charisma numbers and remain active.  There is no barrier at which this process is stopped:  Charisma might stop going lower at, say, -10 but the recipient of Lifeproof could keep right on going.
  In fact, even being vaporized will not stop a Lifeproofed being.  The vapors will coalesce into a ghostly being of magical force, capable of picking up and use items and weapons normally, as well as spellcasting, talking, and so on.
  The 2nd Edition Disintegrate will kill a Lifeproofed being, since it involves total disintegration.  The 3rd Edition version, which leaves dust, will not kill or incapacitate that being.

  It's a fair spell for elves, considering how stacked against them the odds are.  Elves use magic to even those odds ...


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 6, 2007)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> I have to agree with most of your analysis, but I don't agree with this part (or at least some of this part of the analysis).
> 
> Elves often use magic to alter forests, so they're not as harsh. Plus they're basically survivalists. They also live in tree-houses, not particularly realistic, but this is a fantasy setting, and they do have a small population.
> 
> ...




  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.

  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.)

  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.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 6, 2007)

Roger said:
			
		

> Alright...
> 
> _Invariably_ means without variation.
> 
> ...




  Elves should have variation.
  I just don't think they should all be Vulcans or Romulans (depending on the sub-race.)


----------



## monboesen (Jun 6, 2007)

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.


----------



## Soel (Jun 6, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> 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?




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.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 6, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Elves are not winners, not successful, not able to adjust or cope, not able to survive.



So how do you explain all the elves winning and surviving things all over the place in D&D settings and adventures?







> In the real world, back in medieval Europe, life was - to use a clique - hard and short.



You mean cliche. And I would say that it was harder and shorter than it is in the industrialized world today. I'm not sure it was any harder or shorter than life in rural Ethiopia today. 

More to the point, as is the case today, the difficulty and shortness of one's life varied widely based on various factors such as local ecology, social rank and privilege and a myriad of other things. 

Still closer to the point, I am not sure whether D&D worlds are sufficiently similar to medieval Europe to make any useful analogies here. For instance, the DMG is quite clear that human life expectancy is much closer in D&D worlds to our own than it is to medieval Europe.







> Their own needs meant 90% of the population had to engage in farming,



Depends where and when but I will agree that not only in medieval times but in most places and times outside of the contemporary industrialized world, this was the case.







> The remaining 10% of the population could do something else.  This assumed good weather, good crop yields, and peacetime.



Actually no. During periods of war, famine and poor weather, the proportion of the population engaged in farming declined; raiding, war and pastoralism tended to remove people from the land and place them in armies, bandit companies and migrant groups driving herds before them.







> Bad weather ruined crops and brought famine.  Plagues swept through cities, towns, and fiefdoms alike.  A host of personal illnesses saw sky-high birth mortality for women, sky-high mortality among children under 5, and an unpleasant life for the survivors (if you count having all your teeth decay and fall out as unpleasant ... or convulsing in tetanus because you suffered a minor, dirty injury ... or repeatedly ravaged by influenza ... or working until you drop dead from it.)
> Manmade troubles included wars (nothing like the Hundred Years War to engender merriment), taxes (medieval taxes ...), conscription, forced labor, and a social feudal system from deepest nightmare.



This is a sweeping generalization that just does not hold up. Why don't you read the accounts of medieval people when they write about the times in which they lived?

What you have done is throw together everything bad that ever happened in a 1000 year period and describe it as the normal situation. People wrote about wars because they were exceptional. People wrote about plagues because they were exceptional. Most people who worked on the land were not slaves. Most people led lives where they had a chance to make a home for themselves, fall in love and have kids. Most people had time to dance and sing and drink.

But I'm not sure where this reasoning can take us productively because I see no evidence that mortality and subsistence patterns in D&D worlds are like this. Indeed, the disease and aging mechanics, most thoroughly spelled out in the AD&D PHB, seem to indicate that human beings in D&D live in far greater material abundance than your average farmer in Tigray province in Ethiopia today.

Whereas the 3.5 DMG does indeed predict that commoners make up the lion's share of the population, it does seem that they are a healthier lot than medieval European peasants (or Roman rural folk, Egyptian fellahin, etc.). And the amount of war and plague in a kingdom is largely contingent on GM-controlled matters of world design not on some resemblance to our world's past.







> Let's take this reality, and assume for a moment that the Fantasy World reflects it.



Why would I want to do that? If I did that, there would be no elves, dwarves, halflings, orcs, goblins, dragons or any of the other stuff I play D&D to see. And given that this is a discussion of elves, this seems especially pointless.







> This is a reasonable assumption to make.



No. It's not. For one thing, look at how different reality is for D&D women than real women; they have equal physical strength and size to men and are more socially mobile and free than even the most emancipated women in contemporary culture. And that's just one example.







> The Greyhawk Wars exemplify the suffering of the human race in the Flanaess.  The War of the Lance, Test of the Twins, Rise of the Knights of Takhisis, and War of Souls exemplify the suffering of mankind on Krynn.



One cannot reasonably contend that because wars happen in fantasy worlds, they happen the same way as they did in our world. Of course, if they did, that would be good news to your average peasant because it would mean he would be very unlikely to have to fight and would have a good chance of surviving if he kept his head down, a marked contrast from the mortality of a modern war like WWI. 

Furthermore, it is also pretty clear from the coverage of these wars that disease vectors work differently in D&D worlds. The armies don't seem to be giant migrating contagions the way they were in the late medieval period.







> Elves have all the problems of humans.



No. They don't. For one thing, it appears that elves are not agrarian societies; they appear to be societies closer to high-density hunter-gatherer societies like the Indians of pre-16th century California -- they live in highly bountiful wild environments that permit them to live at high densities without modifying the environment significantly. 

Furthermore, elvish cultures, in almost all campaign settings, are almost always described as more internally peaceful than human societies. In addition, elves are more productive per capita in that (a) they live longer (b) they have more productive hours in their days (c) they are reproductively fertile for much longer than humans.







> They have all the problems of humans because they 1: have no special immunities to the horrors of nature,



Special immunities are not the main thing that protects you from natural threats; knowledge of the natural world is your best protection. And it is clear that elves are more knowledgeable about the natural world than human beings are.







> 2: have no special immunities to manmade (and other races and monster) horrors,



But human beings today are no different physically than we were in the Middle Ages. What makes us less subject to natural and human threats is contingent on our technology, knowledge and forms of social organization. It is clear that D&D elves are, just as we are, technologically, educationally, socially and politically different both than D&D humans and medieval European peasants.







> and 3: have to eat like anyone else.



But this is true of nearly all D&D creatures.







> Humans in the medieval world had eight children.



Nope. The average number of kids people had in the Middle Ages varied dramatically from place to place and time to time. Generally, people tended to limit their family sizes in periods of extreme scarcity and increase family sizes in good times.







> In good times, they could expect four to survive to adulthood.  This occurred over a thirty year period.  Thus, in a thousand year period, assuming good times (but if it is bad times, remember the bad times affect the elves also) you have around 8,589,934,592 descendants (2 x 2 for every 30 years.)



But this isn't the case; there was not a continuous massive exponential increase in Europe's population between 500 and 1500.







> In that same time, a typical elven couple will have had 2 children,



Says who? Where do the RAW suggest this?







> and their 2 children may or may not have had their first children yet.  Total cumulatve elven population?  5.  Two older adults, two younger adults, and one child.



How does the fact that elvish reproductive lives are typically 20x longer than the average human's affect things? How could this not matter? While female humans can make babies between 15 and 45, elvish women can make babies between 100 and 700.







> And again, remember that if bad times stop those two humans from producing eight billion descendants in a thousand years, bad times affect elves too!



But the population of Europe did not increase from 10 million to 40 quadrillion between 500 and 1500 so perhaps your math may be off.







> And the humans will gladly accept resurrection.  Elves never do.  Or so I've been told.



Do you see anything about that in the RAW? I'm not aware of this.







> Furthermore, humans have this bad tendency to find longevity magic (you know exactly what I'm talking about ...)  And in some settings, longevity is easy to obtain, or perhaps even semi-immortality as well.



If extreme longevity, verging on immortality is a factor in your model, then surely the elves would have the demographic edge because while less than 1% of humans might be able to achieve this magically, every single elf is born with this.







> Elves, for some reason, like forests.  They do not clear these forests.  Witness Qualinesti and Silvanesti Forest, or the elves skulking around in assorted Flannae forests, or the great Forest Nations of the elves of Toril (such as Cormanthor.)
> That is all fine and well.  But you cannot grow crops in forests.



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. But let be throw in the slash and burn agriculture of the Mayans while I'm at it. 







> Wheat, corn, barley, oats, rye, will not grow under the trees.  Grass for grazing, will not grow under a canopy of branches.



Indeed. But this assumes that mixed agro-pastoralism is the only way to sustain high populations. Fortunately, the historical record shows that this is not the case. 

Even medieval Europeans raised their pigs almost exclusively in forests until the 12th century. In fact, forest area was often measured based on how many pigs it could sustain.







> You cannot build houses in forests, unless of course you clear away the trees necessary to make room for a house.



Or you build your house differently than we do. Check out the Lothlorien scenes in LOTR.







> If there are thousands of elves wanting thousands of houses, this would require considerable clearing.



I don't buy this at all. 







> You *cannot* set up forges in a forest, unless you use wood (a great deal of wood) to fire them.



Huh? The forges of the medieval world were fired by charcoal made in forests and then transported some distance to the forge. How do you think forges were fueled?







> Forests are not exactly comfortable places even in real life.  Poison ivy and oak proliferate.



There are plenty of kinds of forests. I don't see why a game world's forests would be superabundant in these two particular species.







> Brambles trail away from thickets of thorns.  Branches slap at the face and body.  Footing is difficult, and falls and injuries easily obtained.



The movement and natural hazard rules in the RAW seem to disagree with you here. As does my experience when I go hiking.







> Stagnant water is undrinkable,



When I go hiking I come across all kinds of water.







> and what little food there is comes only in Season (witness Mirkwood, from The Hobbit, in which Thorin and Company almost met their demise.)



But not all forests in LOTR are like Southern Mirkwood. Indeed, this is an exceptionally inhospitable forest because of Sauron's presence. What is true about Mirkwood is no more universal than what is true about Fangorn, the Old Forest or Lothlorien.

However, we do know that the elves of Northern Mirkwood and Lothlorien live comfortable, abundant lives sharply at variance with how you describe forest life.







> Of course every form of disease imaginable occurs in forest settings,



Then how do you explain forest- and jungle-dwelling peoples having such poor immunity to colonizers' diseases in the past 500 years? It is cities that have traditionally been the places where disease is most common. The idea that your average medieval city was less disease-ridden than your average medieval forest is nothing short of preposterous.







> and critters make things worse (that's right, there is no anti-venin for that rattlesnake bite, and yes there *are* black widows living in that tree and countless others, and yes the ticks, fleas, mosquitoes, and others bite, annoy, and carry horrible ailments for the victim's pleasure.)



Right.... ticks, fleas, mosquitos, spiders, rats, vermin... they never show up in cities.







> In short, you can't build a civilization - even a civilization in the medieval sense of the word - in a forest.



Right... the Iroquois, Haida, Mayans... they clearly aren`t civilizations







> Yet for some reason, elves insist on living in forests.  Which means that, realistically, they never progress past the Stone Age (and the famous Elfquest strips and novels bear that out.)



But elves do work with metal everywhere except Elfquest strips. Now this might be because they make use of the abundant charcoal materials that surround them and fire forges on a large scale. Or it might be because they trade with metal-producing societies. This is how many societies get their metal stuff. Even today, most metal goods are obtained through trade not local production. Just look at how few countries make aluminum!







> For some reason, elves like to dance and sing, frolic and be merry.  They apparently like to waste their time (purportedly because they have so much time to waste.)



Well, this is the first time you have really made a strong case that elves are like medieval peasants. Fortunately the elves have an extra 6 waking hours every day in which to do this, and an extra 900 years of life, for good measure.







> But frolicking does not put supper on the table.



But gathering wild mushrooms and acorns for a couple of hours does.







> It does not purify polluted water.



Well, not unless it is the somatic component of the cleric or druid spell.







> It does not create weapons or armor.  It does not cure illnesses or wounds.  It does not even protect from the occasional rainstorm and the pneumonia that can cause



The fact that elves like to frolic does 
not mean that they compulsive frolic under all circumstances, even when doing so threatens their very existence; otherwise there would be a mechanic requiring elves to make a DC15 will save every round to avoid frolicking that round instead of defending himself.







> Now, the OTHER races do *not* waste time.



Compare the elves` alignment descriptor with that of orcs and get back to me on that one.







> But elves waste their time.  It says so in the book.



I think you need to be a little more specific here. I see nothing in the books indicating that elves are compelled to neglect their basic survival and routinely starve because they are unable to stop frolicking. If the rules make it hard for any societies to do okay, it is Chaotic Evil societies. These societies are far more internally unstable, unproductive and lethal than elvish societies.







> Nothing like playing a game of RISK, and the Elven Player decides to take Australia and sit there.  He does not take his 3 Armies per turn, he does not pick up cards, and he does not make attacks



So, in the gaming materials you have read, have you ever heard about elves forgoing their attacks in a combat because they do not feel like it.







> But that is how elves supposedly work.  Or, in this case, *not* work, but dance, sing, frolick, and make merry.  *Humans* must slave away from sunrise to sundown just to survive, but elves need not do so.  Or so it says.



No. So YOU say; IT says nothing of the kind.







> So elves:
> 
> 1:  Do not procreate.



Where in the RAW does it say that?







> 2:  Live in forests under conditions that make any civilization beyond the Stone Age impossible.



Wrong again.







> 3:  Waste time in singing, dancing, and making merry.



So does everybody else.







> 4:  Humans and other races are on the aggressive against elves



Doesn't that depend on the world in question? In most settings I read, humans are more likely to be the allies of elves than their enemies.







> 5:  Monsters infest the lands and forests, making survival even more difficult



These monsters also threaten humans and every other race.







> 6:  Many of the other races are supercompetitive, superpowerful, and hate the elves like bad spinnach



Many other races are highly competitive, highly powerful and hate humans with a passion. And yet humans seem to do fine.







> The upshot of the above is that players invariably play elves as humans.



All players of demihuman characters use humans as their baseline. But I see no evidence that players of elves do so less authentically than players of dwarves.







> And elven civilization is depicted as being humanlike



Well, if the books depict elvish civilization as quite similar to human, on what basis are you asserting that it is not? If your ideas about elvish society don't come from these depictions, why should we view them as more reliable and rational than the depictions of elvish society in the published materials we read?







> But what if some of us don't like elves as humans?  What if we don't want that?



Then you can design homebrews and characters that emphasize the otherness of elves if that's what licks your stamps. Nobody is stopping you.







> What if we want elves as ELVES?  As a people who actually *do* procreate slowly, *do* live in forests, and *do* spend a lot of time in merriment?



Most settings deliver just those sorts of elves. I don't see you as needing to go out and reinvent the wheel if that's all you want out of your elves.







> The question is, how to approach that - in D&D terms, and these terms and rules make it possible and even easily done - and make it work.  How to have your elves as elves, in spite of all of the above, and still have them as winners.



"Elves as elves" doesn't really convey anything to me. You seem to have described a version of elves I'm not interested in: elves who live in crappy, hazardous forests they don't know very well, elves who have such a strong compulsion to frolic that they may starve to death as a result, elves who get their tubes tied at 90, etc. 

If you want to play a crazy extreme version of elves who hate procreating, have poor impulse control to the point of severe mental illness, never trade and live in the most inhospitable forests they can find, that's your deal. But to dress this up as some kind of logical consequence of the RAW is just not on.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 6, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> In the real world, back in medieval Europe, life was - to use a clique - hard and short.
> 
> . . .
> 
> Let's take this reality, and assume for a moment that the Fantasy World reflects it.



First, you mean *cliche*.

Second, let's not, and say we did. Haven't you noticed the whole thread on medieval "reality" in _D&D_ right next door?


----------



## fusangite (Jun 6, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> First, you mean *cliche*.
> 
> Second, let's not, and say we didn't. Haven't you noticed the whole thread on medieval "reality" in _D&D_ right next door?



FIFY.


----------



## shilsen (Jun 6, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> ...lots of very well-made points...
> 
> If you want to play a crazy extreme version of elves who hate procreating, have poor impulse control to the point of severe mental illness, never trade and live in the most inhospitable forests they can find, that's your deal. But to dress this up as some kind of logical consequence of the RAW is just not on.




fusangite, you rock! 

I'd commented on precisely the same thing (albeit with less details and eloquence) in Edena's previous thread on the subject, which this one seems no different to. Edena has come up with his own, strangely pathetic version of elves and evidently assumes that both the RAW and elves in literature/myth somehow logically lead to that concept, which - as you point out - they don't. I'd considered replying here too, but figured I'd just be beating a dead horse and repeating something I (and a lot of other posters) have already pointed out. Nice to see a well-crafted refutation from you, however.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 6, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> fusangite, you rock!
> 
> I'd commented on precisely the same thing (albeit with less details and eloquence) in Edena's previous thread on the subject, which this one seems no difference to. Edena has come up with his own, strangely pathetic version of elves and evidently assumes that both the RAW and elves in literature/myth somehow logically lead to that concept, which - as you point out - they don't. I'd considered replying here too, but figured I'd just be beating a dead horse and repeating something I (and a lot of other posters) have already pointed out. Nice to see a well-crafted refutation from you, however.



 I'll just quote shilsen for truth--I was considering posting a in praise of fusangite's solid counter-arguments, but you beat me to it by minutes.  fusangite said what I wanted to say but didn't have time to cogitate and write up in detail like that.


----------



## Sejs (Jun 6, 2007)

I'm just going to come out and say it:

This, and its predecessor thread, seem to be a very strange departure for you Edena.  In the past you've been one of the biggest proponents of elves.  Downright elfopheliac.  Now this.

What gives?  Intellectual excercise?  Because the whole thing seems ... uncharacteristic.


----------



## Maldor (Jun 6, 2007)

elfs and almost any race really never need fear food shortages i mean for  500gp a 3rd level druid can make a fixed place magic item with goodberry that on a average day can feed up to 57,600 people each day forever and as for magic not being coomon count up the number of classes that don't have a SU or SP or spells and compare it to those that do


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Jun 6, 2007)

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.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 6, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> In the real world, back in medieval Europe, life was - to use a clique - hard and short.



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.


			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Elves, for some reason, like forests.  They do not clear these forests.  [...]  But you cannot grow crops in forests.  Wheat, corn, barley, oats, rye, will not grow under the trees.  Grass for grazing, will not grow under a canopy of branches.



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.)


----------



## Umbran (Jun 6, 2007)

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.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 6, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> fusangite, you rock!



Thanks. It's good to see you too. You should spend some time of CircvsMaximvs; that's mostly where I've taken my show these days.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 6, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> 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.



An ECL-0 race _can_ be dramatically more powerful than all the other races.  As others have pointed out, if elves are generally 8th-level bards, druids, etc. rather than 1st-level commoners, then elves are, one on one, much more powerful than humans.

There's a big difference between looking at how powerful a game-mechanical choice is -- what game-mechanical benefits you get for the game-mechanical cost -- versus looking at how things operate within the game world.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 6, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> An ECL-0 race _can_ be dramatically more powerful than all the other races.  As others have pointed out, if elves are generally 8th-level bards, druids, etc. rather than 1st-level commoners, then elves are, one on one, much more powerful than humans.




Thinking out loud here...

I'd call that a choice of demographics, which rests in the setting, and is not actually a mechanical difference between the races.  There's no _mechanical_ reason humans are all 1st level commoners.

Of course, there's no _mechanical_ reason for elves to be infertile, either.  That's also setting information that I don't believe is addressed in the core rules either.  So, if the problem is partially based in setting information, so can the solution, I suppose.


----------



## Slife (Jun 6, 2007)

Game mechanically, elves are the inferior race.  Not by too much, though.

Of course, game mechanically, kobolds are either the most superior or most inferior race.


----------



## BlackMoria (Jun 6, 2007)

> Elves are not winners, not successful, not able to adjust or cope, not able to survive. These realities are built into the race in 3rd edition (as it was in 2nd and 1st edition and OD&D)




"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.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 6, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> 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.




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.


----------



## Beckett (Jun 6, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> fusangite, you rock!
> 
> I'd commented on precisely the same thing (albeit with less details and eloquence) in Edena's previous thread on the subject, which this one seems no different to. Edena has come up with his own, strangely pathetic version of elves and evidently assumes that both the RAW and elves in literature/myth somehow logically lead to that concept, which - as you point out - they don't. I'd considered replying here too, but figured I'd just be beating a dead horse and repeating something I (and a lot of other posters) have already pointed out. Nice to see a well-crafted refutation from you, however.




Shilsen quoted the same passage I would have to cheer Fusangite on.  Very well done.

I think part of the problem is Edena is using a different subrace of elf than many of us are familiar with.  My games typically feature high and gray elves, sometimes dark and wood elves.  But to date, I've never had a straw elf.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 6, 2007)

I'm not going to get into a point by point discussion, but a few things I've thought of:

- There are no distinct rules for natural diseases in the core rules.  With the longevity of elves it is simple to believe that they have evolved an immunity to most natural disease.  Those that did not evolve to have these immunities were likely exposed to and died of such diseases during their twenty years in diapers, or before they were able to procreate and pass along their weak genes.

- Elven society is often portrayed as reclusive and with decent magical ability.  It is simple to believe that they managed to stay out of most of the conflicts of humans.  The superstitious nature of humans could be used to keep them away from their forest homes as "haunted woods."

- Elven trees used for their cities are usually portrayed as much, much larger than trees of the real world.  It is simple to believe that those trees are capable of producing large amounts of edible shoots, leaves, nuts etc. and perhaps some of the large surfaces could be used to farm significant quantities of edible mushrooms, lichens or other plant materials.  Animals would be abundant in an area like this.  With the smaller population expansion of the elves, due to their low birth rate, the natural animal population could be sustainable when hunted for meat.

- There have been some studies that seem to indicate that normal human lifespans can be extended through low caloric intake.  It could be construed that part of the reason elves live so long is that they have lower caloric needs, therefore they need less food to survive, so the large agricultural society required by humans is unnecessary.  For the purposes of rules, adventuring elves could be much more active than non-adventuring elves and so still need a normal day's worth of rations.

- Elven society "wastes" its time with lots of singing, dancing and making merry.  The result of that is a society that is more accepting of itself and more harmonious.  The greater cooperation of a society like this can result in greater efficiency, therefore more can live with less.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 6, 2007)

the Jester said:
			
		

> Originally posted by Edena_of_Neith
> Elves are not winners, not successful, not able to adjust or cope, not able to survive. These realities are built into the race in 3rd edition (as it was in 2nd and 1st edition and OD&D)...[/Edena]
> 
> I'd like some rules text, from ANY edition, to back this up.




I'm still waiting, Edena.

If you want elves to be hopeless and useless in your campaign, that's fine, but your threads on the subject seem to imply that they're hopeless and useless in _everyone's_ campaign. No so. If you're going to argue this, back it up with rules text. Otherwise, you're relying on a mish-mash of different sources and you're cherry picking things to back up your point.

Where in the RAW does it say that elves don't procreate? Where does it say that they frolic to the exclusion of taking care of business? Where does it say that living in a forest precludes getting ahead of the Stone Age?

I'm gettng bored here.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 6, 2007)

(long post)

  Ok, let me try it from this angle.  

  People, when the game designers created those high level spells, they created the possibility of completely altered worlds, completely altered civilizations, and completely altered reality.
  In their creativity (and I would argue the game designers throughout the 30 years of D&D's history have been very creative) they have implemented rules (in this case, spells) that offered a retroactive chance to redefine whole races, whole nations, redefine the entirety of how things are done.

  That is why I highlighted Lifeproof.  This 7th level spell is an excellent example of how a specific rule (a spell) could completely alter a civilization and how everything is done within it's boundaries.  Because that rule (that spell) so alters reality that the civilization alters in turn.
  Lifeproof is not the only, or the best, example of this.  There are many, many spells of high level, mid level, and even low level (such as the Regenerate spell from Polyhedron #28) that alter the fundamental reality of the game.
  Based on these game mechanics, these rules, you can produce realistic, believable cultures and civilizations that otherwise would be absurd (you have to suspend belief, as usual ... if Netheril can loft whole cities into the air, then so be it.  If the elves can all Lifeproof themselves, then so be it!)

  In this way, you *can* produce an elven culture where elves are laxidasical, frolicking, frivolous, merry, spend their time dancing and singing, and otherwise wasting time ... and still produce their famous elven chain and elven swords, still be the baddest warriors and wizards around, and be the scourge of the land if they so choose.
  You *can* have your cake and eat it too.  Magic makes it possible.  Magic makes anything possible.  So long as the rules (or some set of rules) are observed, it's even half palatable (well, ok, it's sometimes palatable, and it depends on how far you can stretch suspension of disbelief.)

  If elves are Agnakoks, NONE of those natural horrors I mentioned apply to them.  The forest is a playground, not a dreaded wilderness.
  If elves are magically inclined, they have clerics and wizards and overturn reality on a regular basis (they don't overturn it to the point of being Faerie Beings, but they overturn it to a radical degree.)
  I mean, any elven cleric worth her salt is going to take that original version of Divine Metamagic, and use it to create Persistent Spells of the most ghastly sort, on a regular basis.  Elves will (as any race would) use the rules to the absolute fullest, twist them to their absolute maximum advantage, so they can win (just as we do in real life, with the rules of physics and mechanics and mathematics and so on.)

  -

  The PROBLEM with this approach should be obvious:  what the elves can do, humans can do, and illithid can do, and phaerimm can do, and so on, and they will.  And some of these races are brighter than elves, some are driven more to compete, some have more profound understandings of magic, the illithid have psionics, and humans reproduce faster.
  So if the elves can twist reality, so can their foes.  And they will.  In 3rd Edition, even orcs can become wizards and clerics, and *they* will twist reality out of all recognition to achieve their ends (even if their working of magic causes the magic to backlash and burn up half the world ... imagine orcish High Mages (shudders))

  The logical answer to this problem is to make the elves more driven and brighter than their foes.  And to somehow use magic to compensate for their lack of progeny.  But how to do it, and keep elves as elves?

  -

  The game is level based, and high level characters and NPCs have the strongest power.
  Where does leveling come from?  Experience points.  Where do they come from?  Winning encounters, defeating foes, and killing things.  Especially killing things.
  In other words, War is the ticket to quickly gaining high level.  War could make everyone high level, if everyone could survive the process.
  Other ways to level are so difficult, so slow, that the warmongers have the clear advantage.  For example, Wish will grant experience points, but not many, and the Wishing caster pays a heavy price.  Non-combat activities will grant experience, but at about 1/10th the rate of active adventuring or warmongering.

  And it requires high level, if the elves are going to use magic to alter reality.  That Lifeproof spell is 7th level.  It takes a 13th level wizard to cast it, in 3rd Edition (14th in 2nd Edition.)

  But war ... War does not make for merriment and laughter.  Perhaps among the illithid and phaerimm and drow it does, but not for elves and humans and dwarves and halflings.
  War ... WAR ... destroys people.  It turns young people into very old people, very quickly (to paraphrase real life war veterans.)  Many famous or infamous films have been made on war, and all of them show the people involved in war are scarred by it.  They do not come out laughing and merry.  They come out grim and hard and glad to be alive.  (Apocalypse Now, All Quiet on the Western Front, Saving Private Ryan, Full Metal Jacket, and others come to mind here.)
  EVIL races might enjoy war, with their twisted minds and twisted emotions.  But a GOOD race, like elves (they *are* supposed to be chaotic good in general.)  Not at all.
  Elves are going to react like humans to war, only more so.  They are going to hate it, engage in it only because they must, fight for their buddies in combat, and come out of it scarred and prematurely old.  (And indeed, this is a common portrayal of elves in combat ... consider Laurana, before she died in the Destruction of Qualinesti.)

  Now, this relates directly to the above.  I said that elves needed to be more driven than their foes.  But these foes enjoy war (I would daresay orcs enjoy fighting and killing ...) and the elves do not.  How to make the elves more driven than their warmongering, warloving, crazy-nut opponents?
  Because experience points go to the warmongers, and so the orcs raise in level, and the (far more sane) war-shy elves do not.

  How?  How?  How?
  If the orcs love war more, then they gain levels faster, and they gain the magic first, and they alter reality first, and ... we have a bunch of dead elves.  The game mechanics say so.  In 3rd Edition, they say so ever so much more, because now orcs can be ANY class they want, or any combination of classes.  No level limits, no restrictions, no nothing!  It's carte blanche, and the orcs are waving their proclamations of freedom in glee!
  Get to the phaerimm, that race of supergenius, supermages (in 2nd Edition, they AVERAGED 40th level, guys - see the Ruins of Myth Drannor boxed set, 2nd Edition) the elves are up against an opponent that dwarfs the orcs in terms of it's magnitude.  Thus, Evereska was nearly obliterated, despite all that help it got from everyone else.  (Had those phaerimm been 2nd Edition phaerimm, and thus averaging 40th level, goodbye Evereska, goodbye Evermeet, goodbye the entire continent of Faerun ... unless the Sharn intervened.)

  How then?  How?
  For the elves, like any normal race, cannot psychologically withstand war after war after war.  They *cannot* do so.  Even Tolkien's elves ultimately could not do so.
  Imagine having to fight in World War III.  Then living through the Aftermath (the Aftermath being 100 years of continuous war, on a low level.)  Then living through World War IV.  And World War V.  And World War VI.  VII.  VIII.  IX.  World War X.  And you're still only halfway through your life.
  Or simply imagine an 80 hour work week, with retirement being 2000 years away.
  Tolkien's elves got tired of this (the wars with Morgoth and Sauron) and went away to paradise (Valinor.)  Could D&D elves fare better?
  Or would they first grow grim and hard, then as cold and hard as the drow, then as cold and hard and monstrous as the Menibonians, and finally go insane from too much personal pain, stress, and loss?

  Again:  how?  How?  
  Elves have the psychology of normal, healthy people.  They are not lunatic warmongers.  But their foes are, can stay that way indefinitely, and there are no end to the number of foes available.  And to the warmongers go the experience points, thus the levels, thus the power and magic and the ability to turn reality upside down.
  Indeed, the drow should have conquered and exterminated the elves long ago.  If Vhaerun or Hextor or some sane diety was leading them, they would have.

  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.  And so it is, in the novels and settings, that the elves ARE crushed, and reduced to a pitiful remnant, and even that only still around because of sympathetic humans or the intervention of other races.
  How to turn this around, and make it believable?
  I have the first answer:  magic.  What is the answer to the psychological problem?

  -

  The answer *I* chose was to make the elves insane themselves.
  This particular insanity caused them to view war as play, suffering as pleasure (or, at least, the same ol same ol), killing as joyous, and grim, gloomy surroundings as reasonable.
  Then I cranked up this insanity to manical levels, to a mad obsession, to a level surpassing even the Blood War level of eager aggression.  To a level that made the drow look tame in comparison.

  But how to keep the elves elves, in this scenario, and not Daleks?

  Well, the answer was to use magic again.  The elves foresaw that this was the only answer, but THEY wanted to remain themselves in spite of it.
  So they used magic to place constraints on themselves.  These constraints bound them as a communal people, gave them communal strength against the dangers of Dark Magic, prevented them from harming each other, and preserved the basic nature of who they were ... that is, it preserved the instincts towards Everything Elven, as we would call it.  The love of the forest, of music, of art and crafts, of building and creation, of architectural wonders.  The love of a mate, the love for children, respect for parents and family, respect for community.  The innate love of life ... so that warmongering was turned only against fellow warmongerers, and not against civilians or peaceful races, not against those who offered no threat.  The innate love of life so great, that baelnorns made sense.  The innate love of life so great, that those slain were glad to be Resurrected and returned to the fight.

  This compromise was achieved in a great magical ritual, and Haldendrea became Haldendreeva in honor of it.
  Did the compromise work?  Most would say no.  No, these are not elves.  These are lunatics.
  But they did survive, when no other elves could.  They retained enough of themselves to be recognizable as elves, in some sense of the word.

  In Realms terminology, they cast a kind of Mythal, only it was over themselves, and the Mythal regulated their behavior, while allowing them to become as aggressive as their worst foes.  And they acquired a mindset that protected them from the trauma, the horror, the ultimate destruction of oneself, that war causes ... indeed, the mindset protected them ever more, as they suffered and bled and died and were resurrected.  The Mythal Mindset kept them elves, when otherwise they could not be anything other than monsters.
  Thus they withstood the illithid, the stormriders, the sahuagin, the dark dwarves, and the fiends who came for them.
  They became like the phaerimm in the sense of being a race of supergenius archmages and high clerics and accomplished warriors.  They withstood Vecna.  They threw Vecna's forces back.  They assaulted and slaughtered Vecna's armies.  Ultimately, they were able to achieve a standoff against Vecna himself.  They could do this, because within the game mechanics they were warmongers, and the Mythal allowed their insanity while protecting their minds.

  -

  But was this the right answer?
  Or was it all wrong?  Is there a better way?

  The game mechanics dictate that the warmongers win the day.  Such is the nature of D&D, a game based on killing.
  Elves are normal people psychologically.  War will hurt them, as it hurts all normal people caught in it.  Enough war will destroy them ... and then they are naught but monsters themselves.  And elves, being good aligned, are especially vulnerable to this happening.
  Yet only the warmongers can *achieve* the power necessary to throw the magic needed to turn reality upside down.  That Lifeproof spell goes to the *warmongers* and not peaceful elves.  To the warmongers, go the world.  (As Conan would gladly point out.)

  The Haldendreevan elves took one compromise, as a solution to the problem.
  Is there another way?

  -

  - Is there another way? -

  -

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 6, 2007)

> Is there another way?




Yes.


----------



## Turjan (Jun 6, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> In the real world, back in medieval Europe, life was - to use a clique - hard and short.  The people faced trouble from both the natural world and the manmade world, and from their own needs.
> The natural world was not very nice to these people.  Bad weather ruined crops and brought famine.  Plagues swept through cities, towns, and fiefdoms alike.  A host of personal illnesses saw sky-high birth mortality for women, sky-high mortality among children under 5, and an unpleasant life for the survivors (if you count having all your teeth decay and fall out as unpleasant ... or convulsing in tetanus because you suffered a minor, dirty injury ... or repeatedly ravaged by influenza ... or working until you drop dead from it.)
> Manmade troubles included wars (nothing like the Hundred Years War to engender merriment), taxes (medieval taxes ...), conscription, forced labor, and a social feudal system from deepest nightmare.



I guess that's a certain misconception of medieval lives, at least as far as cities are concerned. Historians have studied contracts and prices from the 14th century, and they came to the conclusion that the percentage of income a journeyman had to spend on food was pretty much the same then as it is now. They had an equal amount of disposable income. They even got a visit at the public bath house paid once a week, which was as much entertainment as it was beneficial to hygiene. Investigations of skeletons from that time indicates that people were generally well nourished and comparatively healthy, except in times of plague. This point is also true for people from the countryside.

Yes, there were the occasional famines, plagues and wars. But those were the exception. The situation got much worse later, especially the early modern times.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 6, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> (long post)



Edena, I understand that half the point of posting is to think out loud, but I'm having trouble -- and I think a lot of people are having trouble -- trying to figure out your point.

On the one hand, you seem to be looking at the "problem" through the very, very narrow lens of the game mechanics.  Then, on the other hand, you seem to be introducing one or two hand-picked ideas from outside the game mechanics, which imply that elves cannot thrive or even survive.


			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> So if the elves can twist reality, so can their foes.  And they will.  In 3rd Edition, even orcs can become wizards and clerics, and *they* will twist reality out of all recognition to achieve their ends (even if their working of magic causes the magic to backlash and burn up half the world ... imagine orcish High Mages (shudders))



I think it's a mistake to look at each race as composed of thousands of PCs of that race, with players behind them, going over the rulebooks, figuring out the optimal strategy for that society of PCs to follow.

The folk of those societies don't think, "Hey, we can all be wizards and clerics if we choose to!"  They grow up to farm, or herd, or fight -- whatever role they fit into in that society.  After all, why don't undeveloped countries in the real world simply _develop_?  Why don't they just do what will _obviously_ work?  Because it's not that simple, and no one person with the rule book for Earth 3.5 gets to make all the optimal choices.


			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> The game is level based, and high level characters and NPCs have the strongest power.
> 
> Where does leveling come from?  Experience points.  Where do they come from?  Winning encounters, defeating foes, and killing things.  Especially killing things.
> 
> ...



I think you're taking an amazingly narrow view of how the game world works by assuming the rules for playing the game as a party of PCs should describe how entire societies of non-PCs would operate.

Presumably actually researching new spells and discussing those experiments with other learned colleagues would be a better way to gain experience in magic -- but it would make for an awful game.

At any rate, skill at war is best learned in combat, except for one little problem -- people die in combat.  That's why people practice martial arts -- and that's exactly what I'd expect ageless elves to do.  They may learn to fight at one-tenth the rate of the orc hordes, but they can do it with no casualties.  Centuries later, the whole elf legion is still alive, unmaimed, and very, very good with sword and bow.


			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> War ... WAR ... destroys people.  It turns young people into very old people, very quickly (to paraphrase real life war veterans.)



Modern, industrial war seems to psychologically scar modern, industrial people.  It's not clear that it scarred Mongol pastoralists, for instance.  At any rate, post-traumatic stress disorder is well outside the rules, which you seem to be very narrowly basing your argument on, even if it fits many people's notion of elves.


----------



## Slife (Jun 6, 2007)

OK, so you say that if we use the Rules As Written as the sole basis for our discussion, elves will lose.  

That is true.  Anyone other than Pun-Pun will lose by RAW.  Infinite planes makes his ascension inevitable, and once ascended there's nothing anyone else can do to stop him.  Kobolds win, shoe's over.

'sides, XP isn't only awarded for kiling things.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 6, 2007)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Investigations of skeletons from that time indicates that people were generally well nourished and comparatively healthy, except in times of plague. This point is also true for people from the countryside.
> 
> Yes, there were the occasional famines, plagues and wars. But those were the exception. The situation got much worse later, especially the early modern times.



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.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 6, 2007)

Where does it say that warmongers rule the day?  How does an NPC become a 7th level Expert in something?  Did they kill a lot of things?  No, they lived their lives, did their job better than average, overcame challenges for their occupation and gained experience.  Did the King, who might be an 9th level Aristocrat get there by killing things?  Probably not.  But if power goes to the warmongers, as you claim, then why isn't every ruler a high level PC class?  

You seem to have a particular need to make the game mechanics rule every aspect of the world.  They aren't meant to.  The game mechanics are there to give a method for players to advance their PCs in the game, not be a model for all aspects of the game civilization.

Obviously you are free to do whatever you wish with your game and world, but to make sweeping statements like elves should be extinct because of the game rules is downright silly to me.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 6, 2007)

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 (Jun 6, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 6, 2007)

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 (Jun 6, 2007)

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.
> 
> 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 (Jun 6, 2007)

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 (Jun 6, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 6, 2007)

monboesen said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 6, 2007)

Soel said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 6, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> 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. 



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 6, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> 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.


			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Halivar (Jun 6, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> 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.



Agreed. I'm a big fan of the Tolkien version of elves, who are almost über-human. You just can't get that with an ECL 0 race. To that end, a year ago I wrote up (but never used) a 4HD 6-level racial class progression for elves (attached). It probably isn't balanced, but it's more of a proof of concept: now that WotC has really hammered out how LA's and racial progressions work, there's no reason why our favorite player races can't receive "upgrades."


----------



## Sejs (Jun 6, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> War ... WAR ...




never changes...


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 6, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> 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 at each other - evil creatures are just as likely to attack each other.  Various published modules probably describe the various factions of the drow in enough detail so that it's not hard to see why the surface elves are safe from any sort of attack.  Also you've got Mind Flayers living next door to them, and I imagine a drow brain is just as tasty as a regular elf brain, and drow brains are more conveniently available.  I think in many campaign worlds, the drow would have their hands full enough without picking a fight with the surface.

Basically, I think evil in DnD is lacking the kind of solidarity that you envision.  That's good's major advantage - having DMed some evil PC parties, I can say I've witnessed the inherent draw-back of evil first-hand.  You seem to be imagining something like: "Hey, it's another evil guy!  Hey evil guy, I'm evil too!  That makes us natural allies.  Let's go attack some good people."



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> 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.




It seemed to me that in your analysis you assumed that elves and humans were identical in every way not explicitly stated in the PHB.  



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> But yes, my interpretation makes elves especially vulnerable as Good Guys, to a world full of Bad Guys.  It does.




On top of "good" having it's own inherent advantages, elves aren't required to be good anyway.  There could exist neutral, and even evil elves within the group (like an assassin) - were a human kingdom to start persecuting elves in general, they'd have to tangle with these less-good sub-groups as well.



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> 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.




"And then some" what?  I would think being outlanders would be sufficient - anything else implies, AFAICT some sort of xenophobia that you believe to be the basic nature of all sentient beings.  I don't see any reason why groups of elves wouldn't find those of other realms to be exciting curiosities.  In fact the basic demographics of the distribution of the races seems to indicate that pockets of demi-humans of the various types live in most human communities.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 6, 2007)

Again, answering posts as I read them.  Discussion continued:



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> So how do you explain all the elves winning and surviving things all over the place in D&D settings and adventures?




  In the Greyhawk setting, humans dominate in Keoland, Furyondy, Nyrond, Aerdi, the Scarlet Brotherhood holdings, Perrenland, and all the Baklunish nations.  
  In the Dragonlance setting, humans dominate in Ergoth, Solamnia, and dominated in Istar, the New Coast region, and Abanasinia.  In Taladas, they hold the western part of that continent, where all the land fit to live on is.
  In the Forgotten Realms setting, humans dominate in Luskan, Waterdeep, Baldur''s Gate, Candlekeep, Amn, Tethyr, and Calimshan, and that's just the west coast.  A similar situation holds throughout the continent.
  In the AL-QADIM, a multitude of races proliferate, but humans clearly have the upper hand there.
  In the Birthright setting, humans have driven elves and other races from the lands, and established supremacy.
  In the Dark Sun setting, humans have exterminated most of the other races, and the strongest wizards in that world are humans.

  I do not see, in any of these places, elves winning.  I see a lot of historical information concerning elves losing, but not much about elves winning.
  As for survival, yes I see the elves surviving.  And not much more.  In some cases, not even surviving.
  They are relegated to small places like the Uleks or Celene, to distant forests like Qualinesti or Silvanesti, to hideouts like Evereska and Evermeet, or wandering in savagery on Athas.

Imagine that ELVES held all those places I mentioned above, that humans hold.  That would be a very different set of settings, no, and then we could say that elves really were strong and powerful and kicked everyone around.




> You mean cliche. And I would say that it was harder and shorter than it is in the industrialized world today. I'm not sure it was any harder or shorter than life in rural Ethiopia today.




  It probably isn't.  Life is harsh in the modern world too, not just in the medieval world.
  But that just solidifies my point.  Be it a modern fantasy setting or a medieval fantasy setting, life is hard for the PCs and NPCs, and perhaps elves get the short stick in all of them.  (Life is no picnic for the elves of Shadowrun, for example.)



> More to the point, as is the case today, the difficulty and shortness of one's life varied widely based on various factors such as local ecology, social rank and privilege and a myriad of other things.




  Life was hard for everyone in the medieval age.  Even for royalty.  It's just a matter of harsher versus harshest.
  The fantasy setting might or might not reflect that.  Depends on the setting.



> Still closer to the point, I am not sure whether D&D worlds are sufficiently similar to medieval Europe to make any useful analogies here. For instance, the DMG is quite clear that human life expectancy is much closer in D&D worlds to our own than it is to medieval Europe.Depends where and when but I will agree that not only in medieval times but in most places and times outside of the contemporary industrialized world, this was the case.Actually no. During periods of war, famine and poor weather, the proportion of the population engaged in farming declined; raiding, war and pastoralism tended to remove people from the land and place them in armies, bandit companies and migrant groups driving herds before them.This is a sweeping generalization that just does not hold up. Why don't you read the accounts of medieval people when they write about the times in which they lived?




  I think the medieval world and some of the settings are close enough to make the analogy.  Just personal opinion, of course.
  I have read the accounts of medieval people.  And the accounts are ghastly.  Life stank back then.  (It isn't any picnic for most people in the modern world, either.)  I read about the Hundred Years War ... you are quite right that few people remained in farming.  In the end, over vast areas, few people remained alive at all.



> What you have done is throw together everything bad that ever happened in a 1000 year period and describe it as the normal situation. People wrote about wars because they were exceptional. People wrote about plagues because they were exceptional. Most people who worked on the land were not slaves. Most people led lives where they had a chance to make a home for themselves, fall in love and have kids. Most people had time to dance and sing and drink.




  Yes, they had time.  A little time.  And people made merry when they could.  Especially during wartime or plaguetime, people went out of their way to make merry *while* they still could.  And that is the case today.
  Elves would be no different, in that respect.  They would make merry when they could.
  But elves would wear out, if they had anything resembling human psychological endurance.  War after war after war would wear them down.  They say elves have long memories:  imagine keeping wartime memories close, after enduring countless wars.
  Or, just think of owning a dog, and loving that dog, but the dog dies after 10 years.  The elf survives that pain, and gets a new dog.  One hundred dogs later, with one hundred deaths fresh in his mind, how well is that elf going to feel?  How does he cope with the pain of so many losses?
  One answer could be to give elves the Supernatural power of mental fortitude, in that they just somehow remain merry and nonchalant and frivolous, in spite of it all.  That is the case with Dragonlance kender, in that they retain their childish ways regardless of harm (although some have beem Afflicted.)
  That's one possible answer.  It would make sense.  How else could elves remain teenagers for 80 years?  Long before that 80 years was up, they'd have had so many accidents and troubles they'd be old men ...



> But I'm not sure where this reasoning can take us productively because I see no evidence that mortality and subsistence patterns in D&D worlds are like this. Indeed, the disease and aging mechanics, most thoroughly spelled out in the AD&D PHB, seem to indicate that human beings in D&D live in far greater material abundance than your average farmer in Tigray province in Ethiopia today.




  Probably.  But that does not mean life isn't hard for your average Flanae or Faerunian peasant.  Again, there is bad, and then there is *bad* (as in, Vecna is the ruler of the Suloise Imperium.)



> Whereas the 3.5 DMG does indeed predict that commoners make up the lion's share of the population, it does seem that they are a healthier lot than medieval European peasants (or Roman rural folk, Egyptian fellahin, etc.). And the amount of war and plague in a kingdom is largely contingent on GM-controlled matters of world design not on some resemblance to our world's past.Why would I want to do that? If I did that, there would be no elves, dwarves, halflings, orcs, goblins, dragons or any of the other stuff I play D&D to see. And given that this is a discussion of elves, this seems especially pointless.No. It's not. For one thing, look at how different reality is for D&D women than real women; they have equal physical strength and size to men and are more socially mobile and free than even the most emancipated women in contemporary culture. And that's just one example.One cannot reasonably contend that because wars happen in fantasy worlds, they happen the same way as they did in our world. Of course, if they did, that would be good news to your average peasant because it would mean he would be very unlikely to have to fight and would have a good chance of surviving if he kept his head down, a marked contrast from the mortality of a modern war like WWI.




  Good points.  The fantasy settings are not like reality.  And that's GOOD.  
  So elves do not have to be bound by real world dictates.  They can transcend them.  And there is a whole ruleset on how they can do that, which helps out immensely.
  Hopefully, elves can transcend the real world in ways that are creative, interesting, and believable enough people want to play them and interact with them.  
  I just want to figure out how they can survive all these Bad Guys stomping on them, which is typical of a setting.  As I said, conceptual and philosophical discussion here.  Or:  How to Build a Better Elf.
  The same discussion could occur for any race in the game, if someone wanted to initiate those discussions.



> Furthermore, it is also pretty clear from the coverage of these wars that disease vectors work differently in D&D worlds. The armies don't seem to be giant migrating contagions the way they were in the late medieval period.No. They don't. For one thing, it appears that elves are not agrarian societies; they appear to be societies closer to high-density hunter-gatherer societies like the Indians of pre-16th century California -- they live in highly bountiful wild environments that permit them to live at high densities without modifying the environment significantly.




  That is a neat idea for elves, your reference to the California Indians.  I think so, at least.
  Disease?  Well, disease may not even exist as we think of it, in D&D.  Perhaps it is actually demonic possession.  Or a curse thrown by a deity or high level NPC (someone insulted Larloch publicly in that inn, and now half the city has fallen ill ...)
  But if there is disease, it is a problem, no, regardless of what it is?  If the elves have no resistance, with their low rate of reproduction, it hits them harder.



> Furthermore, elvish cultures, in almost all campaign settings, are almost always described as more internally peaceful than human societies. In addition, elves are more productive per capita in that (a) they live longer (b) they have more productive hours in their days (c) they are reproductively fertile for much longer than humans.




  Yes, yes, and yes.
  Now, if only they would actually capitalize on those strengths, they would get somewhere!
  But tell that to Queen Yolande of Celene, who feuds with the Knights of Luna and does nothing against Turrosh Mak.  Tell it to the feuding politicians of Qualinesti, or to the elves of the Kinslayer Wars of Ansalon.  Tell it to the Elves of Arvandaar, who obliterated the elven nation of Miritar and left a giant wasteland where it was.  Or to the elves of Myth Drannor, who gave in to hatred and so alienated the Srinshee she refused to save them.
  Their reproductive capcity COULD enable a single couple to have a thousand children.  Could.  But I am told the average is only two.  Elves seem to favor ... not having a lot of children ... go figure.
  Elves do have longer days.  They could theoretically put in 18 hour days and still get enough reverie to satisfy them (heck, Legolas could run in his sleep, and that would be an Extraordinary Power if anything was.)  Now, if they would actually BE PRODUCTIVE during those hours, like the dwarves are, they'd get somewhere in the fantasy world!

  Considering things, elven civil wars are the height of absurdity.  They have enough trouble without killing each other.  Imagine that RISK game again.  The Elven Player holds Australia.  As usual, he does not take his 3 Armies each turn or draw cards.  But he decides to have his armies attack each other!  (while the Orc Player holding North America snickers and snickers and snickers ...)



> Special immunities are not the main thing that protects you from natural threats; knowledge of the natural world is your best protection. And it is clear that elves are more knowledgeable about the natural world than human beings are.But human beings today are no different physically than we were in the Middle Ages. What makes us less subject to natural and human threats is contingent on our technology, knowledge and forms of social organization. It is clear that D&D elves are, just as we are, technologically, educationally, socially and politically different both than D&D humans and medieval European peasants.




  Knowledge is power.  You are quite correct.  My opinion.
  In D&D, elves are very much depicted as seekers of knowledge, magical and mundane.  I would create an elven society true to that concept.




> But this is true of nearly all D&D creatures.Nope. The average number of kids people had in the Middle Ages varied dramatically from place to place and time to time. Generally, people tended to limit their family sizes in periods of extreme scarcity and increase family sizes in good times.But this isn't the case; there was not a continuous massive exponential increase in Europe's population between 500 and 1500.Says who? Where do the RAW suggest this?




  Nowhere.  Starvation, plague, and war have historically limited human population.
  The elves reproduce so slowly, if you take 2 children per thousand years at face value, that it is irrelevant.  A single war, plague, or famine could spell an end to all of them ... it is up to them to learn and understand how to avoid that happening.
  I would comment that people seen to have seen their own children as commodities, back during the medieval age (as work units on the farm.)  I hope the elves are not so low as to look upon their own children so ... and it would appear they are not.

[/QUOTE] How does the fact that elvish reproductive lives are typically 20x longer than the average human's affect things? How could this not matter? While female humans can make babies between 15 and 45, elvish women can make babies between 100 and 700.But the population of Europe did not increase from 10 million to 40 quadrillion between 500 and 1500 so perhaps your math may be off.Do you see anything about that in the RAW? I'm not aware of this.If extreme longevity, verging on immortality is a factor in your model, then surely the elves would have the demographic edge because while less than 1% of humans might be able to achieve this magically, every single elf is born with this.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. But let be throw in the slash and burn agriculture of the Mayans while I'm at it. Indeed. But this assumes that mixed agro-pastoralism is the only way to sustain high populations. Fortunately, the historical record shows that this is not the case. [/QUOTE]

  Simple.  The plague kills one third of the population, human and elven.  (Ala the Black Death in Europe.)  Guess which race recovers more quickly, given those birth rates.
  Same with famine.  Or war.  And what fantasy setting isn't plagued with wars?
  The elves must find some way to cope with the problems raised by their low reproductive rate.



> Even medieval Europeans raised their pigs almost exclusively in forests until the 12th century. In fact, forest area was often measured based on how many pigs it could sustain.Or you build your house differently than we do. Check out the Lothlorien scenes in LOTR.I don't buy this at all. Huh? The forges of the medieval world were fired by charcoal made in forests and then transported some distance to the forge. How do you think forges were fueled?There are plenty of kinds of forests. I don't see why a game world's forests would be superabundant in these two particular species.The movement and natural hazard rules in the RAW seem to disagree with you here. As does my experience when I go hiking.When I go hiking I come across all kinds of water.But not all forests in LOTR are like Southern Mirkwood. Indeed, this is an exceptionally inhospitable forest because of Sauron's presence. What is true about Mirkwood is no more universal than what is true about Fangorn, the Old Forest or Lothlorien.




  True enough.  But consider dwarves for a minute.  Consider the dwarven nation in Lonely Mountain.  There, vast amounts of space is given over to forges and forging.  Wood (and/or coal) is brought in, as needed:  the dwarves have no qualms about felling trees (Dimril Dale is barren because the dwarves felled all the trees there to make funeral pyres, and no trees ever grew back, according to the history section in ROTK.)
  Elves just don't do that.  They cherish trees.  They value forests.  This is great, but it interferes in any efforts at medieval industrialization (ala the dwarves.)  Caras Galadon produced great bows, waybread, and elven cloaks, but did it produce much in the way of swords and armor?
  I'm not saying elves don't industrialize.  But they don't gleefully embrace it, the way dwarves have done.  (The Noldor embraced industralization, alone among the elves to do so.)



> However, we do know that the elves of Northern Mirkwood and Lothlorien live comfortable, abundant lives sharply at variance with how you describe forest life.Then how do you explain forest- and jungle-dwelling peoples having such poor immunity to colonizers' diseases in the past 500 years? It is cities that have traditionally been the places where disease is most common. The idea that your average medieval city was less disease-ridden than your average medieval forest is nothing short of preposterous.Right.... ticks, fleas, mosquitos, spiders, rats, vermin... they never show up in cities.Right... the Iroquois, Haida, Mayans... they clearly aren`t civilizationsBut elves do work with metal everywhere except Elfquest strips. Now this might be because they make use of the abundant charcoal materials that surround them and fire forges on a large scale. Or it might be because they trade with metal-producing societies. This is how many societies get their metal stuff. Even today, most metal goods are obtained through trade not local production. Just look at how few countries make aluminum!Well, this is the first time you have really made a strong case that elves are like medieval peasants. Fortunately the elves have an extra 6 waking hours every day in which to do this, and an extra 900 years of life, for good measure.But gathering wild mushrooms and acorns for a couple of hours does.Well, not unless it is the somatic component of the cleric or druid spell.The fact that elves like to frolic does
> not mean that they compulsive frolic under all circumstances, even when doing so threatens their very existence; otherwise there would be a mechanic requiring elves to make a DC15 will save every round to avoid frolicking that round instead of defending himself.Compare the elves` alignment descriptor with that of orcs and get back to me on that one.I think you need to be a little more specific here. I see nothing in the books indicating that elves are compelled to neglect their basic survival and routinely starve because they are unable to stop frolicking. If the rules make it hard for any societies to do okay, it is Chaotic Evil societies. These societies are far more internally unstable, unproductive and lethal than elvish societies.So, in the gaming materials you have read, have you ever heard about elves forgoing their attacks in a combat because they do not feel like it.No. So YOU say; IT says nothing of the kind.Where in the RAW does it say that?Wrong again.So does everybody else.Doesn't that depend on the world in question? In most settings I read, humans are more likely to be the allies of elves than their enemies.These monsters also threaten humans and every other race.Many other races are highly competitive, highly powerful and hate humans with a passion. And yet humans seem to do fine.All players of demihuman characters use humans as their baseline. But I see no evidence that players of elves do so less authentically than players of dwarves.Well, if the books depict elvish civilization as quite similar to human, on what basis are you asserting that it is not? If your ideas about elvish society don't come from these depictions, why should we view them as more reliable and rational than the depictions of elvish society in the published materials we read?Then you can design homebrews and characters that emphasize the otherness of elves if that's what licks your stamps. Nobody is stopping you.Most settings deliver just those sorts of elves. I don't see you as needing to go out and reinvent the wheel if that's all you want out of your elves."Elves as elves" doesn't really convey anything to me. You seem to have described a version of elves I'm not interested in: elves who live in crappy, hazardous forests they don't know very well, elves who have such a strong compulsion to frolic that they may starve to death as a result, elves who get their tubes tied at 90, etc.




  Ok, a harsh post deserves a harsh reply.
  We suspend belief when we read books ... or settings.  If we did not, how could we enjoy them?
  But how far we can suspend belief is based on who we are, personally.  And that varies as much as there are many of us.
  I have always suspended belief on elves.  I still do:  I simply suspend belief less than I did, and look for logical answers to some impossibilities.

  Well, it is impossible for a large population - by large, I mean tens of thousands or more - to live in a small area of forest.
  It has never been successfully done historically, by any civilization or group.  It never will be done.  It cannot ever be done.
  Large populations require grain farming.  Grain farming is what produced large populations in the first place, starting with Egypt, Sumeria, and China.  Grain (and rice) farming requires room.  And it requires removal of the forests so grain crops can be raised.
  Thus, Caras Galadon is a theoretical impossibility.  So was early Rivendell, when it was full of refugees from Eregion.  And so is Thranduil's civilization in Northern Mirkwood, barring huge food imports from Laketown, Dorwinion, and elsewhere.

  This impossibility is irrelevant in that we read Tolkien for a good story, not to discuss the impossibility of elven lifestyles.
  It is in *this* thread that we discuss that impossibility, and how it could be rectified ... D&D style, using the rules of the D&D game.

  And yes, forests have diseases.  And pests.  And monsters.  Not to mention weather and climate.  Or why do you think humans build homes and stockades and cities for protection, well away from forests, in setting after setting?

  And yes, if the elves are going to play dwarf, and start with metallurgy, then the air will be fouled, waste will be produced, trees must be felled for fuel, and a lot of very unelven-like situations arise.
  One sword is one thing, but how about ten thousand swords?  This will require a lot of trees.  One suit of armor is one thing.  But a thousand?  More trees gone.  Metal tools?  More trees.  Other forging?  More trees.  You can't get something from nothing ... without magic, at least.




> If you want to play a crazy extreme version of elves who hate procreating, have poor impulse control to the point of severe mental illness, never trade and live in the most inhospitable forests they can find, that's your deal. But to dress this up as some kind of logical consequence of the RAW is just not on.




  Heh.  Read the setting elves again.  You are missing a lot of particulars concerning them.  Then return and repeat yourself.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 6, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> First, you mean *cliche*.
> 
> Second, let's not, and say we did. Haven't you noticed the whole thread on medieval "reality" in _D&D_ right next door?




  Reality is not what I'm looking for here.  LOL.  Elves are an alien race!
  What I'm looking for is a way, within the rulessets of D&D, to create an elven civilization that can actually endure, and perhaps even triumph, in the setting it exists within.

  To do that, I have to resort to the most profound unreality (if the Lifeproof spell isn't profound unreality, what is?)


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 6, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> fusangite, you rock!
> 
> I'd commented on precisely the same thing (albeit with less details and eloquence) in Edena's previous thread on the subject, which this one seems no different to. Edena has come up with his own, strangely pathetic version of elves and evidently assumes that both the RAW and elves in literature/myth somehow logically lead to that concept, which - as you point out - they don't. I'd considered replying here too, but figured I'd just be beating a dead horse and repeating something I (and a lot of other posters) have already pointed out. Nice to see a well-crafted refutation from you, however.




  No.  I have done no such thing.
  The 1st edition game specified that elves were weak (pathetic, in your words.)  Not me.  In 1st edition, elves were limited to 11th level as wizards, 9th level as fighters, and they could be thieves or assassins.  NPCs could be clerics up to 7th level.  Elves could not be druids, rangers, paladins, illusionists, or monks.
  The 1st edition game specifically stated humans were the dominant race.  All other races and their doings revolved around the sun of humanity.  RAW.
  The 1st edition game specified that humans ruled in most lands, and elves held only small regions, barely hanging on to survival.

  When 2nd edition came out, the lot of elves improved a bit.  But humans still held the edge in the rules, and in the settings.

  Only with 3rd edition have elves gained the abilities of humans, something that in earlier editions was stated they NEVER should have.

  If you want to blame someone for the weakness and pathetic (to use your words) nature of elves, blame someone else.

  As for flighty and frivolous, it's in the 1st Edition Player's Handbook.  RAW.  Dancing and singing?  RAW.  Chaotic good?  RAW.


----------



## monboesen (Jun 6, 2007)

> I'm looking for is a way, within the rulessets of D&D





And most of us are consistently replying that this is your problem, not your solution.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 6, 2007)

Sejs said:
			
		

> I'm just going to come out and say it:
> 
> This, and its predecessor thread, seem to be a very strange departure for you Edena.  In the past you've been one of the biggest proponents of elves.  Downright elfopheliac.  Now this.
> 
> What gives?  Intellectual excercise?  Because the whole thing seems ... uncharacteristic.




  Call it an intellectual exercise.  I am hoping for feedback on a creative answer for the elven situation.

  The answer, would be relevant to dwarves, gnomes, and halflings.  It would affect humanity, since humanity interacts with these races.  It would impact orcs and other nasties, since they are opponents of the elves.
  In short, it would redefine the campaign world.

  I seek a satisfying answer to the place of elves in the campaign settings, a redefinition of the campaign settings.  Something irks.  Something is out of place.  Too many rules exist, offering too many opportunities, and these are not seized upon.
  It is time the elves seized on some of these new options.  If the settings are based on the rules, and now the rules are expanded, then let's see how the settings could be changed by that expansion.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 6, 2007)

Maldor said:
			
		

> elfs and almost any race really never need fear food shortages i mean for  500gp a 3rd level druid can make a fixed place magic item with goodberry that on a average day can feed up to 57,600 people each day forever and as for magic not being coomon count up the number of classes that don't have a SU or SP or spells and compare it to those that do




  Yes!  I like it!
  Magic makes a difference.  Magic makes the impossible possible ... within the rules!
  So, the elves do not need farms or farming.  You have discovered how to give them all the food they could ever need, from just one druid.
  Cheers to you, Maldor.

  Now, if all elves thought up such answers, they just might rule supreme in the settings.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 6, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I seek a satisfying answer to the place of elves in the campaign settings, a redefinition of the campaign settings.  Something irks.  Something is out of place.  Too many rules exist, offering too many opportunities, and these are not seized upon.
> It is time the elves seized on some of these new options.  If the settings are based on the rules, and now the rules are expanded, then let's see how the settings could be changed by that expansion.



I think it has been stated several times:  The rules do not apply unilaterally to the entire campaign setting.  The rules apply to _Player Characters_ in that setting.  These are exceptional beings within the world, not the normal population.  The elves _do_ seize upon these new options every time a person makes a PC that is an elf, but it does not mean that every elf in the setting now has the option to become the equivalent of a PC.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 6, 2007)

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.  

  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.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 6, 2007)

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.
> ...




  Sounds interesting, this polyculture agriculture.  Neat idea.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 6, 2007)

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.
> 
> ...




  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!)


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 6, 2007)

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.
> ...




  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.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 6, 2007)

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.
> 
> ...





  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.


----------



## BlackMoria (Jun 6, 2007)

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.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 7, 2007)

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.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 7, 2007)

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?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 7, 2007)

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.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 7, 2007)

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.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 7, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



Edena, I would be happy to take you up on your challenge if you could do what you have been asked to do at least five times on this thread: tell us precisely which rules (complete with book and page numbers) you feel define elvish societies.

The only stuff I can find that is descriptive of elvish society in the core rules is PHB 15-16, 104-05 and MM 101-04. Is there anything I'm missing here before I get going?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 7, 2007)

Alright, I've read your rebuttals (and rebukes.)

  Tell me then:  how do *you* work things out?  

  From what sources do you derive your conceptualization of elves for the game?
  What kind of elven society, culture, and civilizations have you created?
  How do your elves cope with their antagonists in your campaign setting?
  What sort of future do your elves look forward to?
  What can PC elves in your campaign expect to deal with, directly related to their heritage as elves?

  Sincerely Yours
  Edena_of_Neith

  EDIT:   fusangite, I will do that.  Still, I'd like to hear of your conceptions and creations.


----------



## Derren (Jun 7, 2007)

I fully agree with the original text. As written elves would not survive in any D&D world except because of ther Lotr image of perfect beings which leads to that writers and many DMs simply say that the elves are somehow powerfull and survive despite being against any logic.

The biggest problem for elves are the low birth rate (which is coupled with the long life span) and their choice of terrain and nature loving society.
The first means that elves would be destroyed through attrition. By the time a orc tribe has breed warriors, trained and equipped armor to wage war on elves, the elves have not ever recovered from the previous war yet. So slowly the elves would be overrun by shorter living races.
The second means that elves lack many important ressources. Ore, gold, diamonds and many other exotic materials required for spellcasting (favored class wizard, remember?)
Having a lot of wizards is very expensive (money and material). That has to come from somewhere.

And as the OP said, elves have no special abilities to compensate. They are not exceptional wizards or super forest fighters. 
How to remedy that? The easiest fix is to lower the elven lifespan, or at least their breeding age to something more reasonable. But as it is now, elves are probably the slowest breeding race in D&D. They even breed slower than dragons.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 7, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Edena, I would be happy to take you up on your challenge if you could do what you have been asked to do at least five times on this thread: tell us precisely which rules (complete with book and page numbers) you feel define elvish societies.
> 
> The only stuff I can find that is descriptive of elvish society in the core rules is PHB 15-16, 104-05 and MM 101-04. Is there anything I'm missing here before I get going?




  Ok.
  Where in the game rules are elvish societies defined?  Where in the game rules does it state or imply elves are doomed?
  You've asked many times.  Here are some excerpts from the core books.

  -

  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.'
  '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.'

  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

  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.'

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

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

  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.'

  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

  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.'

  -

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

  Consider the 2nd Edition Arcane Age setting.
  In Netheril, humans dominated.  They did not dominate elsewhere.  But it was NETHERIL that caused the downfall of Mystra and the loss of 10th, 11th, and 12th level spells for everyone, and which made the casting of High Magic deadly for elves.
  HUMANS wrought this harm upon everyone, elves included.

  In Myth Drannor, elves were dominant ... in Myth Drannor.  Then Myth Drannor was crushed by the Army of Darkness.

  After the time of the First Flowering, elves were dominant over Faerun for a long time.  This is an exception to the rule above.  Elves lorded it over everyone.
  Then the elves underwent the Crown Wars.  Most of the original elven civilizations collapsed, a great part of the entire elven population was slaughtered, and the survivors were scattered.

  -

  From the above I can conclude the following:

  - In all the official settings in the current time frame of the game, humans dominate and elves are the side show.

  - Historically, in Faerun, elves dominated after the First Flowering.  Then they destroyed themselves (a very human tendency and problem ...)  The survivors, weakened and scattered, were eventually overcome by assorted enemies.
  - Historically, on Oerth, elves may never have dominated.  The Suloise Imperium and Baklunish Empire were human dominated, and history does not record beyond their time.
  - On Krynn, elves never dominated.  Have never dominated since the Age of Starbirth.  But humans have dominated, they brought on the Cataclysm, and the elves suffered massively due to that event.
  - On Aebrinis, elves once dominated.  Humans slaughtered them and took their lands, and now humans dominate.
  - On Athas, halflings once dominated.  But never elves.  Then Rajak slaughtered most of both races, leaving the survivors as barbarians.
  - In Realmspace and in several other crystal spheres, the elves achieved a brief dominance after the First Inhuman War.  But the scro are back, and elves are just another race struggling for survival in Wildspace.
  - In Ravenloft, elves dominate nowhere.  They practically exist nowhere, since they are usually attacked on sight.

  - The designers of 1st edition felt this (human dominance) was the appropriate situation, and he was the designer of 1st edition.
  - The designers of 2nd edition also felt this (human dominance) was the appropriate situation.

  - The dominace of humankind is backed up by most of the fantasy novels based on the AD&D game.  And many of these books are Classics in their own right, in my opinion.

  * If the novels portray elves as inferior, if the settings portray elves as inferior, if the rules mandate that elves are inferior, and yet all of the above indicate a competitive world with competitive races, then I conclude that the elves are doomed. *

  * Only in 3rd Edition, do I concede that this may not be the truth of matters. Yet humans are portrayed as dominant in the 3rd edition settings of Kalamar and Eberron also.  So perhaps even in 3rd Edition elves are still doomed.  The burden of proof to the contrary has yet to be presented.  *


----------



## fusangite (Jun 7, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> The biggest problem for elves are the low birth rate



Two points: 
1. Where in the rules does it say that elves' birth rates are low? Page numbers please.
2. When high birth rate societies come into conflict with low birth rate societies in the real world, what tends to happen? Today, the most powerful nations on earth have amongst the lowest birth rates: Russia, China, the US, the UK, France, Japan and Germany whereas the poorest and least powerful nations have some of the highest birth rates.

Even if I accepted, which I don't, that the rules mandate elves having low birth rates, I see no evidence that high birth rates are a formula for military, economic and social success and low birth rates, a formula for disaster. If that were true, wouldn't everything in the world be different?







> The first means that elves would be destroyed through attrition. By the time a orc tribe has breed warriors, trained and equipped armor to wage war on elves, the elves have not ever recovered from the previous war yet. So slowly the elves would be overrun by shorter living races.



So, what happens in our world when societies with low birth rates to go war with societies with high birth rates? In our world, they tend to win. They also tend to have short-term post-war booms in birth rate. Now, I think there is a host of reasons that low-birth rate, long-lived societies tend to succeed in conflicts with high-birth rate, short-lived societies. But I'll just mention one here because I think it is especially relevant for D&D: education and experience are worth a whole lot. This basic fact about human societies is something that D&D hugely magnifies.







> The second means that elves lack many important ressources. Ore, gold, diamonds and many other exotic materials required for spellcasting (favored class wizard, remember?)



Again, my answer has two parts: 
1. Where do the rules say that elvish forests lack resources? 
2. Even if I accepted that elvish forests lacked resources, which I do not, let's examine the rates of diamond ownership in diamond-producing societies versus the rates of diamond ownership in wealthy trading nations that produce no diamonds. What you will find is that when it comes to rare, specialized commodities, (a) no society produces all of these or even most of them (b) end-users acquire them through trade not extraction.







> How to remedy that? The easiest fix is to lower the elven lifespan,



Huh? If they had shorter lifespans, wouldn't their reproductive rate go _even lower!?_ If it takes elves a 700-year reproductive life to produce the number of children they do, wouldn't they produce even fewer if you chopped the length of that reproductive life?







> or at least their breeding age to something more reasonable. But as it is now, elves are probably the slowest breeding race in D&D. They even breed slower than dragons.



So, is the plan here just to say something over and over again with no supporting evidence whatsoever or is somebody going to be produce a statement in the RAW about elvish birth rates?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 7, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> I fully agree with the original text. As written elves would not survive in any D&D world except because of ther Lotr image of perfect beings which leads to that writers and many DMs simply say that the elves are somehow powerfull and survive despite being against any logic.
> 
> The biggest problem for elves are the low birth rate (which is coupled with the long life span) and their choice of terrain and nature loving society.
> The first means that elves would be destroyed through attrition. By the time a orc tribe has breed warriors, trained and equipped armor to wage war on elves, the elves have not ever recovered from the previous war yet. So slowly the elves would be overrun by shorter living races.
> ...




  This is also a popular notion in the novels, in the settings, and implied in the rules.
  If what you say is true, Derren, it GREATLY strengthens my case.  (I stress the If, however.)

  A race that does not reproduce, when in war with a race that reproduces quickly, loses if it suffers casualties.  Elves are almost *always* portrayed as suffering casualties in their wars, in novels, settings, and as implied within the rules.  Thus, the elves lose.
  The exception is if there are mitigating circumstances within the rules or setting conceptions or conceptions within the novels (such as resurrection, undeath, retreat into the faerie realm, retreat to a safe place, etc.)  If elves will not take advantage of these mitigating circumstances, then elves lose.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 7, 2007)

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.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 7, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I appreciate that you go into a coma when you reach 0 Charisma in 3rd Edition.
> 
> Lifeproof, in 3rd Edition, would supersede this rule, allowing one to go to negative Charisma numbers and remain active.  There is no barrier at which this process is stopped:  Charisma might stop going lower at, say, -10 but the recipient of Lifeproof could keep right on going.
> In fact, even being vaporized will not stop a Lifeproofed being.  The vapors will coalesce into a ghostly being of magical force, capable of picking up and use items and weapons normally, as well as spellcasting, talking, and so on.
> ...




So you're changing the rules, so that now characters can go into negative ability scores, when the most basic of rules claim the you can't go below 0 in an ability score.

This whole argument, though interesting, feels like you're just grabbing whatever rules or references you can, from whichever edition you need, to support your argument, but then ignoring anything that disagrees with it, in order to make your point.

We still haven't seen a core reference to them not reproducing, or not being able to adapt, etc.

As to farming, an episode of Digging for the Truth that I saw several weeks ago discussed the pre-classic Mayans, and mentioned how they were able to figure out that getting muck from swamps provided them with highly fertile soil that allowed them to support much larger than normal populations in concentrated areas, without being required to clearcut everything for farming.  The show made the claim that they ended up ruining things for themselves because they eventually needed to clearcut land, to get fuel they needed to work with the limestone they plastered all over their pyramids.  But in the absence of making giant pyramids, they could have sustained massive populations without clearcutting.  All living in the jungle.

Who's to say the elves haven't figured out similar agricultural practices?  So they live in tree houses.  That means they're building vertically instead of horizontally....thus they need less land.  They could be having every tree/tree home supporting multiple vertically oriented gardens, on which they use both magic, and advanced agricultural practices to maximize the crop yield.

I remain unconvinced that they are completely maladapted, and unable to compete.  Most of the "fluff" regarding lower reproductive rates is really in additional supplements, as already stated...it's not actually in the core.  But it does make sense, given that a population of beings who lived 500+ years, and also reproduce as fast as humans can, would likely be very unbalanced with everything around them.  They'd run out of room very quickly.  Maybe that's why there's a tendency for fluff to describe them as reproducing slowly.  Imagine how quickly a population would grow if a female elf had a child every 2-3 years......for a 200-300 year span of her life?

In terms of core information, all we really know is that they're a little frailer than humans, a little more agile, they've got keener senses, a resistance to sleep and charm magic, are better at detecting hidden things, and can see in the dark as well as a cat, for a distance of 60' (which is a massive, massive advantage, in a pre-industrial world where thermal vision goggles and night vision goggles are unavailable).  And they live much longer.  On the other hand, they're not as skilled (fewer skill points), and they are less flexible with respect to what tricks they know (1 less feat).  I suspect that the rest is really just "noise".

I'm thinking that a smart elven army would *always* fight human forces at night....likely from a distance, with bows.  Looking purely at abilities, I think the night vision is their largest advantage.  Try actually walking into a forest at night, with just a flashlight (to simulate a torch.  Better yet, try bringing a lamp which doesn't have a directional beam of light).  You get illumination directly around you, but the foliage very quickly dampens it.  You're a sitting duck for a person sitting 20' away relying on their own eyes, because the light illuminates you good enough to make you a perfect target.  And if he has low-light vision, it makes it even worse.

Banshee


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 7, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Two points:
> 1. Where in the rules does it say that elves' birth rates are low? Page numbers please.
> 2. When high birth rate societies come into conflict with low birth rate societies in the real world, what tends to happen? Today, the most powerful nations on earth have amongst the lowest birth rates: Russia, China, the US, the UK, France, Japan and Germany whereas the poorest and least powerful nations have some of the highest birth rates.




  Let me answer that, within the context of the game and novels based on the game.
  One of the races (the gnomes?) within the setting could undergo the industrial revolution, gain immense insights into science, and build superweapons such as missiles, tanks, fighter aircraft, high explosives, assorted firearms, and even nuclear weapons.
  Do you believe it will be the elves who first develop such weapons?  Or is it more likely humans, dwarves, gnomes, or even kobolds are more likely to have these weapons first?  Within the conception of the various races, do you believe elves would be the first to industrialize and produce modern weapons?

  And even if the elves were the first to develop such weapons, would this grant them supremacy, or would it destroy them?
  What evidence we have indicates it would destroy them.
  Elves *had* a superweapon in historical Faerun:  High Magic.  And they used this superweapon on each other, to produce atrocities like the High Moor, the obliteration of cities, the devastation of entire regions, and the loss of vast forests.
  Has the elven attitude that produced this destruction changed, since that time?  Consider the treatment of Arilyn Moonflower.  Consider the murder of the niece of Coronal Eltargrim.  The evidence would suggest the attitude has not changed.

  I believe elves would be among the last to obtain such modern weapons.  And if they did anyways, they would destroy each other with them.  Assuming the other races did not destroy them first.
  Under no circumstances can I see the elves obtaining supremacy through the gain of modern weaponry.

  The Terran nations you cite, are supreme due to their weaponry.  Their birth rate is irrelevant to that supremacy, in my opinion.


----------



## Prince of Happiness (Jun 7, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> The Terran nations you cite, are supreme due to their weaponry.  Their birth rate is irrelevant to that supremacy, in my opinion.




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


----------



## fusangite (Jun 7, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> 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:
> 
> ...



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?'
> ...



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 (Jun 7, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> 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.
> ...




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 (Jun 7, 2007)

Prince of Happiness said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 7, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> 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.
> ...





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 (Jun 7, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 7, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> (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 (Jun 7, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> 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*)
> 
> ...




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 (Jun 7, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> 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.
> ...



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 (Jun 7, 2007)

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 (Jun 7, 2007)

Nevermind.


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Jun 7, 2007)

Hmm

What a remarkably strange thread.



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> 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*)
> 
> ...




I don’t understand.
First, dozens of people on this thread have given you their reasons why elves could/would flourish. You seem to have ignored them all, so far.
Second, many of your rules based arguments could apply equally to humans.
Anyway, in order to make it necessary for people to justify their positions surely you should first provide proof from the rules that elves would not flourish. I can’t find anywhere that you’ve successfully done this.
However, here's a simple answer.
They flourish because they are specialists in surviving in the regions they inhabit, like the steppe nomads, or the bedouin, or the Inuit or... (need I go on?)


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 7, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> I fully agree with the original text. As written elves would not survive in any D&D world except because of ther Lotr image of perfect beings which leads to that writers and many DMs simply say that the elves are somehow powerfull and survive despite being against any logic.




Most author's description of human societies is insufficient to prove that such societies would survive.  It's simpler to assume that the details are there.  The problem with the reasoning in the OP is that it appears not to even grasp the reason that real world societies exist, or the factors that make them successful, much less account for all additional factors that are possible within a fantasy world.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> The biggest problem for elves are the low birth rate (which is coupled with the long life span) and their choice of terrain and nature loving society.
> The first means that elves would be destroyed through attrition.




No, it actually doesn't mean that.  Humans have a lower birthrate compared to mice - so obviously that fact alone is insufficient.  I find the other facts that you assume in this argument to be insufficient or incorrect even for Earth, much less all possible fantasy worlds and an imaginary race like elves.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> By the time a orc tribe has breed warriors, trained and equipped armor to wage war on elves, the elves have not ever recovered from the previous war yet. So slowly the elves would be overrun by shorter living races.




Orcs could be so busy eating each other and fighting for status that they'd never have time to make swords, much less put together a raiding expedition into an alien environment.  You assume the most optimal political and social conditions for orcs, while doing the opposite for elves, and then somehow claim the results to be based on "logic"?



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> The second means that elves lack many important ressources. Ore, gold, diamonds and many other exotic materials required for spellcasting (favored class wizard, remember?)  Having a lot of wizards is very expensive (money and material). That has to come from somewhere.




Even on planet Earth, in places where you can find gold and diamonds elves would do ok.  Once you get to a fantasy environment, then the possible resources that elves have available to them are limitless.  



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> And as the OP said, elves have no special abilities to compensate. They are not exceptional wizards or super forest fighters.




This is completely baseless, there's no demographic information that has been established for elves AFAICT.  It's possible that all the elves in someone's campaign world are 10th level wizards.  Your assuming differences in human culture are due to some biological attributes?  What role does culture and society play in any particular group, like elves, being good at magic?  And could that role be far more important than a +2 intelligence bonus?


----------



## Derren (Jun 7, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Two points:
> 1. Where in the rules does it say that elves' birth rates are low? Page numbers please.
> 2. When high birth rate societies come into conflict with low birth rate societies in the real world, what tends to happen? Today, the most powerful nations on earth have amongst the lowest birth rates: Russia, China, the US, the UK, France, Japan and Germany whereas the poorest and least powerful nations have some of the highest birth rates.




1. Simple logical conclusion. Elves are humanoid and thus would follow the humanoid reproduction cycle which means single children, not to mention the time needed to raise children. That does limit the number of children they can have and the slow growth till maturity does the rest.
2. In the real world those nations tend to have a very big technological advantage, an advantage the elves do not have in D&D. Elven swords are in no way better than orc swords (or not so much better as to give them a big advantage).







> 1. Where do the rules say that elvish forests lack resources?
> 2. Even if I accepted that elvish forests lacked resources, which I do not, let's examine the rates of diamond ownership in diamond-producing societies versus the rates of diamond ownership in wealthy trading nations that produce no diamonds. What you will find is that when it comes to rare, specialized commodities, (a) no society produces all of these or even most of them (b) end-users acquire them through trade not extraction.




1. Does it say somewhere that in D&D there are trees which grow coal and iron? No? Then answer me how a D&D forest should contain more ressources than real world forests. Especially as elves do apparently not harm the enviroment its impossible for them to gather ore and many other ressources in a forest.
2. And what would the elves trade for the diamonds, not to mention all the other ressources they need? Meat, hides and wood? That are rather cheap ressources and could not support the import of large amounts of expensive ressources + generat enough additional income to finance a big wizard training program.







> Huh? If they had shorter lifespans, wouldn't their reproductive rate go _even lower!?_ If it takes elves a 700-year reproductive life to produce the number of children they do, wouldn't they produce even fewer if you chopped the length of that reproductive life?So, is the plan here just to say something over and over again with no supporting evidence whatsoever or is somebody going to be produce a statement in the RAW about elvish birth rates?




A lower total life span would mean that elves would mature faster so they could start to raise children themself much faster than they could now and that is the important thing.
And if you want raw sources, in 2 Ed. the elves had a 2 year gestation period.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> No, it actually doesn't mean that.  Humans have a lower birthrate compared to mice - so obviously that fact alone is insufficient.  I find the other facts that you assume in this argument to be insufficient or incorrect even for Earth, much less all possible fantasy worlds and an imaginary race like elves.




SHould I really take this serious? You really want to compare mice with orcs? When mice would learn how to use assault rifles, rocket launchers and tanks then we humans would have some very big problems.
Orcs are no animals without ambitions and sentience. They are much more dangerous then a normal mouse and so it is a big problem when orcs produce much faster than you.







> Orcs could be so busy eating each other and fighting for status that they'd never have time to make swords, much less put together a raiding expedition into an alien environment.  You assume the most optimal political and social conditions for orcs, while doing the opposite for elves, and then somehow claim the results to be based on "logic"?




Have you forgotten that since Corellon wounded Gruumsh, elves and orcs are mortal enemies? Thinking that orcs would not attack elves is quite naive and unlogical.







> Even on planet Earth, in places where you can find gold and diamonds elves would do ok.  Once you get to a fantasy environment, then the possible resources that elves have available to them are limitless.




Limitless? How. Examples please. And also provide examples in which places elves would be able to get large quantities of diamonds, gold and iron without destroying the environment. Simply arguing "Its fantasy so somehow its probably possible" does not cut it. Provide examples.







> This is completely baseless, there's no demographic information that has been established for elves AFAICT.  It's possible that all the elves in someone's campaign world are 10th level wizards.  Your assuming differences in human culture are due to some biological attributes?  What role does culture and society play in any particular group, like elves, being good at magic?  And could that role be far more important than a +2 intelligence bonus?




D&D has a standard demographic for all PHB races which say that 95% of the population are commoners. Likewise the city builder tables do not give elves any level advantage compared to other races. And elves do not have any bonuses for casting magic or hiding in forests.
And funny that you mention an intelligence bonus because the elves do not have any. That alone prevents them from being much better wizards than other races as the number of wizards is limited by the number of exceptional individuals with higher than normal Int and coupled with the low elven birthrate that would be quite a small number.



			
				GrumpyOldMan said:
			
		

> They flourish because they are specialists in surviving in the regions they inhabit, like the steppe nomads, or the bedouin, or the Inuit or... (need I go on?)




Where do you get this from? Elves do not have any forest related abilities. They are not more suited for a live in a forest than humans or orcs are.


----------



## Slife (Jun 7, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> Limitless? How. Examples please. And also provide examples in which places elves would be able to get large quantities of diamonds, gold and iron without destroying the environment. Simply arguing "Its fantasy so somehow its probably possible" does not cut it. Provide examples.



Gemstones tend to collect near treeroots.  Selling gemstones like, garnets, corundum, and quartz is certainly possible.

Gold panning doesn't disrupt the environment at all.


Does coal have great intrinsic value?  I don't really think so, so casting polymorph any object on either sticks (if you decide to classify coal as vegetable matter) or rocks to coal would work.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 7, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> 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?




Correction...said nation, and in fact, all nations together, have enough weaponry at their disposal to make our current civilization impossible to support, for a period of years......but not to destroy the entire world...only human civilization.  Possibly some humans might survive in remote pockets of the world.  At the very least, cockroaches, and other non-human life would likely survive.

Our planet has survived impacts from celestial objects that caused more destruction than detonating every bomb on the planet at once, and I believe the worst incident left about 7% of species to survive, and repopulate the world.

I'm  not advocating those kinds of weapons, obviously...just clarifying that we're unlikely to physically explode the ball of rock that we call Earth.

Banshee


----------



## Derren (Jun 7, 2007)

Gemstones won't earn you enough money to buy yourslef military grade materials. The yield of fold panning is very low compared to direct mining.

Using a 8th level spell to create coal is quite excessive especially as the coal wouldn't burn very well because as soon it gets burned (destroyed) it would revert back as the duration is permanent and not instant. The spell also requires Mercury which isn't to my knowledge commonly found in forests.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 7, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 7, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> 2. And what would the elves trade for the diamonds, not to mention all the other ressources they need? Meat, hides and wood? That are rather cheap ressources and could not support the import of large amounts of expensive ressources + generat enough additional income to finance a big wizard training program.




The supply of meat, hides, and wood, was one of the primary economic motivators behind the colonization of North America (especially Canada).

In a pre-industrial world, they had *immense* value, because they were so much more scarce in Europe, in some cases.

Why would it be any different in a D&D world?

Banshee


----------



## Sejs (Jun 7, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> 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*)
> 
> ...




This whole exercise just feels like it's going to be whipped around, turned on its head, and used as proof positive, aha-you-said-it-yourself, that elves are fully justified as being the sublime perfect and eternal masters of all.

The harder you push back the less inclined we get try to convince you.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 7, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> Gemstones won't earn you enough money to buy yourslef military grade materials.



Really? Because I'm looking at page 55 of the DMG right now and it says you're dead wrong.







> Using a 8th level spell to create coal is quite excessive especially as the coal wouldn't burn very well because as soon it gets burned (destroyed) it would revert back as the duration is permanent and not instant.



Why would anybody use coal for anything. It's not the industrial revolution. Medieval and ancient industry was powered by charcoal, not coal, a resource it is going to be very tough for you to argue the elves are short of.







			
				Derren said:
			
		

> fusangite said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Huh? You have just argued that _humanoids_ all have equally low birth rates. Now, if you want to argue that _all humanoids are doomed_, that's great. But that would be a different position than Edena's.







> 2. In the real world those nations tend to have a very big technological advantage, an advantage the elves do not have in D&D. Elven swords are in no way better than orc swords (or not so much better as to give them a big advantage).



Believe it or not, most of the weapons used to win wars could be made by any society provided it had the capacity to train soldiers in their use and either the money to buy them or the manufacturing capacity to make them. As Iran and North Korea have demonstrated, the capacity to build even the most sophisticated and deadly military devices exists in all nations; it is just a question of whether you have the economic power, labour discipline and education required to produce them on a scale necessary to win.

But this is beside the point. The mechanics of item creation feats clearly demonstrate that the average elvish wizard can produce far more magic items in his life than a human wizard can because the length of time needed to create items is the same regardless of the life expectancy of a wizard. Thus, when an elf is educated to do a highly specialized job, this education pays off to a much greater degree because the working life of the elf is so much longer even though the training time and costs are the same or lower.







> 1. Does it say somewhere that in D&D there are trees which grow coal and iron?



I have to go now but, before I resume later, I just have to ask: why is the belief that elves are doomed packaged with the erroneous belief that pre-moderns used coal?


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 8, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> In the real world those nations tend to have a very big technological advantage, an advantage the elves do not have in D&D. Elven swords are in no way better than orc swords (or not so much better as to give them a big advantage).



Elven swords are not better than orc swords?  In any Tolkien-esque campaign, it's elven swords that are the magic swords found in the barrow wight's tomb.  They are the long-lived race that understands magic, the technology of D&D.


			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Does it say somewhere that in D&D there are trees which grow coal and iron?



Why are coal and iron so important?  And why are you ignoring human capital -- sorry, _humanoid_ capital -- and pretending raw natural resources are all that matters?  The elves have a society where everyone is a productive adult for hundreds of years.  That's worth quite a bit.


			
				Derren said:
			
		

> And what would the elves trade for the diamonds, not to mention all the other ressources they need? Meat, hides and wood? That are rather cheap ressources and could not support the import of large amounts of expensive ressources + generat enough additional income to finance a big wizard training program.



First, as others have pointed out, meat, hides, and wood are tremendously valuable in a pre-industrial economy.  Second, I think you answered your own question: To finance a "big wizard training program" they can trade the products of wizardry.  It looks to me like the elves have a well-educated society, where they invest tremendously in their people's skills, while the humans and orcs are still living in a feudal or pastoral economy.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 8, 2007)

You want to know why the elves are doomed?  Why 3rd Edition elves are doomed, despite the fact they can take any class and reach any level?  Ok, let's try this again.

  The 3rd Edition Player's Handbook grants elves some abilities, but does not grant them other abilities.  RAW.

  - Elves do *not* have any special immunity to disease, magical or mundane. (Indeed, that -2 to Constitution would increase their susceptibility.)
  - Elves do *not* have any special immunity to parasites.
  - Elves do *not* have any special immunity to poison.
  - Elves do *not* have any special immunity to cold, heat, or the effects of sunlight.
  - Elves have low-light vision, but not darkvision.

  Thus:

  Elves must select carefully what foodstuffs they will eat, cook appropriate foods and meat, and otherwise prepare food like anyone else would have to.  (And nowhere in the 3E PHB does it say elves can eat special foods that humans cannot, including special fungi or roots or anything else from the forest.)
  If elves choose to eat uncooked, contaminated, or infested foodstuffs, they are subject to poisoning (and death), parasites, and debilitation just like anyone else.
  And oh yes, elves have to eat just as much as anyone else their size (nowhere in the 3E PHB does it say elves need eat less) or go hungry, grow weak, and finally starve.
  If elves drink stagnant water, they can enjoy dysentary like everyone else.  Fresh water?  If it's ok for humans, it's ok for elves, then.

  Elves freeze like anyone else in the winter.  Yes, winter.  Small thing, that.  No winter coat?  No gloves?  No cap?  No boots?  Welcome to the wonderful world of frostbite, hypothermia, pnemonia, and death.
  Elves are subject to heat weakness, heat exhaustion, and heat stroke like anyone else.
  Elves are subject to sunburn like anyone else.  Enough sunlight, and they contract cataracts, glaucoma, and blindness like anyone else.

  Elves tire out, just like anyone else.  In fact, they tire out more quickly, because of that -2 Constitution.  If the average elven Constitution is 8, I'd say they tire out all too fast.

  And heck, elves cannot see in the dark.  They can see in low light, but not in total darkness.

  -

  But elves do live longer than humans.  That, they do.  Even though their lifespans are shorter in 3E, those lifespans are still much longer than humankind.
  There is no rule saying elves cannot have as many children as they want in 3E.  So, perhaps they can have one child per year, every year, for their whole reproductive life.  No rule says otherwise.

  It makes for something new and different:
  Elven Family = Father (age 300), Mother (age 298), First Child (age 250), Second Child (age 249), 3rd Child (age 248), 4th Child (age 247), 5th Child (246), down to Last Child (Age 1) and then First Child of First Child (Age 200), 2nd Child of 1st Child (Age 199), 3rd Child of 1st Child (Age 198), down to Last Child of First Child (Age 1), and then First Child of Second Child (Age 199), Second Child of Second Child (Age 198), down to Last Child of Second Child (Age 1) and on to First Child of Third Child (age 198) ... all the way down to Last Child of Third Child (Age 1) ... then on to First Child of First Child of First Child (Age 150), Second Child of First Child of First Child (Age 149) ... then on to First Child of First Child of First Child of First Child (Age 100) ... then on to First Child of First Child of First Child of First Child of First Child (Age 50) ... and finally to First Child of First Child of First Child of First Child of First Child of First Child (Age 1)
  I don't know how many elves that comes to.  A lot.  That is a new definition in Extended Families.

  I pity elven women, in this case.  Childbirth is hard enough for human women.  Take that -2 Constitution, and the ladies have a real problem.  Especially if they wish to bear several hundred children in their reproductive lifetime.
  Assuming that there is food aplenty, help available, no wars or other dangers, and everything is otherwise going perfectly, of course.
  Why, under this scenario the elves might even keep pace with humans, in terms of population!

  -

  Since the elves have no special immunities or powers, are stuck with the Human Condition, and have that -2 Constitution problem in addition, a couple of things come to mind immediately:

  - Mortality in childbirth is serious.  Elven women have a fair chance of dying with each birth.  Elven women who keep having children do die from it.  If they don't keep having children (some sort of birth control) they are just very ill during each and every pregnancy.
  - Miscarriages are common, and produce additional fatalities among the mothers.  Stillbirths occasionally occur.
  - Child mortality is severe.  A sizeable proportion of all elven children die before elven teenagedhood, stricken by illness or infections and unable to survive them.
  - Accidental death claims some of the remaining children.  They have much longer, as children, to have accidents.  And those accidents happen.  Other children survive their childhood accidents, but are maimed for life.
  - Starvation and plague sweep the elven community (just like with humans:  nothing in the RAW says the elves some special protection against this) and large numbers of elves of all ages die.

  The elves can choose to live in the city.  Or the country.  Or the forest.  Or even under the mountains.  All this still happens.

  And what a pleasant existence they are enjoying ...

  Remember that there is nothing in the RAW that says elves must be communal.  There is nothing in the RAW that says they need be good, altruistic, nice, or even reasonable.
  Perhaps some of the children decide to turn on their parents.  Parents come to loathe their brothers and sisters.  Child turns on child.  Jealously turns to anger and hatred.  Feuds and battles break out.  Communities shatter and their people disperse.
  Normally, elves are conceived of as sticking together, but nothing in the 3E RAW says they must do so, and so ... they don't stick together!  (Anymore than they must live in forests.)

  -

  The Race of Man, is not reasonable.
  The Race of Man, has this bad tendency to lord it over, despise, and kill those of other races.
  But don't take that from me.  Take it from a majority of the realms, nations, cultures, and human peoples of the various settings.  They'll inform you that, elves are not welcome in their lands (even the nice Knights of Solamnia will do this.)  Maybe elves can visit, if they behave themselves.  And maybe visiting elves go to the Arena (Hillsfar on the Moonsea.)

  The elves could go to war to obtain lands held by humans.  They could even win, crush the humans, drive them out, and take all for themselves.
  Or elves can go to war against other races, and take their lands, so they have a home for themselves.
  Or they could skulk in the few human lands where they are actually welcome.  And in the lands of the few other races that will grant them a welcome.  (This does not ensure they will be treated well ... it merely means they can actually live there without fighting a war to do so.  The way humans carry on, elves can expect only the unexpected, and the unexpected could be very bad indeed.  The other races are probably no better.)
  If they will not do that, they can ... like the gully dwarves ... skulk and rot in the places of the world nobody else wants, places virtually uninhabitable for humanoid types (including elves.)  In which case, disease, plague, and starvation will be more prevalent than ever before.  

  What a wonderful existence ...

  -

  However, this assumes the other races will leave the elves alone.  The other races, generally will do no such thing.
  Humankind is warlike.  In all the settings, in most fantasy novels, and in historical reality, humankind is warlike (your campaign might be an exception, of course.)
  Humankind, just might make war on the wretched elves.  Scratch a lot of humans, and scratch a lot of elves.

  The drow are generally stronger than the elves, in military prowess (this need not be so in your campaign) and so they come to the surface and kill elves, but the elves have a hard time returning the favor.
  The drow really, really hate elves.  So they attack.  And attack.  And attack.  Scratch more elves.

  Whole races and religions hate elves, simply because they are elves.  The clergy of Hextor think elves make good target practice.  The orcs think elves are best in the stewpot.  The illithid don't hate elves, they merely think of them as Snackthings.
  These religions and races are on the constant offensive against elves (and, typically, a lot of other peoples and realms.)  Scratch more elves.

  This list goes on.  And on.  Until no matter which way the elves turn, no matter where they look, no matter where they go or what they do, they are facing enemies.
  The elves will sometimes give war, until no elves remain to fight.  Other elves run, and keep running, until they somehow find a hole so deep nobody can find them in it (but something inevitably does ... )  Others hide behind benevolent humans and dwarves and others, until those benevolent people stop being benevolent and evict the elves, or they are themselves overwhelmed by enemies and they and the elves fall (how long, for example, can Silverymoon hold out?)

  And when all these problems are not besetting the elves, there are the monsters who live in the wild.  Such as ankhegs.  Remorhaz.  The occasional owlbear.  A dragonturtle, accidentally disturbed.  Strangleweed.  A purple worm or two.  A young dragon, asleep and accidentally awakened (and enraged.)  Same hazards in the citiy, or country, just different monsters.  Nowhere is it safe.
  Meanwhile, the elves still must eat.  And survive the cold.  The heat.  Illness.  Plagues.  Or such simple hazards as having to cross mountains, swamps, and deserts in their path.

  Oh, such a wonderful life!

  The Road to Extinction is not quick and easy.  It is slow, and it is painful, and it goes on torturously until the very last elf is put out of her misery.

  -

  But the elves wanted all those abilities humans had, didn't they?  They wanted to be able to become any one of the character classes, have unlimited level advancement, have the potential for great champions and rulers, to reign supreme over the lands.
  Be careful of what you ask for.
  The elves got all the powers of humans in 3E.  But they got all the problems of humans in 3E.

  If you go by the *classical* depiction of elves, they wane and fail very quickly.
  That is, if they have 2 children per thousand years, they are exterminated very fast.
  If they insist on living up in vulnerable treehouses out in the middle of the Dreaded Wilderness, they fail and fall more quickly (one thing about forests, they *burn*.)
  If they are gentle, peaceful people, unwilling to be ruthless and hard, they collapse all the faster.

  And if they play human - that is, if they behave like humans - they lose also.  Because there are more humans than elves, and there will always be more humans unless elven females can survive having hundreds of children, and somehow raising all of them at once.
  Humans can overpopulate like bunnies and get away with it.  Elves can try that stunt ... I'm not putting any money on them succeeding.

  3rd Edition simply did not give the elves the means to survive.
  It gave them the freedom, and the problems, of humans.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 8, 2007)

Edena, again, you've typed a lot, but I don't see a clear argument.  Elves are like humans, but less hardy, so they're doomed?


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 8, 2007)

I'm not trying to be harsh but most of Edena's stuff is tl;dr for me.  But something did catch my eye _vis a vis_ the whole "elves are DOooooOOooooooOOOMed according to the 1e rules!" thing...

And its this:

_Any_ time someone says to me "I want to play a demi-human" in the games that I run, I always recommend that they take thief as a multiclass.  Dwarf fighter?  Dwarf fighter/thief.  Elf magic-user?  Elf magic-user/thief.  Unlimited advancement as a thief makes for a formidable ally (or enemy) in any race, and couple that with the wicked fighting abilities and general toughness of, say, the...oh, I don't know...ELVES...who get a +1 to-hit with all swords and all bows ('cept crossbows), have nearly total surprise when wearing leather armor and moving alone or with their own kind similarly clad.  Then there's noticing concealed and secret doors.  Then there's infravision.  Then there's the whole "I'ma gonna live for four thousand years give or take" thing they have going on.  Man, they aren't doomed.  In fact, I'd say that elves have whatever world they live in on a string.  Take an elf, say he's got the requisite 19 INT to get up to that 12th level magic user.  But couple that wicked-bad spellcasting ability to thief abilities.  Now that elf magic-user can make himself utterly undetectable _without_ magic, and _with_ magic he is entirely and completely and for all practical purposes invisible.  You can't see him, you can't _hear_ him, he can be in your throne room during the highest most top secret meetings listening in on _everything_ and giving the information back to his own kind so they can plan accordingly.

If you've got the _Hand of Vecna_ to back your awesome plans up, unless you've already stuck it to your arm, then our buddy the elf m-u/t is probably going to find out where its at and take it with him on his way out.

Moreover, the elves have a thousand or more years (again, in some extreme cases, nearly _four_ thousand years) to wait you out, or to plan to undo whatever you might set in to motion.

That doesn't sound like a doomed race to me.

So you could have a group of elves, with literally _a hundred_ hit points, 6th level magic at their disposal, lord knows what kind of magic items they've dug up along the way - no, this is not a doomed race.

Moreover, on that food tip?  Dude.  Elven fighter/clerics.  Creating food and water on a daily basis since CY1!

I mean ultimately if in your world(s) you say "ELVES ARE DOOMED, PERIOD!" then...well, in your world they're doomed, period.  That doesn't make it so by default, and, it isn't by default.  Even Gary stating flat out "This is a humanocentric game" doesn't mean they're doomed.  It means they're not human.


Now yes, Gary pushed for a humanocentric vibe in 1e and frankly I don't have a problem with that.  But _nowhere_ is there even the undertone that elves are DOOOOOOOOMED, MAN! in any of the stuff _I've_ read for 1e.  Hell I can't wait for the chance to play again just so I can play a x/thief multiclass elf.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 8, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> Where do you get this from? Elves do not have any forest related abilities. They are not more suited for a live in a forest than humans or orcs are.



By the rules, Mongolian humans have no steppe-related abilities, Arab humans have no desert-related abilities, and Inuit humans have no arctic-related abilities, but obviously those groups all flourished in their respective lands by becoming specialists in surviving in those regions.

By the rules, elves may have no racial bonuses to living in the woods, but they -- at least wood elves -- have a society that obviously specializes in living in the woods.  Presumably a typical elf is not a wheat farmer who raises a few chickens, and who fails to thrive, because he's trying to grow wheat and raise chickens in the woods.


----------



## Halivar (Jun 8, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> You dismiss factual information in favor of the ludicrous points you're making, and yet claim to be using (unsupported) facts yourself?



Threadlock in 3...2...1...

I believe EoN is responding to PoH's claim that elves have the same basic situation as the US (slower growth rate, but still significant military might), so it appears that's the point you're defending, so I'll respond to that.

Growth rates aside, the US has the third largest population in the world. Therefore, I must defend EoN's assertion that it is not a valid comparison to elves, who are described in most high-fantasy settings as being not only slower in reproduction, but much smaller in numbers.


----------



## Halivar (Jun 8, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> 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.



This was really insightful. I liked this post.

I wish 3.0/3.5 elves reflected this, however. In the RAW, they seem just like humans. Blegh. I'd like either cool and flashy, or old n' busted. D&D elves are just plain (rules-wise, and IMO).


----------



## Hussar (Jun 8, 2007)

Gizmo said:
			
		

> This is completely baseless, there's no demographic information that has been established for elves AFAICT. It's possible that all the elves in someone's campaign world are 10th level wizards. Your assuming differences in human culture are due to some biological attributes? What role does culture and society play in any particular group, like elves, being good at magic? And could that role be far more important than a +2 intelligence bonus?




This is a very salient point.  The demographics guidelines in the DMG are not the only demographics that can possibly exist in D&D, simply one version.  If we apply the xp rules to elves, suddenly things look a lot better for them.

Imagine for a second that our 1st level elves (of whatever class) go out and hunt boars (CR 2) once a year.  After about 10 years, they are second level.  They do that again and ten years later they are third.  Move on to bears.  So on and so forth.

Now, every middle aged elf is a high double digit classed NPC.  200 years pass and they've gained about 18 levels.  Take a population of 10000 and look at how many middle aged people you have - say 1/8th (high attrition)  That still gives us over a THOUSAND 18th level NPC's.  

No force on the planet would mess with them then.  It's like having very large nuclear arsenals.  Any assault would result in immediete obliteration.

Elves are now free to frolic as they like.


----------



## Wolfspider (Jun 8, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> This is a very salient point.  The demographics guidelines in the DMG are not the only demographics that can possibly exist in D&D, simply one version.  If we apply the xp rules to elves, suddenly things look a lot better for them.
> 
> Imagine for a second that our 1st level elves (of whatever class) go out and hunt boars (CR 2) once a year.  After about 10 years, they are second level.  They do that again and ten years later they are third.  Move on to bears.  So on and so forth.
> 
> ...




And the winner is!


----------



## Roger (Jun 8, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Tell me then:  how do *you* work things out?
> From what sources do you derive your conceptualization of elves for the game?
> What kind of elven society, culture, and civilizations have you created?
> How do your elves cope with their antagonists in your campaign setting?
> ...



It's sort of interesting that, as far as I can see, no one has answered you on this.

As far as my own campaigns have gone, I haven't really done much in terms of creating societies and cultures for any of the races in any meaningful way.  People live in the quasimedievaloid default setting.  Elves hang out in the forest and do elvey things.  They shoot their enemies in the face with arrows, mostly.  As far as the future goes... there really isn't one, as such.  Things tomorrow will be mostly the same as they are today.  In a hundred years things might change, but my campaigns don't run on that sort of scale.  PC elves don't have much especially to worry about.  The odd orc might preferentially target them, all other things being equal.  They might run into a drow ranger with favoured enemy elf.  But no more so than any other PC race.

I'm happy with this approach, my players are happy with it, and it's all good.


Cheers,
Roger


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 8, 2007)

(more slowly, musing)

  Pardons all, but sometimes you mull on something, and you can't figure out a good answer, and it frustrates.  When I was young, I would never have thought on this.  I would have just played.  But now ... well, I'm taking the time to mull it over.

  Think of chess.  You know that game's got rules, tight and set, right?  Now, think of Knightmare Chess.  It is quite a wild variant on chess, and I doubt most chess players would ever call it chess, but it has it's own rules too.  Wild rules, but still rules.
  Now imagine that we sat down to play chess, but you could move any piece in any way you wanted, period (such as:  I take your king with my king on the first move.  Checkmate.  End of game.  Let's do that again, and I move first again!)  That would be boring and pointless, at least to me.  I think others would agree.
  If D&D has no rules, then it has that lack of meaning I just described above.
  I think of roleplaying as really fun, but I need a rulesset to base it on.  Even mindgaming, as loosely based on rules as it is, is still based on rules.

  Now, we have 3.5, plus errata, as our standard set of rules.  Plus the optional 3.5 rules.  And the 3rd party 3.5 rules.
  We also have core 3.0, optional 3.0, and 3rd party 3.0.
  We have core 2nd edition and optional 2nd edition.
  We have core 1st edition and optional 2nd edition.
  We have OD&D, with all the cumulative supplements up to the Rules Cyclopedia.

  Everyone has their own preference for what rulesset they will use.  Officially, core 3.5 and the errata are used, but in home games anything goes.  As it should be, right?
  In my case, I prefer the core 3.0, optional 3.0, and 3rd party 3.0, plus a lot of 3.5 retroactively translated to 3.0, and a lot of 1st and 2nd edition brought forward to 3.0.  That is my 'best' version of D&D (although I would never sic that on my players.  Not fair to them, unless they know it all as well.)

  Now. elves are my favorite race.  Really.  Sincerely, they are.  What I call an elf, probably doesn't match what you call an elf, but they are close enough to have ... similarities.  
  So why am I dissing elves?
  When I look at elves, through the prizm of OD&D, or 1st edition, 2nd edition, 3.0, 3.5, optional rules, 3rd party rules (even the dreaded 2nd edition Complete Book of Elves  ) I see them fall short.  I see them fail.  I do not see them as I envision them.
  Then I read the novels, and of course elves - in their nobility, their occasionally utter stupidity and arrogance, their tragedy, their heroism, their folly - fall short and collapse.  Heh.  That is the Writer's Prerogative, to do exactly as he or she wishes with his or her conceptions!  But I wish my favorite race could do better nonetheless.

  And here are all these rules (you call them spells) and now the open architecture of 3.0 and 3.5, and all these options (optional rules, 3rd party rules) and all this neat stuff from previous editions (3.0, 2nd, 1st, OD&D) and I think:  I can make elves work.
  I can make elves flighty and frivolous, wasters of time, living in trees, eating berries, and otherwise doing nothing that a race 'should' be doing to win in a competitive environment, and still make them come out on top.  They can still be King and Queen of the Hill.  Which is where *my* favorite race should be!  

  Then, after working out the framework within the rules, I run into problems involving Fluff (elven psychology, background, and so on.)  And that has stumped me.  
  I mean, you just can't have a bunch of Merry Killers.  Chaotic Good guys can't butcher whole populations and destroy entire regions, and still be Chaotic Good.  Or can they?  Beats me ... never found an answer.
  The game designers come up with these horrific opponents, such as the phaerimm.  Or have a look at Upper Krust's Epic Bestiary.  (A fine product, if ever there was one.  Cheers, Upper Krust!    )  And I think:  how do my poor elves beat those guys?

  So I come to you.  On ENWorld are some of the best and most creative people in the hobby.
  I present the problem (badly, I suppose, and I am trying to clarify it now.)

  I just wonder what thoughts you've given to the matter.
  Why would you give thoughts on the matter?  Because most of you are DMs, and you've had to create your own campaign world, and it's a lot of work!  And somewhere along the line, you've had to find a place (or maybe not) for the elves in your setting.
  So yeah, I welcome your thoughts.

  I still think the answer lies within the giant mess of all those rules (even though many contradict each other) from all 5 versions of the game and the optional material.  That's the way I work ... if some dastardly rule exists (such as Agnakoks) then use it, I say!  (heh ... if one can Castle in Chess, use that rule too!  I'm a lousy chess player, though ...)
  Thus you hear of Lifeproof, Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion, Regenerate, Nymph's Aura, and other such stuff.

  Again, it's a matter of meaning.  If it's in the rules at least somewhere, it has meaning.  If I make it up out of the blue, it does not have meaning to me ... unless I can tie it in closely with a rule (such as, the elves of Haldendrea laying a Mythal that affected them, instead of their surroundings.)

  I see the classic portrayals of elves, I like some of those portrayals, I look up elves and how they work in the game, and the two do not match.  (as you would expect.)
  But I think I can make them match.  And then, I can play elves with a greater sense of satisfaction.

  What goes for elves, extends to dwarves and gnomes and halflings and others.  It alters the campaign world.  And that's ok.  It's no longer Canon, but it's ok.
  In Canon Athas (Dark Sun), Rajak crushed the elves.  But perhaps if the elves had a logical way, within the rules, of matching him in strength, they could have crushed him.

  In a book, we accept what we read (sometimes we do, at least!)  Rivendell is Rivendell.  If Glorfindel can ride out to face the Nine, so be it.  Films are usually the same (although I'm guessing a lot of you doubt Arwen could have riden out to face the Nine ...)
  However, as a DM, I always ask for the Why of things.  And the rules are the only thing to use to gain any answers to that question (for, after all, the rules are - as said - the basic skeletal framework for it all.)  Start with the rules, then build up from there.  Or start with the rules that you think are appropriate for your setting (be it OD&D or 3.5) and build from there.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 8, 2007)

Halivar said:
			
		

> I believe EoN is responding to PoH's claim that elves have the same basic situation as the US (slower growth rate, but still significant military might), so it appears that's the point you're defending, so I'll respond to that.
> 
> Growth rates aside, the US has the third largest population in the world. Therefore, I must defend EoN's assertion that it is not a valid comparison to elves, who are described in most high-fantasy settings as being not only slower in reproduction, but much smaller in numbers.



The "elves" of Moorcock's Elric saga, the Melniboneans, are in some ways analogous to the British and their empire -- a tiny island, with a tiny population, ruling the seas and much of the world.  Instead of industrial technology, of course, the Melniboneans wield demonic sorcery.


----------



## Herobizkit (Jun 8, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Elves should have variation.
> I just don't think they should all be Vulcans or Romulans (depending on the sub-race.)



You mean "Gray Elves" and "Drow", right?


----------



## Roger (Jun 8, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Why would you give thoughts on the matter?  Because most of you are DMs, and you've had to create your own campaign world, and it's a lot of work!



It can be a lot of work, no doubt about it.  So, given that we're all busy and there's a lot of work to be done, is spending the time and energy on this sort of thing really the best way to bring as much fun as possible to your players?  I'm not so sure.

It might be fun for you to work this hard on your favourite race.  But if you're the only one enjoying it, and your players "will be in for a lot of grief", then... maybe it's time to re-evaluate the worth of the exercise.


Cheers,
Roger


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 8, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Then, after working out the framework within the rules, I run into problems involving Fluff (elven psychology, background, and so on.)  And that has stumped me.
> 
> I mean, you just can't have a bunch of Merry Killers.  Chaotic Good guys can't butcher whole populations and destroy entire regions, and still be Chaotic Good.  Or can they?  Beats me ... never found an answer.



Good guys can't fight a just war?  Why not?  Isn't that a crucial part of most high fantasy?


			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I present the problem (badly, I suppose, and I am trying to clarify it now.)



If you could point me to the part where you clarify your problem, I'd appreciate it.  I still don't know what the problem is.

Did Elves Are Not Doomed not address your problem?


----------



## fusangite (Jun 8, 2007)

Edena,

I feel that we are all beginning to repeat ourselves. And I think that's bad when it happens in a thread on EN World. I sometimes get into this situation, myself when I find myself making a point that nobody else seems to be understanding. At some point, I have to ask myself why it is that I am in such a tiny minority in holding the view that I do. 

When I get to that point, I don't always decide that I am wrong. But I do force myself to come up with an explanation for why I am so unpersuasive on a particular point because I am usually a pretty persuasive guy. Here are some of the reasons that I have arrive at on other threads where I have found myself the sole defender of a particular position:
- a word that everybody is using means something different to me than it does to other people in the argument
- I think a particular word is clearly referencing something that other people haven't heard of or don't think it is referencing
- something that I consider to be hard-wired into the rules is considered "fluff" by the other people in the argument or vice versa
- something that I think of as a hard and fast rule is something others perceive as a general guideline or vice versa
just to name a few. 

Why do you think you are not getting through to us? What's your theory of what's going wrong in this debate?







> I just wonder what thoughts you've given to the matter.  Why would you give thoughts on the matter?  Because most of you are DMs, and you've had to create your own campaign world, and it's a lot of work!  And somewhere along the line, you've had to find a place (or maybe not) for the elves in your setting.
> So yeah, I welcome your thoughts.



Okay. Here are my thoughts:

Generally, when I create a campaign world, I have elves who are in the process of a long recovery from the Iron Wars, the name I usually give to the human invasion of their lands when many of their sacred groves were destroyed.

I tend also to have the elves split in their reaction to the war, with a hawkish dark elf contingent plotting a long-term revenge or counter-attack while the light elves have decided to reach some kind of accommodation with the humans. 

My light elves tend to be concentrated in a small number of densely-packed forests that are tended on a model fairly similar to the modern permaculture movement's. These forests tend to have been selected and well-tended over a period of centuries or millennia to be highly ecologically productive places. They also tend to be defended by hard-to-find paths, traps and well-camouflaged guardposts. 

My elves tend to have top-heavy hierarchical societies with a disproportionate number of nobles. They tend to trade seasonally in furs, woven silks, tortoise shells, precious stones, etc., usually visiting human markets or opening markets of their own in borderlands. 

But I'm not sure that you are going to be satisfied with my solutions because it seems, if I may speculate, that you want elves to be mechanically superior to other humanoids. The things I come up with to make elven societies successful are not mechanical fixes; they are cultural.







> I still think the answer lies within the giant mess of all those rules



Right. And that, I think, is the problem with this discussion. We disagree with you there because we believe that the strength of a human/humanoid society comes, in part, from the game mechanical characteristics of the creatures in question but mostly from the cultural characteristics. So, when we are asked what would help elf societies survive we come up with the wrong kinds of solutions.

I think that the other part of this discussion is that you tend to fit species in D&D into one of two categories: dominant or doomed. The elves in my games do not fit into either of these two categories.







> If it's in the rules at least somewhere, it has meaning.



I think that we all agree on this. Where the discussion seems to have hung up is in things that you believe the rules necessarily imply that the rest of us don't. 

Maybe you might want to ask yourself why you are so certain that the rules imply something that the rest of us just don't see.

I have a theory on that front but I'd like some confirmation I'm on the right track before floating it.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 8, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Good guys can't fight a just war?  Why not?  Isn't that a crucial part of most high fantasy?
> If you could point me to the part where you clarify your problem, I'd appreciate it.  I still don't know what the problem is.
> 
> Did Elves Are Not Doomed not address your problem?




  My problem is that, to me, the rules condemn the elves.  All the rulessets and optional rules and third party rules seem to condemn them.
  And I don't like that.  I want my elves to be 'not condemned' as it were.
  Rather than just arbitrarily ruling it (I the DM hearby declare the elves are strong, end of story) I am ruminating how to craft this within the rulessets.  I have always done the former, for 30 years.  Now I attempt the later.  Certainly, enough rulessets exist to look at.
  And I believe I have misread the rulessets.  I believe that elves are not doomed as the rulessets would indicate.  I believe that within the rulessets lies the answer to elves having a legitimate place in the setting (without any Arcane Age magic or High Magic, either.)
  Does that help?

  Of course the Good Guys fight the Good Fight, the Great War, etc..
  But I'm looking at this from a rules perspective, not a novel perspective.  If Lucas wants Luke to blow up the Death Star, that's fine.  But if that requires a 1 in 100 roll of the dice in the Star Wars rpg, that's a bit of a problem.  
  And heh, I think Luke found himself in more of a 'rules' situation when facing Vader in The Empire Strikes Back.  Vader was the stronger Jedi, and proved it.  ('You are beaten.  It is useless, to resist!')


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 8, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Edena,
> 
> I feel that we are all beginning to repeat ourselves. And I think that's bad when it happens in a thread on EN World. I sometimes get into this situation, myself when I find myself making a point that nobody else seems to be understanding. At some point, I have to ask myself why it is that I am in such a tiny minority in holding the view that I do.
> 
> ...




  I don't know why.  Maybe all of the above reasons.  Maybe more reasons yet.  
  All I can do is congenially attempt to discuss, and explain, and clarify to the best of my ability.



> Maybe you might want to ask yourself why you are so certain that the rules imply something that the rest of us just don't see.
> I have a theory on that front but I'd like some confirmation I'm on the right track before floating it.




  Once I've read about the destruction of the elves in book after book related to the game (take the War of Souls trilogy, for example) and seen them reduced to insignificance in setting after setting (such as Greyhawk) and see how the rules work against them (at least, in 1st and 2nd edition) I begin to think of the elves as losers, in the D&D game.  Nowhere else, but definitely in this particular game.
  Now we have 3rd edition, and perhaps that image can be turned around?


----------



## Wolv0rine (Jun 8, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> The 1st edition game specified that humans ruled in most lands, and elves held only small regions, barely hanging on to survival.



Why do you have this odd idea that living in smaller sections of land *must* mean that they are “barely hanging on to survival” or are “on the decline” or “losing”?  Humans are the expansionists par excellence of the races (with Orcs possibly being a runner up), not Elves.  Elves chose specific types of places where they chose to live.  The world is not covered with these places.  If Elves chose to live in the forests, and the world is not covered in forest, then they are going to be living in a smaller percentage of the lands than Humans in pretty much any event.

For my part, the concept of elves “playing human” or not is kind of pointless.  While certain sub-races are more like humans than others in my world, there is a reason for it.  Elves were originally “angels” basically.  Immortal servants of the gods who lived in the heavenly realms.  At some point a sub-set of the elves started to gather worshippers and convinced the others to do the same.  For this sin they were cast out of the heavenly realms into the mortal realm and stripped of their immortality.  
They were given the longest lifespan of any mortal race to remind them of what they had lost (immortality).  While the elves initially had more knowledge of magic and other such things from their time spent as the servants of the gods (and this was what they had to share with those who became their allies in that early time in return for help in learning how to survive as a mortal race), over time this knowledge went from being “The mysterious wisdom of the elves” to being fairly common knowledge among the races.  
Elves in general aren’t so very different from humans (the Wood Elves most of all, as they associate with Humans most closely) because they’ve spent dozens of generations in contact, alliance, trade, and communication with humans.

And that’s Elves in _My_ world.  Elves don’t “play human”, they’re elves.  They don’t have to be playing anything to know how to wage war or study hard or forge metals or whatnot.

As for how they survive in their chosen climate and terrain, that varies depending on the climate or terrain.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 8, 2007)

I can go to the Elves Are Not Doomed thread.
  I am guessing that, after careful perusal of the points made for the elves, that I'm going to feel rebuttals are in order.  

  I have spent my time instead on this thread (a lot of time here.)

  But I will go over to that thread, have a close look, and ... post my thoughts.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 8, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> My problem is that, to me, the rules condemn the elves.  All the rulessets and optional rules and third party rules seem to condemn them.





Not really, no.

Please, consider a 2000 year old gray elf assassin/m-u in 1st edition.

*shudder*

That ain't condemned, that's _scary_.


----------



## Derren (Jun 8, 2007)

*sigh* Sometimes I get the impression that some people simply want to counter what I say (probably because they love elves so much) and do not really think over what they propose.
Ok, coal was my mistake so take it out. That still doesn't change that the elven society would lack ressources like iron and forests are also not very good places to frow large amounts of food.

In short:

- Elves can harvest less food than other races
- Elves lack many ressources not found in forests
- Elves have nearly nothing to trade (I do'nt care if the native amarican economy was based on wood and fur. Technologically they were a lot less developed than D&D nations). Meat is cheap acording to D&D pricing guides as is wood.
- Selling enough hides to support a medival like economy + wizard training would require overhunting the area
- Wizard training is very expensive, as is item creation
- Elves have a low birth rate as they take so long to grow up. An elf child has to grow up for 100 years before it can have children itself. That are 3 human generation (maybe 4 orc generations). Also still having to care for a child after 50 years because it is still not self sustaining limits the number of children a elf can have at one time
- Saying "That would also apply to humans" is no argument
- Elves would have a high child mortality because of Con
- Elves are more likely to be affected by diseases than normal
- Elves have no superpowers which gives them a large advantage over other races
- Elves do not have more spellcasters than other races as the numbers of them are limited by exceptional individuals

All that leads to that elves would be overrun by faster breeding races and monsters (and that includes dragons!)


----------



## fusangite (Jun 8, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I don't know why.



I think that until you are able to answer this question, we probably aren't going to be able to come to a common understanding.







> Once I've read about the destruction of the elves in book after book related to the game (take the War of Souls trilogy, for example) and seen them reduced to insignificance in setting after setting (such as Greyhawk) and see how the rules work against them (at least, in 1st and 2nd edition) I begin to think of the elves as losers, in the D&D game.



People like the Celtic Twilight theme. There is no doubt that there is a big market for fiction that taps into the theme of the elves as being in decline. But that has to do with people's preferences in fiction. I don't think fantasy literature is going to change any time soon.

If you feel that your D&D game is being adversely affected by reading fiction in which the evles are in decline, you should stop reading that fiction and pick fiction in which that is not happening. What you should not do is assume that because people like writing about declining elves that this has something to do with the rules of D&D.

Now, last post, I threatened to tell you my theory about why you are saying what you are saying:

You want to be able to justify giving the elves in your game special mechanical advantages, like a souped-up 3rd edition conversion of the Lifeproof spell. But somehow, you seem to have decided that it wouldn't be fair to hand out this advantage because it would be unbalancing. So, in order to justify your desire to make elves more mechanically powerful than other humanoids you think that you need to prove that they are currently under-powered. 

And my view is: don't sweat it man. Balance is not the only value that matters in a game. If you want to give out that spell to all the elves in your campaign world, go ahead. You don't need any justification beyond the fact that you find the idea cool. Things don't need to be mechanically broken in order to justify fixing them. Giving your elves more powers doesn't need to be necessary for you to do it. Do it because you will enjoy doing it.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 8, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> You want to know why the elves are doomed?  Why 3rd Edition elves are doomed, despite the fact they can take any class and reach any level?  Ok, let's try this again.
> 
> The 3rd Edition Player's Handbook grants elves some abilities, but does not grant them other abilities.  RAW.
> 
> ...




Elven low-light vision is defined as the ability to see quite accurately in any conditions where they have at least as much light to see by as starlight or moonlight.  Given the sky is full of stars at night on any night during which it is not overcast, elves will have the advantage over humans after dark.

If you want to start looking specifically at what they do and don't have.....

Humans don't have low-light vision.
Humans don't have any kind of resistance to disease, poison, parasites, cold, heat, or the effects of sunlight.
Humans have less acute senses, and consequently are likely not as good at the whole hunter/gatherer thing as elves are.
Nor are they as stealthy, given the lack of a +2 to DEX, and consequently, again, aren't as effective hunters, since they can't get as close to prey animals.

We can continue this way through the whole argument.  Humans need to cook their food, select carefully what they'll eat etc.  And they need *more* food than elves, given their greater body mass.  So they're also more vulnerable to starvation than elves, halflings, and gnomes.





			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Elves freeze like anyone else in the winter.  Yes, winter.  Small thing, that.  No winter coat?  No gloves?  No cap?  No boots?  Welcome to the wonderful world of frostbite, hypothermia, pnemonia, and death.
> Elves are subject to heat weakness, heat exhaustion, and heat stroke like anyone else.
> Elves are subject to sunburn like anyone else.  Enough sunlight, and they contract cataracts, glaucoma, and blindness like anyone else.




You're correct....elves have no less vulnerability than humans do to any of these conditions.  However, they're not any *more* vulnerable either.



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Elves tire out, just like anyone else.  In fact, they tire out more quickly, because of that -2 Constitution.  If the average elven Constitution is 8, I'd say they tire out all too fast.
> 
> And heck, elves cannot see in the dark.  They can see in low light, but not in total darkness.




Low light, enough for elves to see by, is defined as a starry or moon filled sky.  That is quite dark enough for humans.  But under those conditions, elves can see as effectively as humans do in daylight.  For 60'.

As to CON, humans will have the edge in resistance to exhaustion etc.  How much of an edge is debatable.  In a game based on D20 roles, that is a 5% advantage.




			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> But elves do live longer than humans.  That, they do.  Even though their lifespans are shorter in 3E, those lifespans are still much longer than humankind.
> There is no rule saying elves cannot have as many children as they want in 3E.  So, perhaps they can have one child per year, every year, for their whole reproductive life.  No rule says otherwise.
> 
> 
> ...




Childbirth sure is hard enough....definitely in more primitive times.  But by no means was it a death sentence.  If it was, most of us wouldn't be here.  Through the centuries, there have been plenty of societies where women commonly produced large numbers of children.  Historically, many French Canadian women had 12+ children over their reproductive lifespans.  Some died, but many did not.  I've had relatives who've had 15+ children in the past.    Would elves be any different?  Imagine if a woman's reproductive period was 200 years instead of 20+?  Statistically, the odds might catch up to her...but when?



  The elves can choose to live in the city.  Or the country.  Or the forest.  Or even under the mountains.  All this still happens.

  And what a pleasant existence they are enjoying ...


  Remember that there is nothing in the RAW that says elves must be communal.  There is nothing in the RAW that says they need be good, altruistic, nice, or even reasonable.
  Perhaps some of the children decide to turn on their parents.  Parents come to loathe their brothers and sisters.  Child turns on child.  Jealously turns to anger and hatred.  Feuds and battles break out.  Communities shatter and their people disperse.
  Normally, elves are conceived of as sticking together, but nothing in the 3E RAW says they must do so, and so ... they don't stick together!  (Anymore than they must live in forests.)

  -


			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> The Race of Man, is not reasonable.
> The Race of Man, has this bad tendency to lord it over, despise, and kill those of other races.
> But don't take that from me.  Take it from a majority of the realms, nations, cultures, and human peoples of the various settings.  They'll inform you that, elves are not welcome in their lands (even the nice Knights of Solamnia will do this.)  Maybe elves can visit, if they behave themselves.  And maybe visiting elves go to the Arena (Hillsfar on the Moonsea.)
> 
> ...




Of course, in many of the settings you reference, the elves are relatively entrenched.  They were there, with stable civilizations when men were still living in caves.  So the onus is less on elves to try to take the land from humans, than for humans to take the land from an entrenched foe who's on their home turf.

If one wants to ignore the setting-specific stuff, then one goes back to core, which really doesn't detail where exactly elves live in the first place...but then it doesn't really define where humans live either.

The races are different, they each have their own advantages and disadvantages.  The scenario you paint can be an interesting take on the subject, but it's not the only take.  

Banshee


----------



## The Green Adam (Jun 8, 2007)

I'm not certain why a new thread needed to be made as we addressed much of this in the earlier thread. And as in that thread I would have ask



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Elves are not winners, not successful, not able to adjust or cope, not able to survive.  These realities are built into the race in 3rd edition (as it was in 2nd and 1st edition and OD&D)




They're not winners? That's built into the rules? A higher Dex when most of their attacks are Dex based, resistance to sleep and charm, seeing in the dark, long life, an affinity in using magic...yep, sounds pretty weak. :\ 




			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> We as players ignore this reality




What reality? The one we each make up for our campaigns?





			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Elves have all the problems of humans. They have all the problems of humans because they 1: have no special immunities to the horrors of nature, and 2: have no special immunities to manmade (and other races and monster) horrors, and 3: have to eat like anyone else.




Let's see...Humans have trouble seeing in the dark, resisting sleep spells and can be paralyzed by a Ghoul. They age and die.

Well, elves don't suffer the first three problems and they are fairly resistant to the fourth. (The Elven immunity to Ghouls is listed in the original, 'first addition' Monster Manual.




			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> So elves:
> 
> 1:  Do not procreate.
> 2:  Live in forests under conditions that make any civilization beyond the Stone Age impossible.
> 3:  Waste time in singing, dancing, and making merry.




1: Mine do. Fairly often.
2: A) Not all Elves live in forests. B) The forests they do live in must be able to support their cities. C) Magic
3: What?! I'm sorry, I mean...really? I don't recall them doing that in my campaign.



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> And:
> 
> 4:  Humans and other races are on the aggressive against elves
> 5:  Monsters infest the lands and forests, making survival even more difficult
> ...




4: Unless they need to team to fight a more immediate, deadly menace.
5: Agreed. No time to waste picking on the potentially helpful magical allies.
6: Huh? Which race of the basic assortment lives longer and creates as many powerful magic items?

While some of your ideas are interesting, the catalyst for your overall opinion of Elves eludes me. If you are refering to Elves in a particular book series or campaign, your comments and comparisons might be correct. However, to say that Elves in D&D as written are somehow inferior...I just don't see it in any way, shape or form. Further more, none of my campaigns have ever reflected this mentality in the 30 years I've been playing. Trust me, in thirty years I've seen a lot of Elves.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 8, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Once I've read about the destruction of the elves in book after book related to the game (take the War of Souls trilogy, for example) and seen them reduced to insignificance in setting after setting (such as Greyhawk) and see how the rules work against them (at least, in 1st and 2nd edition) I begin to think of the elves as losers, in the D&D game.  Nowhere else, but definitely in this particular game.
> Now we have 3rd edition, and perhaps that image can be turned around?




Now these are some statements that make sense.  I won't argue with you on the idea that they're often depicted as on the retreat.  However.  I would like to point out that the novels are very, very different than the game itself.  Writer prerogative allows a writer to basically say what they want.  And a lot of standard fantasy is very derivative of Tolkien...hence the elves in retreat.  But it's not necessarily that way in the game, as the rules don't dictate that this is the way of things.  Some settings do....but we're getting back to whether things are derivative of Tolkien.

Rajaat and his Champions hunted the elves....but they didn't succeed in exterminating them.  They were one of the demihuman races to escape extinction, unlike the gnomes.  DL's take on what's happened to the elves is just weird.  I hope there's a plan for them.  But who knows?

FR?  The elves were in Retreat, but that's now over.  And as of the novels Evermeet, and then the elven trilogy a year or two ago, they've established a new hidden colony, with a tree of life or whatever, that will assist them in establishing a strong realm armed with High Magic, and they used an army of thousands of elven heroes to reconquer Cormanthor, and reestablish Myth Drannor....coming back to the example of a long-lived race having hundreds of high-level or even medium-level regular citizens.

So now, the fiction isn't entirely making them a bunch of losers.  Maybe they'll be a little less similar to the retreating elves of Tolkien.

Banshee


----------



## fusangite (Jun 8, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> - Elves can harvest less food than other races



That's just not true. You and Edena have both failed to demonstrate this. We, on the other hand, have offered a number of examples of cultures that lived in forests and harvested more food per capita per hour than any pre-industrial agrarian society.







> - Elves lack many ressources not found in forests



Since you have failed to demonstrate that elves cannot trade, this point is untrue.







> - Elves have nearly nothing to trade



And by "nearly nothing," you include furs, gems, spell casting services, master craft labour, books, scrolls and other magic items. This is not "nearly nothing."







> (I do'nt care if the native amarican economy was based on wood and fur. Technologically they were a lot less developed than D&D nations).



You are missing what we are saying here. North America and Siberia did not have significant local fur trades at all until higher-tech European countries began purchasing their furs in large quantities. The 16th to 18th century European nations, the _consumers_ of the furs were higher-tech than the human nations in D&D.







> Meat is cheap acording to D&D pricing guides as is wood.



I agree. But gems, scrolls, spell casting services and furs are not. They are expensive.







> - Selling enough hides to support a medival like economy + wizard training would require overhunting the area



How are you able to argue this without knowing:
(a) the climate of the forest
(b) the size of the market for furs
(c) the demand for furs on the part of consumers
(d) the amount of gold consumers are willing to spend
(e) the species of animals being hunted
(f) the quality of the furs being exported
Given that you have no idea of the supply of furs, the demand for furs or the ecosystem producing the furs, how can you have any idea of how many furs need to be hunted?







> - Wizard training is very expensive,



Where do the rules say that?







> as is item creation



Yes. But it has an absolutely gigantic profit margin.







> - Elves have a low birth rate as they take so long to grow up. An elf child has to grow up for 100 years before it can have children itself. That are 3 human generation (maybe 4 orc generations). Also still having to care for a child after 50 years because it is still not self sustaining limits the number of children a elf can have at one time



Elves can give birth to one child at a time. It does not follow that they can only raise one child at a time. Elves' gestation periods are not stated in the rules but if we accept the only figure that has been quoted, it appears that an elf woman could have 20-40 more kids during the time it takes for her first child to grow up. 

But more to the point, high birth rates do not equal high survival rates. As has already been mentioned on this thread, societies with low birth rates have much lower mortality rates, much higher levels of education, much higher life expectancies and much higher levels of worker productivity.







> - Saying "That would also apply to humans" is no argument



Why not? You argue that something that is true about all humanoids is true about all elves but then claim that this flaw will only kill elves but not affect the other humanoids with whom they are competing. Just declaring an argument to be "no argument" doesn't make it so.







> - Elves would have a high child mortality because of Con



The main things that affect infant mortality are not innate CON. Infant and child mortality is conditioned primarily by access to parental care, medical care and healthy food. Elf children have way better food, parental care and medical care than orc children.







> - Elves are more likely to be affected by diseases than normal



5% more likely, approximately. They are also 5% less likely, approximately, to be hit by creatures trying to attack them. 

But, again, the kind of culture they live in, not their CON score, is going to be the prime determinant of the amount of disease they will be exposed to.







> - Elves have no superpowers which gives them a large advantage over other races



Are all races without superpowers doomed? Because, if so, all PC races are doomed. I guess we'd all better play Minotaurs from now on.







> - Elves do not have more spellcasters than other races as the numbers of them are limited by exceptional individuals



Well, given that 3E is balanced so that class levels are of equal value regardless of what class they are in, I'm not especially troubled by this.







> All that leads to that elves would be overrun by faster breeding races and monsters (and that includes dragons!)



There's no point in us repeating ourselves unduly. You seem to have decided that elves have low birth rates and all creatures with low birth rates are doomed, despite massive, pervasive and overwhelming evidence from the real world to the contrary.


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Jun 8, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Derren said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thanks MMadsen I’m beginning to see this now as a ‘we need a rule for everything’ argument. Which is obviously nonsense.

Derren, Edina, if you want to play a game where the rules are all that there is, then that’s up to you, but I’m curious. Why do you both appear to argue that if it ain’t in the rules, it can’t be done? The rules are simply a method of resolving conflict situations you should not, IMO expect them to be as all encompassing as the laws of physics. I’ve never read DnD 3.5, but does the system have a rule for the rate of growth of trees in a year? Or the quality of beer brewed by an innkeeper, or do you, as referees, simply make some stuff up.

My advice is, if you think a rule is wrong, and it’s spoiling your fun, ignore it. I’m reasonably sure that all earlier editions of DnD, aspecially the ones you quote, say something like, it’s your game, do what you want and ignore what you don’t like.


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Jun 8, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> Ok, coal was my mistake so take it out. That still doesn't change that the elven society would lack ressources like iron and forests are also not very good places to grow large amounts of food.



For information on ‘Natural Iron’ check here.
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/bog_iron.htm
Deer, swine and chickens were all originally forest animals. There is a lot of eating on a boar. Eggs are readily available (lots of birds live in trees).
Fruit and nuts grow on trees (so do edible fungi – though hopefully not the same trees). Apples, pears, oranges, quinces, etc., the list is very long. Okay, commercial fruit farms are not exactly forests, but our ancesters were pretty good at planting and maintaining trees.
Depending on the climate, olives (and therefore olive oils) could be produced, they are a valuable export crop (at least they were a millennium or two ago).
Grapes make wine which can also make a huge trading profit.
A quick google check should take you to some sites where you’ll be able to pull up details of forest tubers and grains. I’m no expert.
Bees make hives in forests and make honey. Sweeteners were difficult to find in medieval times, and were valuable.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 8, 2007)

Meh, my elven armada of several hundred archmages will deal with any threat short of divine intervention.


----------



## Derren (Jun 8, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> That's just not true. You and Edena have both failed to demonstrate this. We, on the other hand, have offered a number of examples of cultures that lived in forests and harvested more food per capita per hour than any pre-industrial agrarian society.




No, you haven't., or rather you are extremly axxagerating. The only examples which were made were societies who managed to survive in a forest environment, but it was not shown that those societies lived an elven life (hardly clearing any trees) and were able to grow enough food to supply a bigger population in a non nomadic lifestyle (being a nomad would limit the technological posibilities of elves and would make them easy targets).

And something you always forget is that the overal amount of food over the year is not the only measurment if elves can survive or not. This food also has to be stoored and distributed







> Since you have failed to demonstrate that elves cannot trade, this point is untrue.




Read what I write (or strat thinking instead of replying on a reflex). Elves can trade but they have not enough to trade with to get everything a D&D nation needs to be strong (in the case of elves).







> And by "nearly nothing," you include furs, gems, spell casting services, master craft labour, books, scrolls and other magic items. This is not "nearly nothing.[/qoute]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 8, 2007)

I have mentioned polyculture (versus monoculture) agriculture, and fusangite has mentioned the related notion of permaculture, so I thought I'd cite a piece on forest gardening: Forest gardening (also known as 3-Dimensional Gardening) is a food production and land management system based on replicating woodland ecosystems, substituting trees (such as fruit or nut trees), bushes, shrubs, herbs and vegetables which have yields directly useful to mankind. By exploiting the premise of companion planting, these can be intermixed to grow on multiple levels in the same area, as do the plants in a forest.​Presumably the forest-dwelling elves are much, much better at this than we humans are.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 8, 2007)

I'll start at the top, but I'm not going to get through all of this.  Besides, I'm not sure you guys are paying attention anyway.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> 1. Does it say somewhere that in D&D there are trees which grow coal and iron? No? Then answer me how a D&D forest should contain more ressources than real world forests. Especially as elves do apparently not harm the enviroment its impossible for them to gather ore and many other ressources in a forest.




Does is say that trees have to grow coal and iron?  I'm not sure why you're thinking that other than you must think that trees are the only thing one finds in forests.  Now someone pointed out on this thread that gemstones can be found at the base of trees, and then you proceeded to argue something about how in the "real world, blah blah".  That's not relevant.  This is a fantasy world.  Certainly if the real world provides an example of gemstones existing _somewhere_ in _some quantity_ then it's not too taxing to assume that in a fantasy world that wants to support elfin civilization that you simply have to tweak the quantities.  That's assuming that the real world doesn't already support this case.  I think "real world" examples are appropriately used to show what is minimally possible, but since there are no elves in the real world, I don't think the logic goes the other way.

So keeping this in mind, we can discuss the issue of elves and iron.

Firstly - there's a question about how much iron elves really need.  I think it's in keeping with elfin culture being related to fey culture that elves use proportionately less iron than other races.  This means that they'd substitute other materials - mithril and kinds of wood.  For an example of wood, I'd point you to the old Greyhawk boxed set - I don't remember what it's called, but hornwood, ironwood, or whatever - wood that can be cured in such a way to be of metallic hardness.

Now the iron itself can come from the forest - a forest is just a place where trees grow.  That's anywhere below the treeline.  That means a hilly region covered in trees - so why not iron mines?  That's probably more the territory of gnomes (at least IMC), but elves would live in the surrounding lands and could trade iron pretty cheaply to the gnomes for other stuff - like silk (another topic).  That's in the case where the gnomes wouldn't simply give the elves iron as direct tribute.

Bog iron could be gathered from wetlands within forests.  While it's likely that I could find real-world cultures whose primary source of iron was bog iron (vikings?), it's unecessary because, again, we're talking fantasy.  The chemical composition of such iron and it's availability would be whatever is required to support the elfin civilization - and given the relatively low numbers I don't see much of a problem.  (BTW - the discussion of iron and coal in the same sentence leads me to believe you guys are thinking battleships and skyscrapers - I just don't think the iron requirements of elfin civilization would be as high as you sometimes (perhaps too conveniently) suggest).

Finally, there are meteorites - perhaps a few huge meteorites slammed into the ground at the location of the forest in eons past, and the elves now collect what could be several tons of material from the crater floor.  I like this idea because it would explain the source of more exotic materials (like mithril and nickel).

So those are three possible sources within a "forest" - and that's just using real-world examples.  Like I said, an alternate material like "ironwood" would probably be in order to give elves the kind of tech level that's assumed.

Say "oh, that's not in the PHB" and then perhaps you can explain why people's clothes in DnD are of colors other than gray.  Because last time I checked, "dye" is not on the PHB equipment lists.  (Hmmm...dye is an example of a forest resource - but then that's like shooting fish in a barrel - wait...fish...barrels...ahhh - I can't stop thinking of forest resources!).  Basic point is that there are tons of resources in a forest environment, and it's a simple matter of thumbing through the encyclopedia to uncover them.)

My time is up.  Let me know what you think about the sources of iron, or whether I should bother to come up with others.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 8, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> Not to mention a wizard needs to mantain a spellbook which is also quite expensive as he has to pay much for every spell he scribes into it.




Pay for what?  Other than the game mechanical logic of requiring a player to deduct gold, what does that represent.  Ink?  Paper?  Quills?  Google up some premodern ink formulas, paper, quills or whatever and I'm pretty sure you can find ways that all of these materials are available in the forest.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 8, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> Every child is an additional drain on the communities ressources because they consume without producing anything.




Maybe every _infant_, but children are as capable of many tasks - for example collecting mulberry leaves for silk production.  I happen to like the idea of a variety of silk being produced by elves because they seem to wear a lot of it and it would be fairly easy to posit a silkworm or similar creature that lives in the elfin environment.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Elves do not do thing inherently better than other races they face the same problems as do all others and they will have losses.




Why don't elves do anything inherently better?  Just because they don't get bonuses?  It's already been argued several times that you couldn't explain the existence of human cultures based on the PHB.  It would be safe to assume that the average steppe nomad is a better rider than the average farmer, and yet the rules don't make that explicit.  There are other ways to model a higher skill level in a certain culture other than just mindless throwing bonuses at them.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> And a low con would lead to more children deaths. They are less resistent to injuries and diseases do also play a role. Also every elf will face diseases at some point while not many will be the target of an attack so their con penalty does hurt elves much more than what the dex bonus helps them.




Disease is as much (or more) a function of hygiene, medicine, and genetics - elves could more than compensate for their con scores.  Besides, even various human populations show different susceptibility to disease - and that's not a function of constitution but of biological factors.  I think you think disease has much more to do with Con than it really does.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Please, wake up....
> Altering reality not more valuable has hitting things with a sword.....




How much more caffeine do I need to understand that.    



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> 1. There is no massive evidence, just your exagerations.




Don't forget my exaggerations.  How about this exaggeration:  a pointy-eared humanoid that lives to be 1000 years old.  Keep in mind we're talking imaginary fantasy worlds.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> 2. The real world works differently than D&D,




Exactly - which is one of the basic reasons why there are elves in DnD and not in the real world.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 8, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> No, you haven't., or rather you are extremly axxagerating. The only examples which were made were societies who managed to survive in a forest environment, but it was not shown that those societies lived an elven life (hardly clearing any trees) and were able to grow enough food to supply a bigger population in a non nomadic lifestyle (being a nomad would limit the technological posibilities of elves and would make them easy targets).



So, what happens when we mention the indigenous peoples of California, the Yucatan, Washington State and British Columbia *AGAIN*? Do you have a minor seizure that temporarily blinds you and causes short-term amnesia?







> And something you always forget is that the overal amount of food over the year is not the only measurment if elves can survive or not. This food also has to be stoored and distributed



Uh-huh? And? Are you now going to present evidence that having a -2 CON penalty causes you to hoard food and then let it rot?







> Read what I write (or strat thinking instead of replying on a reflex). Elves can trade but they have not enough to trade



How do you know how much they have to trade? Where is this information coming from?







> A large fur trade would mean a lot of death animals which does not work with the elven lifestyle.



We are talking about a _lucrative_ fur trade. As I mentioned, not knowing the supply of the furs, the demand for the furs or the wealth of the furs' consumers, there is no way to know the volume of the furs that will be needed to meet the elves' financial needs. Sadly the DMG does not have a list of fur prices.

Also, on what basis do you want to argue "elven lifestyle" from the core? The core rules say that elves like natural environments and like nature. There are plenty of societies that have venerated nature in the human past while having lifestyles that were far more based on killing, eating and wearing animals than medieval European lifestyles were. Now, I know that this will probably cause you another minor seizure that will reset your memory again but many aboriginal cultures in the Americas can be so described.







> The yield of gems would be extremly low without minign (which the cliche elves do not practice) and elves are no master crafters by default.



So now, not only are you magically calculating fur prices without adequate information, you are now prepared to calculate the yield of various gem location and extraction techniques in every possible D&D world. 

Again, you have insufficient information to claim that gem gathering is low-yield in D&D worlds. Mining for gems did not become more efficient than gathering them until fairly recently historically. 

Furthermore, given the information in table 3-6 of the DMG, you don't exactly need big sacks of gems to pay for stuff in D&D because the average value of a single gem is 145gp.







> When one race are master crafters then dwarves who actually has a racial bonus for working with certain materials.



That is true. Fortunately, the working life of a single trained elvish crafter is 4-5 times that of a dwarf. Also, are you now contending that if a species has a racial bonus to something, nobody can compete with them in the marketplace? I guess all the human and gnomish crafters can go home and starve too.







> And for all magical the market is rather small



I love this: constant unsupported declarations about the economy of every single possible campaign world that can be generated using the D&D rules. Is that the new strategy? Because, if so, it sucks. 

Look buddy, if you want to build a campaign world in which furs are dirt cheap, elves are vegetarians, gem prices have been artificially depressed, dwarves have a crafting monopoly and there is a virtually negligible magic trade, you can. But to suggest that all campaign worlds must be like this because... well, actually you haven't even given a reason... you can. If that's what makes you happy, you can make as many campaign worlds you want in which elves are DOOMED. You just need to stop dressing this up as being the rules of the game.







> so you can't sustain a nation by selling magic,



Says who? Look at the profits from making one ring!







> not to mention that those things require a huge investment.



Right. And given that, apparently, furs are dirt cheap, elvves are vegetarians, dwarves have a crafting monopoly, gem prices are artificually depressed and there is negligible trade in magic, of course it follows that elves have no liquidity in their economy! It's all so clear now!







> Not to mention a wizard needs to mantain a spellbook which is also quite expensive as he has to pay much for every spell he scribes into it. The spellbook of a fresh 1st level wizard alone is already worth hundereds of gold.



Uh-huh? And? Feel free to check out the section NPC Spellcasting on page 107 of the DMG to see how this money might be made back in the space of a single afternoon.







> Yeah, right. Can you care for 40 children at once?



Right. So, just so I've got this straight, furs are dirt cheap, elves are vegetarians, dwarves have a crafting monopoly, gem prices are artificually depressed, there is negligible trade in magic, elves don't hire out their services as spellcasters AND now, all elves are all organized into single parent or nuclear families and their children require the same levels of care as our culture currently provides. 

You don't know a damned thing about whether older children are involved in elvish child-rearing, whether childcare is based on extended families, villages or what.







> Every child is an additional drain on the communities ressources because they consume without producing anything.



Right... and... unlike medieval, hunter-gatherer, ancient societies (indeed, virtually every society before the 20th century), children are not economic actors in elvish societies. 

I'm learning a lot, from your posts, about how to build a world in which elves are DOOMED. But I have to say, I've stopped learning anything about D&D rules, sociology or anthropology because you're no longer reasoning. You're just making up a series of worst-case scenarios out of thin air. 

Look man, here's the basic flaw in your logic: *Just because you can demonstrate that it is possible to design a world in which elves are doomed, it does not follow that elves are doomed in all possible worlds*. Now, you can keep making up arbitrary social and economic characteristics and attributing them to all D&D worlds but that's all you are doing here.







> An elf having about 5 non adult children at the same time is acceptable but not 20. That means that an elf gets 5 children in 100 years. That is quite low.



So, I've made up a possible number. You've made up a possible number. You like the number 5 more than the number 40. Good for you.







> And what when you compare the elven childcare to humans or kobolds? Elves do not do thing inherently better than other races they face the same problems as do all others and they will have losses.



So,

Oh wait. Never mind. I'm realizing that I'm about to make a point about how mechanically identical <> culturally identical but I realize that doing so would be stupid because the other posters and I have already made this point more than 25 times on this thread. So, why say it again? All it will do is cause you amnesia and we'll be back to you posting that elves are DOOMED in fifteen minutes. 

If you and Edena want to declare victory by sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Nah nah nah nah nah not listening not listening!" that's great. Just don't mistake your behaviour for reasoned argument.


----------



## Derren (Jun 8, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I'll start at the top, but I'm not going to get through all of this.  Besides, I'm not sure you guys are paying attention anyway.
> 
> ...




Elves don't mine, that would destroy nature, you forgot? So all the iron under the trees would be useless for elves. And Mithril is so much more common than iron that elves would have no problem to use that instead of iron? Right....

But I see the problem. You simply invent things to justify the elven culture like that in D&D gemstones are common in forests and still valuable. But when you do not invent things left and right with a "its fantasy" justification the elven society does not work.
And even if you do, you fail to think it through. SO gemstones are common? Then they are worthless and not useable as trade good. And you are back at the root of the problem: Elves have not enough goods to trade away.


----------



## Derren (Jun 8, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> If you and Edena want to declare victory by sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Nah nah nah nah nah not listening not listening!" that's great. Just don't mistake your behaviour for reasoned argument.




Its still better than your shouting down arguments with "YOU DON'T KNOW IT, ONLY MY ASSUMPTIONS ARE TRUE!!!!!" (even if they contain no logic at all).
When something is not covered by D&D and can't be deducted from any rules I use the real world and conclusions. You on the other hand seem to be unable to grasp economic connections. For you the number of children in a community has nothing to with the ressource usage of the community which in turn has nothing to do with the environment the community lives in. For you that are all seperate issues and any attempt to connect them is shouted down by you.
Do you really think that 3 or 4 magical rings which will get sold each year will cover an entires nation economy? Do you really think that furs are so valuable that elves could use them to finance their industry without overhunting a territory?
And stop with your exeggerations. Where do I have said that dwarves have a crafter monopol? But when you hire a master crafter from abroad, why hire an elf when you need a dwarf? Elf have no skill which makes them better than a equal level crafter from a other race.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 8, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> SO gemstones are common? Then they are worthless and not useable as trade good.



Please.  The contention -- not one I'd necessarily share, by the way -- was that gemstones would be relative common in the woodlands of the elves.  Thus, gemstones would be valuable trade goods with great buying power.


			
				Derren said:
			
		

> And you are back at the root of the problem: Elves have not enough goods to trade away.



You seem to be systematically ignoring the fact that the elves are a long-lived race with a magical culture.  They have tremendous "humanoid capital".  Even if they have no raw materials, they can cut raw gemstones into Silmarils, they can enchant rings and swords, they can grant all kinds of magical boons to wealthy lords of other races, etc.

A nation does not need to sit on oil deposits to be wealthy.  Look at Japan, Hong Kong, etc.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 8, 2007)

No more bickering, please. If you're about to post in order to tell another member off, you shouldn't be posting.

Thanks.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 8, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> Elf have no skill which makes them better than a equal level crafter from a other race.



And Mongols have no bonuses to make them better riders than equal-level Inuits of the same steppe-nomad class.


----------



## Derren (Jun 8, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Please.  The contention -- not one I'd necessarily share, by the way -- was that gemstones would be relative common in the woodlands of the elves.  Thus, gemstones would be valuable trade goods with great buying power.




Why would the presence of elves increase the number of gemstones found in a forest? Not all forests are under elven controll.







> You seem to be systematically ignoring the fact that the elves are a long-lived race with a magical culture.  They have tremendous "humanoid capital".  Even if they have no raw materials, they can cut raw gemstones in Silmarils, they can enchant rings and swords, they can grant all kinds of magical boons to wealthy lords of other races, etc.
> A nation does not need to sit on oil deposits to be wealthy.  Look at Japan, Hong Kong, etc.




Elves are not more magical than humans (ability scores) so even in the magic sector they face competition. Why would a lord outside of the elven realm (as the money has to flow into the elven nation, not only circulate) buy his magical equipment from a different nation and not from his own?



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> And Mongols have no bonuses to make them better riders than equal-level Inuits of the same steppe-nomad class.




They have. Its called "Human Bonus Starting Feat"  and "Human Bonus Skill Point".


----------



## fusangite (Jun 8, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> When something is not covered by D&D and can't be deducted from any rules I use the real world



Good. Then you can concede that forests can be highly productive, the fur trade can be highly lucrative, low birth rate societies often dominate and conquer high birth rate societies, nations can gain the vast majority of their raw materials through trade, low birth rates tend to correlate high life expectancies and the main value in an economy comes from having a mobilized, educated and long-lived workforce. Excellent.

I guess we're done! Hurray!


----------



## Umbran (Jun 8, 2007)

I sense a disturbance in the Force - the rising of tensions in this thread.

I should not have to remind folks here that there is no need to win the argument, no pressing absolute requirement that the other guy sees things your way.  If another poster doesn't count your points as particularly valid, getting more aggressive about it probably isn't a particularly constructive response.

Relax, take a breath.  If you find yourself posting in response to frustration, just step back and don't post until your frustration has ebbed, please.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 8, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> Elves don't mine, that would destroy nature, you forgot? So all the iron under the trees would be useless for elves. And Mithril is so much more common than iron that elves would have no problem to use that instead of iron? Right....




Didn't you read anything else?  Why didn't you address bog iron?  I said, specifically that the _gnomes_ in the forest would probably do the digging, but the elves live right there along with them.  And mithril is rare _in general_ but that doesn't mean that it's rarity doesn't vary by location - "elfin chainmail" could be called that for a reason.  You don't seem to be addressing 90% of what I wrote.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> But I see the problem. You simply invent things to justify the elven culture like that in D&D gemstones are common in forests and still valuable.




Somebody invented elves, didn't they?  No sense in arguing about how elves survive in the real world because they don't.  That's not to say that you couldn't stand to recognize some facts about forest resources and non-Western cultures, but it's not necessary.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> But when you do not invent things left and right with a "its fantasy" justification the elven society does not work.




Elves were invented left and right!  Why don't you explain why they wear silks?  Doesn't it seem reasonable that you support a culture with materials and technology?  Do you really expect the players handbook, which doesn't even include 90% of medieval technology, to support and explain fantasy ecosystems?  I don't see "millet" on the trade goods lists - oh well, so much for those socieites, guess they're all dead too.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> And even if you do, you fail to think it through. SO gemstones are common? Then they are worthless and not useable as trade good. And you are back at the root of the problem: Elves have not enough goods to trade away.




Who in the heck isn't thinking this through?!  Just because elves can find gemstones in their environment doesn't mean they're common!  In fact, it's exactly the opposite, they could be uncommon in the elfin environment, and not found anywhere else!  You could not explain something as mundane as the diamond trade by your reasoning, because the assumption you apparently make is that in order for something to be a trade good, it has to be common.  You made the same basic logical mistake with furs - assuming that a fur trade would indicate that millions of furry animals would have to be killed.  You don't seem to understand the concept of rarity and value.


----------



## Derren (Jun 8, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Who in the heck isn't thinking this through?!  Just because elves can find gemstones in their environment doesn't mean they're common!  In fact, it's exactly the opposite, they could be uncommon in the elfin environment, and not found anywhere else!  You could not explain something as mundane as the diamond trade by your reasoning, because the assumption you apparently make is that in order for something to be a trade good, it has to be common.  You made the same basic logical mistake with furs - assuming that a fur trade would indicate that millions of furry animals would have to be killed.  You don't seem to understand the concept of rarity and value.




And you don't seem to understand that you can't get a unlimited amount of money out of a luxury product. When gemstones are rare then elves have nearly no gemstones to trade away (and really, saying that they are only found in forests is just silly so there are other sources of gems).
And while haven't studies geology, I don't think that gemstones are found in large quantities in a forest (correct me if I am wrong) and "grow" very fast. That means that elves have to wander farther and farther away each year to find gems. Together with fur which follows the same rules it would lead to a more nomadic lifestyle which does not support a advanced society very well.

Besides, the value of gems is known in D&D. They are not that expensive even if you double the price because of low supply/high demand.



> You don't seem to be addressing 90% of what I wrote.



Then you have to stop to post something while I am replying


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 8, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> Why would the presence of elves increase the number of gemstones found in a forest?



Who argued that it did?  The contention -- not mine, by the way -- was that gemstones can be found near tree roots.  If elves live in forests, then they would logically have access to those gemstones.  They could then trade those gemstones to people who don't have as easy access to gemstones.


			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Not all forests are under elven controll.



So the elves won't have a monopoly?  OK...


			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Elves are not more magical than humans (ability scores) so even in the magic sector they face competition.



Silicon Valley Humans are arguably no more technical (by ability scores) than Rural Mexican Humans -- and yet Silicon Valley is a tech hub, and rural Mexico is not.  It must be because Silicon Valley has more silicon mines...


			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Why would a lord outside of the elven realm (as the money has to flow into the elven nation, not only circulate) buy his magical equipment from a different nation and not from his own?



Why wouldn't all Mexicans drive Mexican trucks?  Mexico has mechanical engineers.


			
				Derren said:
			
		

> They have. Its called "Human Bonus Starting Feat"  and "Human Bonus Skill Point".



Inuits are human too.  They are mechanically identical -- as far as the game is concerned, certainly -- to Mongols.  If you want to learn how to ride a pony and shoot a compound bow at a gallop though, don't expect to learn from one of the many equally good Inuit experts on the steppe-nomad lifestyle.


----------



## Derren (Jun 8, 2007)

mmadsen, you have to learn to use the D&D rules when the rules provide a framework for something.

Last time I checked the "software developer class" does not have a minimum Int requirement. But the wizard class is directly tied to the Int score of the individual. A normal human or elf would be a very bad wizard because he would only be able to cast 0th level spell. So only a exceptional individual can become a good wizard and elves do not have more of such individuals than humans have.
Also there are no secret elven spells and items. The only elven only things cover things which mix martial arts and magic but except as mercenaries such things can't be sold.
Likewise all magic in D&D is equal and the only thing which changes is the caster level -> the level of the person who casts it. And with the faster maturity and larger population finding a high level human wizard is not harder than to find a high level elf.

Inuits have chosen a different starting feat and spend their skillpoints on fishing and not on ride like mongols (to use D&D terms). But elves do not have this ability as all their bonuses (by race and culture) are fixed and they do not contain any crafting skills or otherwise skills which use can be sold very well.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 8, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> - Elves do *not* have any special immunity to disease, magical or mundane. (Indeed, that -2 to Constitution would increase their susceptibility.)
> - Elves do *not* have any special immunity to parasites.




Please show me where in the Third edition rules it lists the mundane diseases and parasites of the world(s) and that all demi-human races are susceptible to them.  Many diseases that affect chimps, gorillas etc don't affect humand and vice versa.  You are making an assumption that the physiology of elves are similar enough to human that they are affected by similar diseases in the same way.  I didn't read any of that in the rules, so I say your assumption is nothing more than that, an assumption based upon your own viewpoint.

Now, just to spin this around; from an epidemiological standpoint most infectious diseases tend to be more devastating when there are larger, more concentrated populations.  So, because you say elves have a lower birth rate and lower populations, it also means they don't have the large population centers as humans do and therefore they would be less affected by infectious disease.


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Jun 8, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Bog iron could be gathered from wetlands within forests.  While it's likely that I could find real-world cultures whose primary source of iron was bog iron (vikings?), it's unecessary because, again, we're talking fantasy...




check out my post (129 - above yours) there's a link to a bog iron site together with some information on recycling and long term use of iron. Green elves recycle. There's another factor to add to the equation.


----------



## Halivar (Jun 8, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> You are making an assumption that the physiology of elves are similar enough to human that they are affected by similar diseases in the same way.  I didn't read any of that in the rules, so I say your assumption is nothing more than that, an assumption based upon your own viewpoint.



I'm not so sure. Consider that certain classes explicitly gain immunity to disease as an extraordinary ability, indicating that disease immunity is actively managed by the RAW, not just _implied_, but expressly either granted or not granted. If it doesn't list it, you don't get it; and elves don't have it listed.

EDIT: I forgot that there's a list of "mundane" diseases in the SRD. TMK no PC race gets immunity from them.


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Jun 8, 2007)

One more luxury food export I forgot:

The Black truffle or Black Périgord Truffle (Tuber melanosporum) is named for the Périgord region in France and grows exclusively with *oak*.

The largest truffle market in France (and probably also in the world) is at Richerenches in Vaucluse. The largest truffle market in southwest France is at Lalbenque in Quercy. These markets are busiest in the month of January when the black truffles have their highest perfume. Black truffles on these markets sell between €200 and 600 per kilogram ($122–$367 per pound), depending on the quantity and quality of the harvest.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 8, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> Last time I checked the "software developer class" does not have a minimum Int requirement.



I would argue that software development is almost perfectly analogous to wizardly -- but it is not central to what we're discussing.  The example was illustrative, and you ignored the point I made: the limiting factor in software engineers in rural Mexico or the jungles of Brazil is not, presumably, the lack of _potential_ in the individuals living there; it's the lack of _expertise_.  Those are not technical societies full of veteran software developers, with wi-fi access at a Starbucks on every block.


			
				Derren said:
			
		

> But the wizard class is directly tied to the Int score of the individual. A normal human or elf would be a very bad wizard because he would only be able to cast 0th level spell. So only a exceptional individual can become a good wizard and elves do not have more of such individuals than humans have.



Elven society presumably offers _all_ intelligent elves ample opportunity to become wizards; human society presumably does not.  Elven society is analogous to modern Europe, where anyone with reasonable talent can go on to study through the university level and on to receive a doctorate.  D&D human society is analogous to medieval Europe. where only the tiniest fraction of the population could ever dream of anything other than back-breaking labor.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 8, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> Also there are no secret elven spells and items.



So all the published settings and materials in which there are secret elven spells and items are wrong? All those secret elven armour making techniques detailed in the WOTC Arms & Equipment Guide, what are those?







> Inuits have chosen a different starting feat and spend their skillpoints on fishing and not on ride like mongols (to use D&D terms). But elves do not have this ability as all their bonuses (by race and culture) are fixed and they do not contain any crafting skills or otherwise skills which use can be sold very well.



Elves, just like all creatures with skill points, get to decide where to put those skill points. How, exactly, are you arguing that because elves have racial bonuses they cannot therefore decide what their skill points and level 1 feat are spent on? The fact that they cannot control what their bonuses apply to has nothing to do with their ability to allocate skill points exactly as they see fit, just like gnomes, orcs, kobolds, dwarves, halflings, etc; this is an ability that all humanoids share with humans.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 8, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> And you don't seem to understand that you can't get a unlimited amount of money out of a luxury product.




It's not necessary for me to prove "unlimited" in order to question your assertion of "none".  



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> When gemstones are rare then elves have nearly no gemstones to trade away (and really, saying that they are only found in forests is just silly so there are other sources of gems).




Logically, again, it's not necessary that amber, for example, be only found in one location in the world to make it valuable.  In a fantasy world, a particular gemstone, fossilized tree resin (like amber) for example might only be found in forests.  Or, it could be found in forests, and perhaps on sea coasts (which would be coincidental with forest).  Elves don't have to be the only source of amber in the world for it to be valuable.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> And while haven't studies geology, I don't think that gemstones are found in large quantities in a forest (correct me if I am wrong) and "grow" very fast. That means that elves have to wander farther and farther away each year to find gems.




So does any other community.  I'm sure elves are willing to leave their tree houses.  Forests can be pretty large.  Collecting gemstones that wash down from the mountains, or finding amber in the swamp, or whatever can be an ongoing process.  I'm not suggesting that gem-gathering is the primary industry of elves, but I don't need to - elves would practice these things in aggregate, and the quantities would be sufficient for spell casting and trade.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Besides, the value of gems is known in D&D. They are not that expensive even if you double the price because of low supply/high demand.




Gemstones are *extremely* expensive by real-world standards.  Most types seem to far exceed the value of gold by weight.  A 500 gp gem would have to weigh 10 lbs in order to be even worth it's weight in gold.  



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Then you have to stop to post something while I am replying




  Ok, but your response to the iron issue could have addressed gnomes, bog iron and the rest.  Seems to be that you just selected out a few facts, out of context, from what I wrote and didn't even quite reference them accurately.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 8, 2007)

Halivar said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure. Consider that certain classes explicitly gain immunity to disease as an extraordinary ability, indicating that disease immunity is actively managed by the RAW, not just _implied_, but expressly either granted or not granted. If it doesn't list it, you don't get it; and elves don't have it listed.
> 
> EDIT: I forgot that there's a list of "mundane" diseases in the SRD. TMK no PC race gets immunity from them.



 Diseases in the game.  Things like Mummy Rot and Filth Fever.  Again I ask, please show me where in the rules are the listing for cholera, bubonic plague, smallpox etc.   

As far as I have seen in the rules, most diseases are caused by attacks from monsters or from magical spells.  There are no rules for how "ordinary" disease spreads through a population and who is susceptible to them.

As for the SRD mundane diseases: 







			
				SRD said:
			
		

> When a character is injured by a contaminated attack, touches an item smeared with diseased matter, or consumes disease-tainted food or drink, he must make an immediate Fortitude saving throw.



Nothing there talks about transmission from person to person, so I'm still not seeing rules that would lead to population destroying diseases.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 8, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Now, just to spin this around; from an epidemiological standpoint most infectious diseases tend to be more devastating when there are larger, more concentrated populations.  So, because you say elves have a lower birth rate and lower populations, it also means they don't have the large population centers as humans do and therefore they would be less affected by infectious disease.



It depends on the time frame you're looking at.  In the short term, population centers are much more vulnerable to epidemics -- particularly if they bring together multiple species that can spread diseases back and forth, e.g. pigs and humans.

In the long term, urban populations develop immunities to the various diseases that have passed through, while distant hunter-gatherer populations do not.

Thus, when the Europeans started arriving in the New World, locals died in droves.  (Although there's some argument that local diseases may have reappeared at that time...)


----------



## fusangite (Jun 8, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> It depends on the time frame you're looking at.  In the short term, population centers are much more vulnerable to epidemics -- particularly if they bring together multiple species that can spread diseases back and forth, e.g. pigs and humans.
> 
> In the long term, urban populations develop immunities to the various diseases that have passed through, while distant hunter-gatherer populations do not.
> 
> Thus, when the Europeans started arriving in the New World, locals died in droves.



Not to nitpick but Tenochtitlan, as the largest city in the hemisphere (with a population of about 200,000) had amongst the highest death rates from smallpox. Densely-populated areas of the Mexico Valley and Andes had the worst epidemic disease at contact of almost anywhere. 

Fortunately, the history of the Americas nevertheless supports your general contention. The Andes and Mexico Valley have had, amongst the best demographic recovery of any indigenous populations in the New World, largely because, after a 90% drop in population in a century and a half, the population density remained sufficient to sustain a productive society whereas lower death rates were able to annihilate societies that lacked the characteristics of Mesoamerican urban societies.

Also, on this front, the main thing that conditions whether a society will suffer what Crosby called "virgin soil epidemics" is not urban life; rather, it is trade dependence. African societies on the Indian rim had high levels of resistance to Eurasian disease than did less trade-dependent interior societies, despite the fact that population densities remained low and settlement patterns remained rural. 

Ultimately, the societies that have the best disease resistance tend to be migratory pastoralists, not city dwellers. In migratory pastoralist societies, contagion exposure is not as bottlenecked through a small number of trading specialists but is more evenly distributed through society.

EDIT: Recent science seems to indicate that it is this ranging and trading, not the zoonotic explanation that accounts for this.


----------



## BlackMoria (Jun 8, 2007)

Hmmm.  Some perspective is need here.  People are superimposing real world economics into a fantasy world and are getting hot under the collar in the telling.

There are no real elves, so attributing real world values to elves is not an answer.

I could say that elves don't need as much food as a real world human because in a fantasy world, given the often stated that elves are beings of magic or heavily in tune with magic, I could make the case that elves are partially sustained by mana or ambient magic and therefore could survive on a cupful of berries per day.  The RAW doesn't contradict or confirm that assertion so it is no less valid than anyone elses take on elven psyiology.  

And with that theory, elven society can live and prosper in trees without arguing real world farming and hunter gathering societies and sustainable economics.  All handwaved away because elves are partially sustained by magic itself.

And since there are no real world elves - guess what - my assertions are no more or less credibility than anyone elses guess on elven economics.

My point - it is a fantasy world so stop arguing real world economics and societies because they don't equate.   I can have special magical trees that grow certain gemstones in my campaign setting.  Now your real world argument about mining practices in forests is made academic.

Real World....Fantasy World.  Don't mix 'em and argue them as absolutes.


----------



## Prince of Happiness (Jun 8, 2007)

BlackMoria said:
			
		

> I could say that elves don't need as much food as a real world human because in a fantasy world, given the often stated that elves are beings of magic or heavily in tune with magic, I could make the case that elves are partially sustained by mana or ambient magic and therefore could survive on a cupful of berries per day.  The RAW doesn't contradict or confirm that assertion so it is no less valid than anyone elses take on elven psyiology.




Do you have rations for your elves weigh less than that for other races? If they require less food, then less rations right? Because the rules don't make that distinction.

Myself, as a "foodie" and attentive to various forms of food production and attainment, there are many ways of cultivating food that doesn't conform to Farmer Brown and his two cows agriculture. Plus, as given in source material for grey/gold elves, they *do* dwell in cities, often in mountains and *do* attain industry.


----------



## Halivar (Jun 8, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Diseases in the game.  Things like Mummy Rot and Filth Fever.  Again I ask, please show me where in the rules are the listing for cholera, bubonic plague, smallpox etc.



They don't exist unless you house-rule them in. In which case, they act however you want them to. There certainly aren't any rules suggesting elves get immunity from them (like I said, though, they will act like you want them to).

Now, as for spreading the mundane diseases that _are_ listed, there are, in fact, rules for spreading them. In fact, you quoted the biggest two:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> touches an item smeared with diseased matter, or consumes disease-tainted food or drink



These two alone cover how the majority of "real-world" diseases spread, so I expect SRD diseases to spread likewise. But again, that's my opinion, and I don't run your game. It's a logical inference if one wants it to be, that's all.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 8, 2007)

BlackMoria said:
			
		

> And since there are no real world elves - guess what - my assertions are no more or less credibility than anyone elses guess on elven economics.




I agree.  However, using the real world helps address two different problems:

1.  If something exists in the real world, then it can conceivably exist in a fantasy world.
2.  If the real world conditions help you to understand a problem, then it gives you some indication of how to solve the problem in the fantasy world.  Ie. taking the "black truffles" example given before, you can create a similar plant species in your world in order to round out the economic picture of your elfin society.

So real world examples are unfortunately skewed in favor of those who oppose the OPs position, because we merely have to show _existence_ of something in the real world, whereas the counterarguments would have to show that such a thing _cannot possibly exist in any conceivable fantasy universe_.  That's a pretty tall order even for someone who is an expert on metallurgy, economy, and society.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 8, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> So real world examples are unfortunately skewed in favor of those who oppose the OPs position, because we merely have to show _existence_ of something in the real world, whereas the counterarguments would have to show that such a thing _cannot possibly exist in any conceivable fantasy universe_.  That's a pretty tall order even for someone who is an expert on metallurgy, economy, and society.



The discussion would probably be more productive if we discussed what elements would help or hurt an elf society and why we find them plausible or implausbile, rather than taking sides.

For instance, if an elf society tried to survive in the woods as a tribe of hunter-gatherers, it would presumably fail to thrive -- unless it managed to do something quite different from real-life hunter-gatherers, who succumbed to encroaching agrarian societies or fled to some inhospitable corner of the world.

I find it perfectly plausible to assume that the elves have devised _permaculture_ "farming" techniques in their hidden groves, so they can maintain an advanced agrarian society without amber waves of grain.

If elves live for hundreds of years, mature slowly, and reproduce rarely, then they certainly cannot recover quickly from a war or other disaster, but they also presumably invest a tremendous amount in their offspring, and they have a society of wise yet energetic adults who can benefit from education or training for hundreds of years.

A culture with such a vast investment in "humanoid capital" should be much, much more productive than a typical medieval society, in the same way that our modern society is much, much more productive than medieval Europe.

Even if such a society is not particulalry war-like, it has the resources to dedicate to its own defense.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 8, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> For instance, if an elf society tried to survive in the woods as a tribe of hunter-gatherers, it would presumably fail to thrive -- unless it managed to do something quite different from real-life hunter-gatherers, who succumbed to encroaching agrarian societies or fled to some inhospitable corner of the world.




I'd say that a fantasy forest would be looked at as pretty inhospitable by elfin enemies.  Treants, unicorns, sprites, dryads and all sorts of creatures that could be natural allies of elves would be enemies of bumbling humans.  (Yet another advantage that elves could make use of in their survival BTW)

The basic issue regarding encroaching agrarian societies is that this is particular to the real world and it's development.  But I would think most DnD campaigns remain rather technologically and developmentally stable/static - so I don't think this would have to be an issue for a campaign that wanted to have hunter/gatherer elves.  Or, there's always the "Great Cataclysm" option that many campaign worlds make use of.  There's no reason that hunter-gatherer elves would have to be viable for 1000 years anyway, simply for the time period that encompasses the campaign.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 8, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I'd say that a fantasy forest would be looked at as pretty inhospitable by elfin enemies.



Certainly, but the elves don't need to lose a pitched battle in the heart of the woods to end up _doomed_.  If the human homesteaders just keep moving closer and closer to the woods, collecting firewood and clearing land, and the elves aren't ruthless about stopping them, then eventually the elves will be displaced.


			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> The basic issue regarding encroaching agrarian societies is that this is particular to the real world and it's development.



I don't think it's peculiar to our real world; it's fundamental to how hunter-gatherers live versus farmers.  Hunter-gatherers need vast amounts of wilderness per person to supply enough food.  Farmers don't need as much land, but they need to apply much more labor to that land.  Farming societies build denser populations, which yield larger armies.

Then there's the whole issue of building anything resembling civilization if you're hunting and gathering, with everything you own on your back.  Since elves live for hundreds of years, I suppose they could have an advanced oral literary tradition, where they all memorize the equivalent of a human scholar's library.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 8, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> And you don't seem to understand that you can't get a unlimited amount of money out of a luxury product. When gemstones are rare then elves have nearly no gemstones to trade away (and really, saying that they are only found in forests is just silly so there are other sources of gems).
> And while haven't studies geology, I don't think that gemstones are found in large quantities in a forest (correct me if I am wrong)




You are wrong. The diamond sources in West Africa that provide the funds that fuel the bulk of the civil wars that rage there are found in . . . . wet forested areas. Entire armies are funded and supplied with modern arms using nothing but the income from this "luxury product".


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 8, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> and the elves aren't ruthless about stopping them, then eventually the elves will be displaced.




How rutheless do they have to be? - there's no mandate for farmers to have to push into that land unless you create one for the campaign (because there's no mandate for population growth and the other factors).  Besides just the possibility of a farmer getting shot by a pixie-dart and waking up in another kingdom could be enough to discourage settlement.  "Cursed land" that's not open to settlement is a concept that I would expect a magical fantasy society to understand.

The small woodlands within a given kingdom, plus swamps and stuff - would be the first candidates for clearing - leaving the great primeval forest homelands of the elves untouched.  It's likely that nomadic elves could strike a deal with human kingdoms anyway.

Granted, as the population increases then pressures might cause such treaties to collapse.  But that's not a situation that's universal to all times and places - the campaign would simply be placed at a period of time when those forces are not as apparent.  

Sooner or later someone is going to invent gunpowder - doesn't mean that a sword-wielding tech-level for DnD doesn't make sense.  There's also no reason that any society is mandated to invent gunpowder, or (more to the point) explode in population, simply because those things happen on planet Earth.  One of the real tricky parts of assuming all possible socieities must be like historical Earth ones is that there's really not a lot of data points for you to compare.



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> I don't think it's peculiar to our real world; it's fundamental to how hunter-gatherers live versus farmers.  Hunter-gatherers need vast amounts of wilderness per person to supply enough food.  Farmers don't need as much land, but they need to apply much more labor to that land.  Farming societies build denser populations, which yield larger armies.




Yea, but there are other issues.  One is that there's nothing fundemental about population increases in agrarian socieities across all planets - you have to assume earth climate and crops and so on.  Secondly you haven't addressed the dangers of the fantasy woodland - it's possible that elfin homelands radiate some sort of fey aura that causes crop-blight and much lower-than-average yields for agriculture for the kinds of foods that humans know how to grow.  Lastly, the kinds of cultural transmission that exists in the real world might not exist in the fantasy one - the god of the hunter/gatherer elves might have a vested interest in keeping them at his tech level - meaning that his divine servants intervene at crucial points to maintain the divisions.



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> Then there's the whole issue of buidling anything resembling civilization if you're hunting and gathering, with everything you own on your back.  Since elves live for hundreds of years, I suppose they could have an advanced oral literary tradition, where they all memorize the equivalent of a human scholar's library.




I agree - the goal would be to make it so that elfin hunter-gatherers look as much like their human counterparts on earth.  That way the basic features are familiar to the players without a whole lot of explaining.


----------



## Derren (Jun 8, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> You are wrong. The diamond sources in West Africa that provide the funds that fuel the bulk of the civil wars that rage there are found in . . . . wet forested areas. Entire armies are funded and supplied with modern arms using nothing but the income from this "luxury product".




And of course those diamond sources do not involve any mining and forest clearly or other environment destroying things...


----------



## Slife (Jun 8, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> And of course those diamond sources do not involve any mining and forest clearly or other environment destroying things...



It used to be (before extensive mining occurred) that you could just pick them off the ground.

The reason that mining is so destructive these days is because all the easy stuff's been mined out already.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 8, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> And of course those diamond sources do not involve any mining and forest clearly or other environment destroying things...




His example is sufficient to demonstrate the point about economic conditions.  Your comment appears by proximity to object to them but really changes the subject by raising the question of what the environmental conditions are like.  

As we've already discussed, there's no reason to have an opinion on the geology of every single possible fantasy world in this area - which is relevant to just how the diamonds are gathered and the environmental impact.  There's also no reason to think that the environmental disruption is equivalent, given that the populations/numbers involved don't have to equate - there are millions of people in that part of Africa - I would seriously doubt most people conceive of an elf kingdom in terms of millions.  It's a fantasy world - a sharp-eyed elf can spot diamonds in the river-bank that wash down periodically from the mountains - it can be as simple as that.


----------



## Jim Hague (Jun 8, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> And of course those diamond sources do not involve any mining and forest clearly or other environment destroying things...




Perhaps you missed the bit earlier about gemstones tending to be found around tree roots?


----------



## Slife (Jun 8, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Perhaps you missed the bit earlier about gemstones tending to be found around tree roots?



And to clarify my earlier comment...

Gemstones tend to be, on the whole, much denser than the surrounding matter.  Tree roots tend to act as a natural sieve, which makes it a lot easier to find gemstones in areas with trees than without.  This would make it more feasible for elves to sell gemstones, since they tend to live in forested areas, and would be better able than other races, even if those races had the same geologic conditions.  Tree roots grow through the path of least resistance, and as such can break into pockets of stones, such as granite, which contain gems.

EDIT: Found a source for you doubters.



			
				[url=http://www.buenavistagemworks.com/crpeak/crpeaknotes.htm]"Buena Vista Gem Works said:
			
		

> [/url]The photo of a typical Crystal Peak dig near Lake George, Colo., shows how common it is to dig along tree roots in pursuit of pockets of amazonite and smoky quartz crystals. The reason? Tree roots seek the path of least resistance and often are able to penetrate into the voids and spaces of the pockets and mineralized seams in the harder granite. Notice however, how crumbly the granite is here, at least on the surface. The smoky quartz taken from here was mostly grade B, although some of decent size, up to 6" long. However, there were numerous single small amazonites taken from here varying in places from light colored to very dark, some with selective stripes (see 1st amazonite photo). Very little of the material was in groups or clusters. There was also some very unusual purple cubo-octahedral fluorites found here which unfortunately do not photograph very well. Most of the best crystal groups taken from the Pike's Peak granite are dug from pits 6 to 12 feet deep, below the "frost line". Some productive land is private property, some is national forest, but there are many active mining claims in the forest, and finding a good collecting area can be difficult and confusing.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 8, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Perhaps you missed the bit earlier about gemstones tending to be found around tree roots?




  Not all gemstones, of course, at least on Earth.  AFAIK Diamonds form deep within the interior of the earth and are expelled outward by volcanic processes.  

However, tree resins, whether petrified (amber) or not (dragonsblood) exist in plenty of forms in various places on planet Earth, and have similar value to semi-precious stones.  If one was concerned about the elfin economy, it would simply be a matter of inventing one or two more types found more commonly in temperate sylvan woodlands, and valued for their use in incense, medicine, or jewelry.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 8, 2007)

Slife said:
			
		

> It used to be (before extensive mining occurred) that you could just pick them off the ground.




In the old days there was a canyon, the floor of which was covered in diamonds (and poisonous serpents).  One merely had to throw a sheep carcass into the canyon, which a roc would swoop down and get and take to it's nest.  Then it was simply a matter of sneaking into the nest and taking the diamonds that stuck to the carcass.  That's if you believe the Arabian Nights, and aren't inclined to complain to the DM about the CR of a roc.  Regardless, I would say that tossing sheep carcasses into canyons is not too terribly harmful to the environment.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 8, 2007)

Holy mackeral.  A lot of posts since I was last here.

  Let me go back to an earlier post.  I wanted to comment on something.

  Would I give Lifeproof to all the elves across the world.  No.  That would totally destroy the campaign setting.
  Would I even give Lifeproof to a small elven nation?  Well, I did:  Haldendreeva.  But there is giving, and then there is the part of your mind that shrieks:  Why did you do that?!  And in my case, that part won't shut up, and demands answers.  So I wrote a story backwards from that point (and other Haldendreevan concepts) until I got all the way back to Delrune, 100 years earlier.  I felt I just needed to do that, if for no other reason than my own satisfaction (or so stated that part of my mind screaming in protest about Lifeproofing the elves.)

  Based on all the 1st and 2nd edition material I read (I can't cite specifics) it would be very difficult to Lifeproof thousands of people (even the Haldendreevan elves only Lifeproofed 3,000.)
  Lifeproof requires a 10,000 gp gem, for each spell cast.  That's a gem worth half a ton of gold!  That's a pretty valuable gem (on Krynn, it'd be 10,000 steel.  On Athas, 10,000 coins of the realm, with the buying power of gold pieces.)
  I can imagine a nation with the awesome might of the Suloise Imperium producing three thousand 10,000 gold piece jewels, given a few weeks.  Powerful Evermeet could do it in a few years.  Cormyr could do it given decades.  Qualinesti could do it, given a century or three.
  Haldendreeva pulled off this stunt in only a few months, indicating that at that time they had power greater than the strength of the entire nation of Evermeet.  But it took that kind of might, that level of prodigal magic and skill, to do it.  And the elves had to gain that might somehow.  And so, the rest of the backstory.
  Funny how one spell (one small rulesset) can cause you to think, and ponder, and end up writing a whole backstory.  Which, of course, alters the whole campaign world ... or helps create that world.

  I advocate giving the elves abilities, extraordinary abilities, and supernatural abilities, for the purposes of flavor, character, and viability, yes.
  But not Lifeproof.  No 1st level character is going to ever start out equipped with Lifeproof.  Not in my game.  Not unless we're rping in the Land of Oz or Land of Ev or the Gnome Kingdom (from the works of Frank Baum, where everyone was, in effect, Lifeproofed.)

  I tried to write something about how switching Arwen for Glorfindel implied colossal changes in Tolkien's setting, colossal changes in it's history, and colossal changes in elven culture there.
  The Lifeproof spell, if it exists, is sorta like Arwen replacing Glorfindel in Peter Jackson's film LOTR.  It's there (and she was there) for a reason.  And it's (or her) existence (presence) implies all sorts of things, which imply all sorts of other things, which demand answers, which define the setting (and usually, creating a king sized headache for the DM.)


----------



## Umbran (Jun 8, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> You are wrong.




Well, he's correct that you can't get an unlimited amount of money out of the things.  The point is more that you don't need an _unlimited_ amount of money - merely a very large amount.  It isn't as if whole nations on our earth are not founded on the export of natural resources.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 8, 2007)

If we were to give the elves the starting supernatural ability of Agnakok:  Forests, All, then we have to ask the Why of the matter.
  In my case, the answer to the Why is the classical depictions of elves in so many books of literature, portrayals of them in the official campaign settings, and partly due to how I would like to see them work.  A partly personal thing, then.

  It would certainly resolve a lot of the questions being raised in this thread, if they had Agnakok at the start.
  It would not please everyone.  It might not please a lot of people.  Who knows?  I can only guess.  But it would certainly please me.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 8, 2007)

Slife said:
			
		

> EDIT: Found a source for you doubters.




Well, "Crystal Peak" in Colorado hardly seems like the kind of temperate, low-lying sylvan forest that I would assume elves would favor.  Therefore, your entire elfin smoky quartz industry has failed and my poor elves have been forced to turn to banditry and software development for their survival.  Thanks alot!


----------



## fusangite (Jun 8, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I advocate giving the elves abilities, extraordinary abilities, and supernatural abilities, for the purposes of flavor, character,



Glad to see I wasn't totally off-base, even if I got the specifics wrong. You would like to redo the elf race in your game because what you perceive to be the default flavour isn't working for you. That's great.







> and viability, yes.



Maybe you might want to consider whether your belief that these modifications are necessary to prevent the elves' extinction is grounded in an honest appraisal of the game mechanics or in wishful thinking. 

It seems to me that if you want to go ahead and do this in your game, you don't need to demonstrate to anybody that it is a necessity, merely that it is desirable and workable in the game you are playing right now.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 8, 2007)

GrumpyOldMan said:
			
		

> For information on ‘Natural Iron’ check here.
> http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/bog_iron.htm
> Deer, swine and chickens were all originally forest animals. There is a lot of eating on a boar. Eggs are readily available (lots of birds live in trees).
> Fruit and nuts grow on trees (so do edible fungi – though hopefully not the same trees). Apples, pears, oranges, quinces, etc., the list is very long. Okay, commercial fruit farms are not exactly forests, but our ancesters were pretty good at planting and maintaining trees.
> ...




Given that I was at a birthday party a few weeks ago that included a pig on a spit, I can affirm that a relatively small pig was able to provide enough meat for approximately 40+ adults...and there were leftovers.  There was a lot of meat on that animal, and I've seen much bigger pigs.

The contention that elves can't grow food, or gather enough food in the forest to be able to survive seems rather baseless.

Banshee


----------



## fusangite (Jun 8, 2007)

Derren, 

I asked Edena something like this and it, and a few related questions seemed to set our dialogue on a more productive path. So, I'll do the same with you but structure it a little differently:

1. According to you, WOTC has structured D&D mechanically so that it is impossible to design any world in which elves are not going extinct. Is this because
(a) they didn't understand the implications of their mechanics; or
(b) they wanted to make it impossible for any setting to include elves that were not going extinct?
2. If WOTC has designed D&D to make it impossible for elves not to be on a path to total extinction, why do you think that it is so hard to persuade other people that this is what WOTC has done? 
4. Why do you think so many of us are unable to see this? Is it a communication problem, a logic problem, what do you think is going wrong in this debate?


----------



## The Green Adam (Jun 8, 2007)

BlackMoria said:
			
		

> Hmmm.  Some perspective is need here.  People are superimposing real world economics into a fantasy world and are getting hot under the collar in the telling.
> 
> There are no real elves, so attributing real world values to elves is not an answer.
> 
> Real World....Fantasy World.  Don't mix 'em and argue them as absolutes.




QFT

Blessed be he who is BlackMoria.   

I sit here is horrified awe of "Elves would be this way, Elven society should be that way and Forests kingdoms can't support such and such." Does anyone recognize the second word in the title "Dungeons & Dragons"? It's Dragons. Say it with me...Draaa-guns. They don't exist. They were made up. Made up stuff can be anyway you want it.

Yes, the Mongols were a people who did x,y and z and lived a certain way. Elves never lived and made a kingdom on the real world Earth (that we know of, heheh). It is fascinating to read the different views and cultures we are all *coming up with*, but none of them are the official D&D word of law. The whole point of D&D is that it doesn't have a set background. It isn't Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones or Terry Goodkind's books. It's basically generic fantasy role-playing. You the individual DM and players forge your world. You can use a known setting if you like but it has no bearing on the next book in the series. Percieve Elves are inferior? Make'em cool. Thing every is out to get them as their civilization declines? *POOF* Everyone is friends and it's on the rise.

It just amazes me that we would argue the detailed of a species that is not only fictional but not truly detailed in the Player's Handbook. Please. DO you think I would let my Elves walk around looking like Mialee??


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 8, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> No, you haven't., or rather you are extremly axxagerating. The only examples which were made were societies who managed to survive in a forest environment, but it was not shown that those societies lived an elven life (hardly clearing any trees) and were able to grow enough food to supply a bigger population in a non nomadic lifestyle (being a nomad would limit the technological posibilities of elves and would make them easy targets).




The examples I pointed out earlier regarding the Mayans illustrated exactly this point.  The only reason they ended up clearing trees, was for the fires they needed to work with limestone for their pyramids.  Ergo, if the elves aren't spending their time making massive stone pyramids, they won't have to clear the trees.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Read what I write (or strat thinking instead of replying on a reflex). Elves can trade but they have not enough to trade with to get everything a D&D nation needs to be strong (in the case of elves).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 8, 2007)

Hehe.  

  But which looks better?

  A:  A beautiful elven girl, dressed in an exotic outfit like Mialee's, with long hair hanging in sultry fashion and alternately revealing and concealing the body, standing poised and cocky?

  Or:

  B:  A beautiful moon elven girl, in shining form-fitting elven chain, girded on her hips with a gleaming weapons belt, raising a shining elven long sword, her long hair blowing back in a high breeze?

  Oh sorry, this thread is about elven survivability.  Forgot about that ...


----------



## F5 (Jun 8, 2007)

First off, I've got to say that I really liked Edena's idea about the use of Permanent Magnificent Mansion spells to make Elven cities in the forests a little more plausible.  It plays to the idea that elves are capable of grat things because of their affinity for magic (and I justify saying they have an affinty for magic with the fact that they get Wizard as a favored class).  Even if they don't NEED an agrarian, farming lifestyle (because various forms of permaculture would be sufficeint), this option would still be available to them without disrupting the forest ecosystem around them.  

A high-level wizard (and I think we can all agree that the elves would have some of these) casts Magnificent Mansion and makes it permanent.  A few tons of topsoil and a room full of everburning torches, and you have an extradimensional evlish garden, somewhere around 3000 square feet of arable land that doesn't have any impact on the forest ecosystem at all.  Where does the topsoil come from?  Piles of leaf litter and Polymorph Any Object, possibly...or gated in from the Plane of Earth by elvish Summoners.  Overkill?  It's a lot of magic to throw at the problem of making a garden plot, yes, but it seems to me like it's a very ELVISH way to tackle the problem.

I think part of the problem here is that some terminology we're using needs to be better defined.  Edena_of_neith wants to address concerns about certain assumptions about elvish society without compromising the elvish identity.  What, precisely, does it mean when we say "the elvish identity"?  How do we actually define if the elves are "thriving" or "doomed" as a race?

For my game, I define these terms as follows:

The "elvish identity":  elves are carefree, introspective, and have a deep and abiding love of life.  They prefer to spend their considerable time on the planet in pursuit of the finer things, beauty and truth and etc, and have a deeper understanding of magic and its' role in the natural world.  They are reckless in the short-term, but extremely patient in the long-term.  Whatever else you do with elves, if you keep these things constant then they still feel like elves to me.  The elves on Athas/Dark Sun, for example...while interesting, to me they just aren't elves.

How do I define "thriving" elves?  I think what I (as a human) think about "thriving" and what an elf thinks of as "thriving" are two seperate things.  Maybe a small population, cut off from the world in an unassailable forest fortress, with poor, stone age material posessions, but all the time in the world to laugh, sing, and practice their considerable magics seems like the ideal to an elf, while a human might see it as "the last vestige of a doomed, fading race".  It's fair to say that a race as different from humans as the elves are would have a very different perspective about the meaning of "success".


----------



## F5 (Jun 8, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Given that I was at a birthday party a few weeks ago that included a pig on a spit, I can affirm that a relatively small pig was able to provide enough meat for approximately 40+ adults...and there were leftovers.  There was a lot of meat on that animal, and I've seen much bigger pigs.
> 
> Banshee




Dire boar BBQ, anyone?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 8, 2007)

Thanks for the compliment on the Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion idea.  I would give credit to the creative people who thought up that spell, and the person who mentioned that the elves have a variant of it.

  I like the idea of an 'elvish identity.'
  The 3.0 and 3.5 Player's Handbook leaves it up to the DM and players to decide what this is.  And that's ok.  That's fine.

  It just happens to be my personal take that the Player's Handbook should offer an 'elvish identity' pre-made.  (Ditto the other non-human races.)  And back it up with advantages and disadvantages for the elves, including extraordinary and supernatural powers (such as Agnakok abilities.)
  Or, perhaps, multiple takes on elves should be offered.
  Yes, I realize that there are only so many pages in the PHB.  But there is always smaller font (even if you eventually need a microscope x40 magnification to read the PHB!  ) to cram more Fluff and Crunch on elves into.

  And nobody has to use any of it.  They can make up their own elves.  The PHB would simply offer suggestions and ideas.

  We all know, for example, how the *drow* are.  Goodness gracious, do we know.  It's not in the RAW, but ask anyone about drow, and they'll have a lot to say on the subject.
  I honestly do not think we'd be having a discussion (or argument) of this magnitude, concerning the drow.  We know them too well.  We are in agreement on too much about them.
  Elves seem to be more nebulous.  Paradoxical, considering the colossal amount of material written about elves, the colossal number of books, and so on.  
  Point to the drow, and most agree on them.  Point to the elves, and people disagree a lot.

  The PHB needs to help us, with it's own templates for 'elvish identities.'
  Just my opinion.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 8, 2007)

F5 said:
			
		

> Dire boar BBQ, anyone?



Dire animals are tough and gamey. 

If you want good barbecuing meat, you want animals with the celestial template.


----------



## Slife (Jun 8, 2007)

Another thing about elves, which hasn't been mentioned yet, is their preponderance of subraces.  They apparently have a really weird adaptive talent.


----------



## F5 (Jun 9, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> The 3.0 and 3.5 Player's Handbook leaves it up to the DM and players to decide what this is.  And that's ok.  That's fine.
> 
> It just happens to be my personal take that the Player's Handbook should offer an 'elvish identity' pre-made.  (Ditto the other non-human races.)  And back it up with advantages and disadvantages for the elves, including extraordinary and supernatural powers (such as Agnakok abilities.)




I see where you're coming from, but I've gotta disagree.  The PHB isn't the place to be discussing the elvish cultural identity.   This kind of detail belongs in (and is essential to!) campaign setting guides.  The PHB needs to be setting-neutral, so that writers of future campaign settings, and homebrew world-builders, can take things in whatever direction they need to.

That's another source of your elf-angst, I think, Edena...the solution you're looking for to justify the game-mechanics of the elven civilization doesn't belong in the Core.  They've left it up to folks like us on the internet to figure out for ourselves...


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jun 9, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Elves are not winners, not successful, not able to adjust or cope, not able to survive.  These realities are built into the race in 3rd edition (as it was in 2nd and 1st edition and OD&D)
> 
> We as players ignore this reality, even as we ignore the problems of kender when we play them.  Nevertheless, the underlying reality remains, and nobody has an answer that negates it.
> Or do they have an answer?
> ...




I don't think there truely has been a point how elves exist.  They are a dying race.  Look, they have a minus to Con.  They are not as Hardy.  However, they are an ancient race that has risen to heights that humanity has yet to reach and then they have fallen into decadence.  As a race, they tend to be more cooperative to helping each other.  Humans want to prosper but they usually only think of their family.  Elves have learned through many wars that they as a community must band together more than human settlements are willing to.  Elven communities number in the few dozens to hundreds.  Whereas humans range in settlements tin much greater numbers.  Elven leaders are much less to abuse for personal power so if they had a fiefdom system, the taxes are taken only for what they need to have a cohesive community.  Not to make some lord powerful and rich.  If you look at Galdrial or Elrond communities, they may have maybe a couple thousand.  They look at building quality over quantity.  Things last unlike what human make.  They also may be more at peace with their surroundings.  They may have fruit  and nuts crops as opposed to grains such as wheats and rices.  Their livestock may be a managed wild crops that are hunted as opposed to raising for slaughter.  Hence the more marshall than humans.  This marshall style is used to protect themselves.  Since they have a long history of wars with such creatures as Orcs, this marshall system has taught them with regards to them to shoot first and question later.  They are like Israel with respect to their enemies around them.  They take out much more of the enemies than they lose.  They elves are generally better armed, they weapon making is more efficient but takes longer.  There are many ways that the elves would continue to linger on using these precepts.  The elves that are adventurers are the younger ones that have that diminishing spark of wonderlust.

My 2 cents


----------



## Jim Hague (Jun 9, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> I don't think there truely has been a point how elves exist.  They are a dying race.  Look, they have a minus to Con.  They are not as Hardy.  However, they are an ancient race that has risen to heights that humanity has yet to reach and then they have fallen into decadence.  As a race, they tend to be more cooperative to helping each other.  Humans want to prosper but they usually only think of their family.  Elves have learned through many wars that they as a community must band together more than human settlements are willing to.  Elven communities number in the few dozens to hundreds.  Whereas humans range in settlements tin much greater numbers.  Elven leaders are much less to abuse for personal power so if they had a fiefdom system, the taxes are taken only for what they need to have a cohesive community.  Not to make some lord powerful and rich.  If you look at Galdrial or Elrond communities, they may have maybe a couple thousand.  They look at building quality over quantity.  Things last unlike what human make.  They also may be more at peace with their surroundings.  They may have fruit  and nuts crops as opposed to grains such as wheats and rices.  Their livestock may be a managed wild crops that are hunted as opposed to raising for slaughter.  Hence the more marshall than humans.  This marshall style is used to protect themselves.  Since they have a long history of wars with such creatures as Orcs, this marshall system has taught them with regards to them to shoot first and question later.  They are like Israel with respect to their enemies around them.  They take out much more of the enemies than they lose.  They elves are generally better armed, they weapon making is more efficient but takes longer.  There are many ways that the elves would continue to linger on using these precepts.  The elves that are adventurers are the younger ones that have that diminishing spark of wonderlust.
> 
> My 2 cents




And where is this written in the rules, pray tell?  All of this sounds like yet another _individual_ take on elves.  It's opinion, like Edena's, and unsupported by a number of campaign worlds.  A lot of these points already have a sizable weight of evidence against them, in this tread and others.

Dark Sun elves don't fit this mold, nor do the elves from Warlords of the Accordlands...just for two major examples.


----------



## William Ronald (Jun 9, 2007)

I think elves or any other fantasy race are how YOU as a DM imagine them.  (By the way, I do seem to recall a reference to farming by elves in the Silmarillion -- as well as references to elven mines.  So, between what has been pointed out in this thread, from permaculture, to traditional farming (that most people don't know about) and magic, it is possible to have elven and other cultures that are thriving.  (By the way, I recall that some of the peoples of the Andes practiced mountain agriculture using an elaborate system of terraces.  This could work well for elves or dwarves.)

Long lived races might develop magic to deal with incidental pollution from metallurgy, things that are generally not too useful for adventurers but might keep their territory more pristine.  Possibly, most humans do not know of such spells.

Again, your game world is what you make of it.


----------



## Derren (Jun 9, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Derren,
> 
> I asked Edena something like this and it, and a few related questions seemed to set our dialogue on a more productive path. So, I'll do the same with you but structure it a little differently:
> 
> ...




1: C.
Because WotC modeled elves after the LotR image which includes a lot of disadvantages like their eco lifestyle, low reporoduction rate etc. but in order to make them a LA 0 playable race they left out all advantages elves have. Now elves are balanced as adventurers but suck as society/nation and as WotC does not care about believable worlds (They don't build their worlds in a historcial sense but simply say "Elves go there") this wasn't noticed/was not a problem.

2.
- Elf fanboys
- People who want to make D&D, as it is, work
- People who say that everything in the D&D books is law and that they have to invent reasons to explain them

3. ?

4. 
- See above
- Because people see the issues with elves as seperate problems which are not connected and also fail to see how it affects the rest of the races (mostly true for people who invent things)
- As I am not a native english speaker I probably sometimes use the wrong words and understand something not correctly.


But ok, lets say elves are so fortunate to sit on huge gemstone and diamond deposits so that they can buy all other things they do not have in a forest but are still required for a advanced civilization like iron, salt, mercury, silver(dust), the special materials required for enchanting and scribing,...

That would mean that elves depend on trade with outside realms and that includes protecting the trade routes as this trade with valuable items makes them even more of a target. So now elves do not have to defend themself against orcs and other evil races which simply hate elves and want to kill them, thzey now have also a problem with bandits who raid their caravans and greedy neutral rulers who want their diamonds.
That strains the elven military even more and the already huge disadvantage of slow elven reproduction (or rather the slow maturing of elves) becomes worse.

As an example, a elf gets born and takes 100+ years to grow up and become a level 1 warrior/fighter (or to reach the point where he can have children him/herself). In that 100 years the elves are probably attacked a dozend times. A single orc tribe alone which normally has nothing better to do than to slaughter elves, can attack, loose, rebreed, retrain and attack again two or three times in that 100 years. Then add the greedy rulers mentioned above, maybe a dragon who also wants those rich diamond mines etc.

That leads to the attrition I mentioned earlier. Elves would loose more adult elves than elves would grow up to replace them. Sooner or later the elves would have so few adults that they will be overrun by an attack.
A way to solve that is mercenaries, but for that the elves need to be extremly rich and mercenaries pose a risk as they might decide they are better off to attack the elves and size the diamonds for themself. Not to mention that a lot of mercenaries do not fit well with the hunter-gatherer lifestyle of elves as such a society is not able to supply a large number of not working people.


----------



## Jim Hague (Jun 9, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> 1: C.
> Because WotC modeled elves after the LotR image which includes a lot of disadvantages like their eco lifestyle, low reporoduction rate etc. but in order to make them a LA 0 playable race they left out all advantages elves have. Now elves are balanced as adventurers but suck as society/nation and as WotC does not care about believable worlds (They don't build their worlds in a historcial sense but simply say "Elves go there") this wasn't noticed/was not a problem.




Can you cite where the books actually say this?  I'm sure not seeing it.



> 2.
> - Elf fanboys
> - People who want to make D&D, as it is, work
> - People who say that everything in the D&D books is law and that they have to invent reasons to explain them




Again - proof?  You're just ranting here, really.



> 4.
> - See above
> - Because people see the issues with elves as seperate problems which are not connected and also fail to see how it affects the rest of the races (mostly true for people who invent things)
> - As I am not a native english speaker I probably sometimes use the wrong words and understand something not correctly.




And again...proof?  You're just leaping wildly to conclusions here without supporting your points at all.




> But ok, lets say elves are so fortunate to sit on huge gemstone and diamond deposits so that they can buy all other things they do not have in a forest but are still required for a advanced civilization like iron, salt, mercury, silver(dust), the special materials required for enchanting and scribing,...




All of those can be acquired in a forest or similar climate.  Are you not familiar with these environments?  As for the _ad absurdum_ argument you lead off with...it's just that - absurd.  Nobody's making the kind of hyperbolic statements you claim here.  They've explained how these resources are available in an Earth-like environment...explanations you seem to be entirely ignroing here.



> That would mean that elves depend on trade with outside realms and that includes protecting the trade routes as this trade with valuable items makes them even more of a target. So now elves do not have to defend themself against orcs and other evil races which simply hate elves and want to kill them, thzey now have also a problem with bandits who raid their caravans and greedy neutral rulers who want their diamonds.
> That strains the elven military even more and the already huge disadvantage of slow elven reproduction (or rather the slow maturing of elves) becomes worse.




And any race that engages in trade in areas with banditry is likely to have their own guards, along with any military or law-enforcement strength elves might muster.  And again, you're _assuming_ that eleves are arboreal, which they aren't in all settings.  You're not describing any problems that nations and cultures on Earth haven't handily dealt with.



> As an example, a elf gets born and takes 100+ years to grow up and become a level 1 warrior/fighter. In that 100 years the elves are probably attacked a dozend times. A single orc tribe alone which normally has nothing better to do than to slaughter elves, can attack, loose, rebreed, retrain and attack again two or three times in that 100 years. Then add the greedy rulers mentioned above, maybe a dragon who also wants those rich diamond mines etc.
> 
> That leads to the attrition I mentioned earlier. Elves would loose more adult elves then elves would grow up to replace them. Sooner or later the elves would have so few adults that they will be overrun by an attack.
> A way to solve that is mercenaries, but for that the elves need to be extremly rich and mercenaries pose a risk as they might decide they are better off to attack the elves and size the diamonds for themself. Not to mention that a lot of mercenaries do not fit well with the hunter-gatherer lifestyle of elves as such a society is not able to supply a large number of not working people.




And again - where does it say that elves are hunter-gatherers?  They may be in your campaign, but I really don't think that even reflects the source material, let alone individual campaigns.


----------



## Derren (Jun 9, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Can you cite where the books actually say this?  I'm sure not seeing it.



1. Look at D&D elves
2. Look at LotR elves
3. Look at old D&D books were halflings are called hobbits
4. think about this connection.


> Again - proof?  You're just ranting here, really.
> And again...proof?  You're just leaping wildly to conclusions here without supporting your points at all.




Where is the proof that it isn't because of this? You know somthing like personal opinion does exist...







> All of those can be acquired in a forest or similar climate.  Are you not familiar with these environments?  As for the _ad absurdum_ argument you lead off with...it's just that - absurd.  Nobody's making the kind of hyperbolic statements you claim here.  They've explained how these resources are available in an Earth-like environment...explanations you seem to be entirely ignroing here.




Why don't you explain how elves who do not clear woods, mostly depend on hunting/gathering and do not have a big population can get much iron, mithral, mercury, silver, salt and all other ressources? Even if they do mine which goes against their society/lifestyle they do not have the supply chain needed for big mining operation which are also static and do not fit very well to a hunter/gatherer society.

This is actually a proof for above. You see it as single issue. Elves need ressource x, y, z. Forests can have (low) quanitities of x and y. Conclusion Elves can get all ressources they need out of a forest. But you waste no time to think about what is needed to mine those ressources and what it means to the elven society.







> And any race that engages in trade in areas with banditry is likely to have their own guards, along with any military or law-enforcement strength elves might muster.  And again, you're _assuming_ that eleves are arboreal, which they aren't in all settings.  You're not describing any problems that nations and cultures on Earth haven't handily dealt with.




So elves would let other nations into their forest to protect their trade routes? Do you know how those problems were handeled in the real world? Each nation protects the trade route on its own side of the border. If one nation fails to protect them adequatly the other nation seeks a other trading partner or source of that resource.

And you really should real the Elf entry in the PHB especially the part of "Elven Lands".







> And again - where does it say that elves are hunter-gatherers?  They may be in your campaign, but I really don't think that even reflects the source material, let alone individual campaigns.




Again PHB "Elven Lands". This little paragraph supports a lot of my assumptions. Most elves live in small woodland communities, they do not farm but hunt and gather, they have little contact with outsiders and they have no interest in mining so they have to trade for iron. And its all in a Core book.

And now explain to me how such a community would withstand the repeated assault of orcs or worse Hobgoblins (stronger than orcs, expert tacticans and they hate elves with a passion) when they can breed multiple times faster than elves?


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 9, 2007)

...


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 9, 2007)

...


----------



## Jim Hague (Jun 9, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> 1. Look at D&D elves
> 2. Look at LotR elves
> 3. Look at old D&D books were halflings are called hobbits
> 4. think about this connection.




And now you're falling into the same trap that the OP's done - calling on far-ranging and disparate resources to try and prop up your point.  I can say look at Dark Sun, Accordlands or a dozen other settings where elves aren't as you describe.



> Where is the proof that it isn't because of this? You know somthing like personal opinion does exist...




Might I suggest that you frame it in the context of your personal opinion, then, and not 'how things are'?



> Why don't you explain how elves who do not clear woods, mostly depend on hunting/gathering and do not have a big population can get much iron, mithral, mercury, silver, salt and all other ressources? Even if they do mine which goes against their society/lifestyle they do not have the supply chain needed for big mining operation which are also static and do not fit very well to a hunter/gatherer society.




Except that nowhere is there any real evidence presented that they're hunter-gatherers.  You're descrbing a culture that doesn't exist, except in your own head.  Not even Tolkien elves were hunter-gatherers, for pete's sake.



> This is actually a proof for above. You see it as single issue. Elves need ressource x, y, z. Forests can have (low) quanitities of x and y. Conclusion Elves can get all ressources they need out of a forest. But you waste no time to think about what is needed to mine those ressources and what it means to the elven society.
> 
> So elves would let other nations into their forest to protect their trade routes? Do you know how those problems were handeled in the real world? Each nation protects the trade route on its own side of the border. If one nation fails to protect them adequatly the other nation seeks a other trading partner or source of that resource.




You've built a house of sticks here - you've got an unsupported thesis ('elves are arboreal hunter-gatherers').  You're also discounting hired guards, which are common on any sort of trade route.  Sorry, but you're not supporting yourself well here.



> And you really should real the Elf entry in the PHB especially the part of "Elven Lands".




Funny, there's bits in here about how they can amply supply themselves without the need for clear-cutting or any of the other things you seem to hinge your argument on.  And elven swordsmen in high demand certainly suggests a martial culture...



> And now explain to me how such a community would withstand the repeated assault of orcs or worse Hobgoblins (stronger than orcs, expert tacticans and they hate elves with a passion) when they can breed multiple times faster than elves?




It might have something to do with the large number of magic items they likely have, that swordsmanship mentioned in the section you're fond of and their multiple abilities with both ranged and close-quarters weaponry.  Doesn't exactly sound like a peaceful, hippie-like culture to me.  Not to mention that _if_ they live in forests, as per the PHB, they likely have large numbers of Rangers to supplement the Wizards...Rangers with the appropriate Favored Enemy feats.


----------



## Derren (Jun 9, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> And now you're falling into the same trap that the OP's done - calling on far-ranging and disparate resources to try and prop up your point.  I can say look at Dark Sun, Accordlands or a dozen other settings where elves aren't as you describe.




You can deny it all you want but the similarity of D&D elves to Lotr elves and the early books clearly show that D&D was inspired by LotR. The hobbits have changed over the editions but the elves have not.

And as the PHB describes the default elven society which is in effect as long as a campaign setting does not specifically overrule it I feel pretty comfortable to use it as basis to argue that D&D elves would not survive as society.







> Might I suggest that you frame it in the context of your personal opinion, then, and not 'how things are'?




Maybe you should reread what fusangite asked me. "Why do you think..."


> Except that nowhere is there any real evidence presented that they're hunter-gatherers.  You're descrbing a culture that doesn't exist, except in your own head.  Not even Tolkien elves were hunter-gatherers, for pete's sake.




1. Read PHB elven lands
2. Knowing that elves live in small woodland communities and don't clear trees to farm, how do they support themself?







> You've built a house of sticks here - you've got an unsupported thesis ('elves are arboreal hunter-gatherers').  You're also discounting hired guards, which are common on any sort of trade route.  Sorry, but you're not supporting yourself well here.




Read PHB Elven Lands.
And where do all those hired guards come from? And are they enough to stop larger bands of bandits?







> Funny, there's bits in here about how they can amply supply themselves without the need for clear-cutting or any of the other things you seem to hinge your argument on.  And elven swordsmen in high demand certainly suggests a martial culture...




You fail to look at the circumstances again. They survive as small communities but survival is not enough. To fend off all the elf hating races which breed much faster than them they do not need to only survive but to prosper.
And I never disputed that elves have a martial society, after all every elf learns to use a sword and a bow, but as they would not have the HP and BAB warriors have the milita would have high casulties in a conflict, casulties small elven communities can't cope with.







> It might have something to do with the large number of magic items they likely have, that swordsmanship mentioned in the section you're fond of and their multiple abilities with both ranged and close-quarters weaponry.  Doesn't exactly sound like a peaceful, hippie-like culture to me.  Not to mention that _if_ they live in forests, as per the PHB, they likely have large numbers of Rangers to supplement the Wizards...Rangers with the appropriate Favored Enemy feats.




Where is the proof that elves have many magical items? The wealth by community size table says something different.
And elves simply can't afford to be agressive. As I explained again and again, their low reproduction rate makes a war against a other, fast breeding race useless as those race will recover from the war (even if they loose) much faster than the elves do so in the end the elves will come out weakened even if they attack and win. The only way to prevent that is genocide (which leaves room for other powers to take the place) or occupation (which teh elves do not have the troop strength for).


----------



## Jim Hague (Jun 9, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> You can deny it all you want but the similarity of D&D elves to Lotr elves and the early books clearly show that D&D was inspired by LotR. The hobbits have changed over the editions but the elves have not.




You say clearly, but the origin isn't clear at all....especially since Tolkien's elves weren't pacifist tree-huggers.  For that matter, neither are DnD elves immortal.  So beyond a few cosmetic similarities, can you actually provide any proof, like, say, from the creators or current writers?



> And as the PHB describes the default elven society which is in effect as long as a campaign setting does not specifically overrule it I feel pretty comfortable to use it as basis to argue that D&D elves would not survive as society.




Except that the PHB doesn't make any sort of setting assumptions.  Guidelines, and nothing more, sorry...especially in light of actual campaign settings that take your thesis and pretty much kick it to the curb.



> Maybe you should reread what fusangite asked me. "Why do you think..."
> 
> 
> 1. Read PHB elven lands
> 2. Knowing that elves live in small woodland communities and don't clear trees to farm, how do they support themself?




Right back at you - they support themselves just fine via their abilities, Derren.  You want to try and throw the PHB non-setting into this, I'll gladly throw it right back at you.



> And where do all those hired guards come from? And are they enough to stop larger bands of bandits?




Considering that no sane merchant is going to go near an army-sized gang of bandits, then yes.  Such guards seemed to work just fine on Earth during a variety of periods.  As for how?  Well, gosh, right there in the PHB, the elves seem to be doing quite fine with what they trade and sell, both goods and services...so I'd guess the guards are hired with money.



> You fail to look at the circumstances again. They survive as small communities but survival is not enough. To fend off all the elf hating races which breed much faster than them they do not need to only survive but to prosper.




And where's your proof of this happening anywhere but your campaign world?  I've got the PHB right here, and I'm not seeing any genocidal wars mentioned...



> And I never disputed that elves have a martial society, after all every elf learns to use a sword and a bow, but as they would not have the HP and BAB warriors have the milita would have high casulties in a conflict, casulties small elven communities can't cope with.




So...every elf is trained at the minimum as a militia member, they have Wizards as a favored class, can live to exceedingly excessive ages...but they can't defend themselves?  Your lack of logic here puzzles me greatly.



> Where is the proof that elves have many magical items? The wealth by community size table says something different.




Simple logic - favored class (wizard) and quite a long time to create items (as mentioned upthread) equals a larger proportion of magic items.  And those are _human_ communities you're mentioning there, sorry.



> And elves simply can't afford to be agressive. As I explained again and again, their low reproduction rate makes a war against a other, fast breeding race useless as those race will recover from the war (even if they loose) much faster than the elves do so in the end the elves will come out weakened even if they attack and win. The only way to prevent that is genocide (which leaves room for other powers to take the place) or occupation (which teh elves do not have the troop strength for).




So find me the exact demographics of elves in the PHB, since you're so focused on it.  I'm sure we'll all wait for those precise numbers, when you arrive with them.  Except that there are no exact numbers - a community of 200 or so seems small...but how many communities are there?  10?  100?  1000?  10,000?  You don't know, you can only conjecture, because it doesn't state it anywhere in the PHB...because the PHB provides rules, not a setting.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jun 9, 2007)

Haven't read the whole thread yet, but here's my two cents.


There where sociaeties active during the dark ages that lived rather well off the land comparitively. Life was short due to a number of reasons, but large amounts of natural resources would have a group foraging or hunting 20 hours a week for food. Indians come to mind. Villages around the Amazon do as well. If I recall, the film 'Jungle 2 Jungle' was shot on location, and the villagers didn't seem plagued by death, famine, or incredible workloads.

Heck, if you compare the 1800's indians were living better off than the beggars found in 'civilized' society until diseases and reduction of resources took its toll (much of which being deliberately created situations). Now thrown in magic. Could you imagine how well they would have survived if several of their numbers were druids? 

It was as recently as ten years ago that villages in the Amazon region had members in better health and states of cleanliness than those small villages relying on supplies for industrial areas.

Given this, I don't see elves having a problem surviving in a well forested area.


----------



## Derren (Jun 9, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> You say clearly, but the origin isn't clear at all....especially since Tolkien's elves weren't pacifist tree-huggers.  For that matter, neither are DnD elves immortal.  So beyond a few cosmetic similarities, can you actually provide any proof, like, say, from the creators or current writers?




I am sure that there are quoates from Gygax around which tell the sources of D&D I just don't know where to find it. But that you are not willing to accept even this little fact despite all the evidence speaks much about your willingness to discuss.
PS: In earlier editions elves were immortal.







> Except that the PHB doesn't make any sort of setting assumptions.  Guidelines, and nothing more, sorry...especially in light of actual campaign settings that take your thesis and pretty much kick it to the curb.




*sigh* Exactly because the PHB doesn't make any setting assumptions makes it the default.  When a setting does not say something else the elves behave like in the PHB. They are the default and how WotC envision elves to be.
Using your arguments I can say that dwarves are tall, good looking scholars who can't do any physical labor because I can make a campaighn setting where dwarves are large have +4 Cha but -6 to all physical stats. But that would not be normal D&D dwarves those dwarves are like they are presented in teh PHB and the same applies to elves. Only because you can make a campaign setting where elves are different from the PHB does not mean that D&D elves are like in your campaign setting and not like they are in the PHB.







> Right back at you - they support themselves just fine via their abilities, Derren.  You want to try and throw the PHB non-setting into this, I'll gladly throw it right back at you.




Support doeasn't mean that they prosper. And maybe you will understand this: WHen you see a wrong matematical equation you normally take the formula and calculate the correct result. What you are doing is to take the result and change the formula so that the result is correct.

We know the elven stats how they live and what enemies they have (formula)., Now the PHB says that they survive very well under this condition (result) which is wrong. By "recalculating" the formula you get the conclusion that the real result is that elves would die out. You say that the books say that the elves survive and so all the information about their lifestyle is wrong.







> Considering that no sane merchant is going to go near an army-sized gang of bandits, then yes.  Such guards seemed to work just fine on Earth during a variety of periods.  As for how?  Well, gosh, right there in the PHB, the elves seem to be doing quite fine with what they trade and sell, both goods and services...so I'd guess the guards are hired with money.




And what when the band of bandits (50 or so) come to the merchants? With all the diamond trades elven trade routes are a good target. How many guards have the merchants to hire to compensate for the lack of elven military presence.







> And where's your proof of this happening anywhere but your campaign world?  I've got the PHB right here, and I'm not seeing any genocidal wars mentioned...




Then you should read more D&D books. Begin with the MM entry of orcs and hobgoblins and then read the deity descriptions of Corellon and Gruumsh.







> So...every elf is trained at the minimum as a militia member, they have Wizards as a favored class, can live to exceedingly excessive ages...but they can't defend themselves?  Your lack of logic here puzzles me greatly.




Not every elf is a trained milita member, they just know how to use a sword and a bow. They have no training in actually hitting things with them (BAB), how to avoid blows (HP) and wear armor (profiency). Long lives don't mean much when they have to wait five times as long as other races for a child to grow up to be a soldier. By that time other races already have level 20 heroes. And having a favored class wizard only means that elves are better to mix spellcasting with other occupations, but multiclassing a wizard is a rather bad idea. Not to mention that the number of elven wizards is still limited by the number of exceptional elves with higher than normal Int.







> Simple logic - favored class (wizard) and quite a long time to create items (as mentioned upthread) equals a larger proportion of magic items.  And those are _human_ communities you're mentioning there, sorry.




No, that are PHB race communities. Only the racial mix table does change. And while elves have long lived wizards, humans have a lot more wizards than them. So where is the advantage? Also elves need also people to use the magical items. 500 magical swords do you no good when you only have 100 warriors. Not to mention that the MM elf entry features a distinctive lack of magical items.







> So find me the exact demographics of elves in the PHB, since you're so focused on it.  I'm sure we'll all wait for those precise numbers, when you arrive with them.  Except that there are no exact numbers - a community of 200 or so seems small...but how many communities are there?  10?  100?  1000?  10,000?  You don't know, you can only conjecture, because it doesn't state it anywhere in the PHB...because the PHB provides rules, not a setting.




How much space do hunter/gatherer societies need to survive? quite a lot that means the population density of elves would be quite low comapred to other civilized nations. And with all the disadvantages elves have especially the low reproduction rate it is very unlikely that they have a population size compareable to other races unless their god created them several thousand years before the other races appeared.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 9, 2007)

> I am sure that there are quoates from Gygax around which tell the sources of D&D I just don't know where to find it. But that you are not willing to accept even this little fact despite all the evidence speaks much about your willingness to discuss.
> PS: In earlier editions elves were immortal.




Ok, while I know my rules fu is pretty weak in 1e and 2e, I know that's not true.  Elves lived for centuries, and IIRC, grey elves won the Methuselah award at around 2000 years, but none of the D&D elves were immortal.  Just really, really long lived.



> No, that are PHB race communities. Only the racial mix table does change. And while elves have long lived wizards, humans have a lot more wizards than them. So where is the advantage? Also elves need also people to use the magical items. 500 magical swords do you no good when you only have 100 warriors. Not to mention that the MM elf entry features a distinctive lack of magical items.




Ahh, but, just because I have more wizards doesn't mean a whole lot when power is accrued exponentially.  A single 5th level wizard is pretty much a match for 10 1st level wizards.  One invisibility spell plus a fireball and all his problems vanish.  When I've got centuries to gain levels, I can be very choosy and only go when I know I'm going to win.  For humans to race up the levels, they have to take very big risks plus, given the nature of humans, other humans are going to try and stop them.

Elves can afford to take a REALLY long view.  A single level every decade still sees them at 20th level before middle age.  Sure, humans can have 100 times as many wizards, but, they can only field a very, very small number of high level ones.  Elves, simply through what amounts to accumulated interest, can field dozens, if not hundreds of high level characters.

Never mind just wizards, what about all the classes?  Every Elf, by middle age, should be well into double digit levels.  That means that about half your population is a high level character.  While a 20th level commoner isn't exactly a powerhouse, he's more than capable of kicking butt against anything in the single digit level range.

The human wizards cannot create that many magic items simply because they run out of time.  It takes such a significant portion of their lifespan to reach very high levels that they are lucky to be able to crank out more than a couple of powerful items.  Elves can spend a decade between crafting Staffs of the Magi regaining xp.


----------



## Jim Hague (Jun 9, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> I am sure that there are quoates from Gygax around which tell the sources of D&D I just don't know where to find it. But that you are not willing to accept even this little fact despite all the evidence speaks much about your willingness to discuss.
> PS: In earlier editions elves were immortal.




You make the claims, you provide the proof.  Since you can't or aren't willing to provide such proof, your claims remain suspect.



> *sigh* Exactly because the PHB doesn't make any setting assumptions makes it the default.  When a setting does not say something else the elves behave like in the PHB. They are the default and how WotC envision elves to be.




Except that elves in Eberron, Greyhawk and FR don't follow the PHB pattern.  3:1 against doesn't make your point, and provides extensive support against it.



> Using your arguments I can say that dwarves are tall, good looking scholars who can't do any physical labor because I can make a campaighn setting where dwarves are large have +4 Cha but -6 to all physical stats. But that would not be normal D&D dwarves those dwarves are like they are presented in teh PHB and the same applies to elves. Only because you can make a campaign setting where elves are different from the PHB does not mean that D&D elves are like in your campaign setting and not like they are in the PHB.




Nor does slavish repetition that because the PHB says elves are one way make it true.  There is no 'D&D setting', not in the PHB, nor in the DMG.  Therefore your claims are, again, false.



> Support doeasn't mean that they prosper. And maybe you will understand this: WHen you see a wrong matematical equation you normally take the formula and calculate the correct result. What you are doing is to take the result and change the formula so that the result is correct.




Condescension isn't a very good tactic to take, especially when you have yet to provide real proof of your claims.  I'm changing nothing, simply quoting the selfsame rules you're looking at and pointing out the flaws in your arguments.



> We know the elven stats how they live and what enemies they have (formula)., Now the PHB says that they survive very well under this condition (result) which is wrong. By "recalculating" the formula you get the conclusion that the real result is that elves would die out. You say that the books say that the elves survive and so all the information about their lifestyle is wrong.




Nobody's recalculating anything, Derren.  Where are you getting this from?  You're the one drawing spurious conclusions here, not me.



> And what when the band of bandits (50 or so) come to the merchants? With all the diamond trades elven trade routes are a good target. How many guards have the merchants to hire to compensate for the lack of elven military presence.




In what campaign world?  Where do the books say this?  Nowhere?  Exactly - you're making this up.



> Then you should read more D&D books. Begin with the MM entry of orcs and hobgoblins and then read the deity descriptions of Corellon and Gruumsh.




Tell you what, slick - when you have well over $3000 in just D&D material, then you can tell me to go read something.  I'm not the one making unsupported claims here - you are.



> Not every elf is a trained milita member, they just know how to use a sword and a bow. They have no training in actually hitting things with them (BAB), how to avoid blows (HP) and wear armor (profiency). Long lives don't mean much when they have to wait five times as long as other races for a child to grow up to be a soldier. By that time other races already have level 20 heroes. And having a favored class wizard only means that elves are better to mix spellcasting with other occupations, but multiclassing a wizard is a rather bad idea. Not to mention that the number of elven wizards is still limited by the number of exceptional elves with higher than normal Int.




Trained in weaponry means combat training in D&D.  Typically, non-military members of a community with combat training are referred to as militia.  Nowehere does it say that elves grow more slowly than any other race, only that they reach full maturity at 110, according to the PHB.



> No, that are PHB race communities. Only the racial mix table does change. And while elves have long lived wizards, humans have a lot more wizards than them. So where is the advantage? Also elves need also people to use the magical items. 500 magical swords do you no good when you only have 100 warriors. Not to mention that the MM elf entry features a distinctive lack of magical items.




Those human wizards die off much more quickly...better hope they wrote all their knowledge down somewhere.  And once again, you're pulling numbers out of thin air.  How many humans?  How many elves?  You don't know, because there are no numbers to support your claim.



> How much space do hunter/gatherer societies need to survive? quite a lot that means the population density of elves would be quite low comapred to other civilized nations. And with all the disadvantages elves have especially the low reproduction rate it is very unlikely that they have a population size compareable to other races unless their god created them several thousand years before the other races appeared.




And now you're back to the unsupported hunter-gatherer nonsense.  Why is it so important for you to cling to this image you have in your head of how elves 'should' be, especially in light of all the evidence to the contrary?


----------



## Derren (Jun 9, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Except that elves in Eberron, Greyhawk and FR don't follow the PHB pattern.  3:1 against doesn't make your point, and provides extensive support against it.
> Nor does slavish repetition that because the PHB says elves are one way make it true.  There is no 'D&D setting', not in the PHB, nor in the DMG.  Therefore your claims are, again, false.




Completly, utterly wrong. The setting presented in the core books (which uses mostly Greyhawk material) is the default D&D setting. All other settings are exceptions to the normal behaviour/rules.







> Condescension isn't a very good tactic to take, especially when you have yet to provide real proof of your claims.  I'm changing nothing, simply quoting the selfsame rules you're looking at and pointing out the flaws in your arguments.




You do not point out flaws, you just refuse to proof your points while constantly demanding that I post more proofes which you do not read anyway?.







> In what campaign world?  Where do the books say this?  Nowhere?  Exactly - you're making this up.




Are you really demnanding that the exisetance of bandits who try to rob wealthy merchants has to be specifically mentioned in a book, otherwise it does not exist? ROFL, now you are downright silly. I guess there are a lot of things which do not exist in your D&D worlds. Air for example (unless in elemental form).







> Tell you what, slick - when you have well over $3000 in just D&D material, then you can tell me to go read something.  I'm not the one making unsupported claims here - you are.




And you are still unable to open the PHB and MM to read the proof I am constantly bringing up? You are able to read, are you?







> Trained in weaponry means combat training in D&D.  Typically, non-military members of a community with combat training are referred to as militia.  Nowehere does it say that elves grow more slowly than any other race, only that they reach full maturity at 110, according to the PHB.




Trainind in D&D means no -4 nonprofiency penalty when using the weapon. That is all what elves get. No warrior BAB, no warrior HP and armor profiency. And elves do need 100 or so years to grwo up. Before that they are unable to get any class level and so are rather useless.







> Those human wizards die off much more quickly...better hope they wrote all their knowledge down somewhere.  And once again, you're pulling numbers out of thin air.  How many humans?  How many elves?  You don't know, because there are no numbers to support your claim.




Do the terms "Logical thinking" and "conclusion" have a meaning for you? Faster breeding age + more organized farming/resource gathering methods -> more individuals. More individuals -> more exceptional individuals. More exceptional individuals -> more PC classes. More PC classes -> more wizards.
Human wizards die much earlier than elves, yes. But humans also train new wizards much faster than elves. By the time a elf gets his first wizard level a human born at the same time has already reached his highest level as wizard, crafted some items and probably died of old age. He also maybe had severall offsprings which in turn might now be successfull mid to high level wizards which also crafted some items and had children themself.







> And now you're back to the unsupported hunter-gatherer nonsense.  Why is it so important for you to cling to this image you have in your head of how elves 'should' be, especially in light of all the evidence to the contrary?




Please. READ THE PHB!!!!! It is in there black on white that elves are hunter gatherers. That is how D&D elves live. That is how WotC envisions elves to be.

Instead of constantly accusing me of making unsupported claims you should start to actually read the proof I bring up. Elves live mostly in forests, its in teh PHB. Elves are hunter-gatherers, its in the PHB. There are several evil, fast breeding races which despise elves, it is in the MM. The racial god or orcs is a mortal enemy to the racial god of elves it is in the PHB.

READ IT!


@ All others

Am I really unreasonable when I expect that things which are written in the core books are sufficient as basis for my assumptions or as basis for a discussion of D&D races in general?


----------



## Jim Hague (Jun 9, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> Completly, utterly wrong. The setting presented in the core books (which uses mostly Greyhawk material) is the default D&D setting. All other settings are exceptions to the normal behaviour/rules.




Sorry, no.  Nowhere in the PHB is any setting given.  There are bits from several settings there, but there is no default setting in the PHB.



> You do not point out flaws, you just refuse to proof your points while constantly demanding that I post more proofes which you do not read anyway?




You keep making claims with nothing to back them up.  I've provided proof at every point.  Your logic isn't, your claims are flat out wrong more often than not, and you continually descend into hyperbole and misquotation.  I'm sorry, but that I don't put any credence to your claims isn't any failing on my part, but on yours.



> Are you really demnanding that the exisetance of bandits who try to rob wealthy merchants has to be specifically mentioned in a book, otherwise it does not exist? ROFL, now you are downright silly. I guess there are a lot of things which do not exist in your D&D worlds. Air for example (unless in elemental form).




Hey, you're the one making claims about these mythical bandits...which would be campaign world dependent anyway.  Nothing in the PHB or DMG to back up your claims, so we can safely dismiss them as inventions of your own.



> And you are still unable to open the PHB and MM to read the proof I am constantly bringing up? You are able to read, are you?




And here's where you and I part ways, Derren.  I'm sorry that you can't continue the thread in a civil manner.  Proof has been given that rebukes your claims, and yet when confronted with it, you turn to insults instead of discussion.


----------



## Derren (Jun 9, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> And here's where you and I part ways, Derren.  I'm sorry that you can't continue the thread in a civil manner.  Proof has been given that rebukes your claims, and yet when confronted with it, you turn to insults instead of discussion.




Wrong. I am simply unable to take someone serious who is not able to read some simple sentences in the core books, especially when they also brag about how much D&D books they have.

The books are called core for a reason. They are the backbone of the D&D game and this backbone (as trivial as it is) include hunter gatherer elves. Nearly all the proof you demanded is in those books and I have said that multiple times. You have simply refused to read those proof and continued to accuse me to bring up unclaimed assumptions while the proof for those claims were in front of your eyes the whole time. Refusing the read the proof does not make the assumption derived from those proofes less true.

I am sorry when I went a bit far with some of my comments, your behaviour wasn't fine either. I know that it can be pretty hard to change my opinion but it can be done (like with the diamond issue). Especially when a rule book directly says that I am wrong. You on the other hand seem to refuse everything which goes against your opinion even if it is written in a rulebook. Whats even more insulting is that you do not simply ignore the whole point, but you only ignore the proof yet continue to demand proof from other people.
Its like sitting in a resturant and complaining to the manager that you still haven't recieved your order while the dish is standing right in front of you on your table.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 9, 2007)

Derren, do not post in this thread any longer, please. Insults simply aren't okay here. You need to be able to discuss the topic without taking personal shots at someone.

Email me if you wish to discuss this.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 9, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Dark Sun elves don't fit this mold...



Of course not.  That was the point of Dark Sun, to break the mold.

At any rate, no one's going to win an argument over what elves are _really_ like.  It's only productive to state your assumptions and their consequences.  For instance, _if_ elves live like hunter-gatherers, then they won't have the population density of agrarian humans, which will make it difficult for them to hold the vast territory they need to maintain their society, etc.

Obviously elves can be either doomed or blessed, depending on what assumptions we make.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 9, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> The contention that elves can't grow food, or gather enough food in the forest to be able to survive seems rather baseless.



I don't think anyone contended that they couldn't get food in the forest, just that they'd be living as hunter-gatherers, and we know that hunting and gathering requires a lot of land per person, which has consquences.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 9, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone contended that they couldn't get food in the forest, just that they'd be living as hunter-gatherers, and we know that hunting and gathering requires a lot of land per person, which has consquences.



This is contingent on your environment and culture; it is not absolute. 15th century California and the Northwest Coast sustained higher population densities without agriculture than did New England and the Great Lakes regions with agriculture.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 9, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> Because WotC modeled elves after the LotR image which includes a lot of disadvantages like their eco lifestyle, low reporoduction rate etc. but in order to make them a LA 0 playable race they left out all advantages elves have. Now elves are balanced as adventurers but suck as society/nation and as WotC does not care about believable worlds.



This complaint goes away if we assume that a typical elf is not a 1st-level commoner.  If a typical elf with hundreds of years of experience is instead a 10th-level Bard (or whatever), then elves are just as balanced by the rules, but their society is a military powerhouse.


			
				Derren said:
			
		

> As an example, a elf gets born and takes 100+ years to grow up and become a level 1 warrior/fighter (or to reach the point where he can have children him/herself).



I will readily concede that taking 100 years to become nothing but a first-level Fighter is ludicrous.  (It's a shame that even non-adventuring NPC classes in D&D grant hit dice, BAB, etc., because a "first-level" elf should probably be a Poet9/Ftr1, to justify how he's been spending the last 100 years...)


			
				Derren said:
			
		

> In that 100 years the elves are probably attacked a dozend times. A single orc tribe alone which normally has nothing better to do than to slaughter elves, can attack, loose, rebreed, retrain and attack again two or three times in that 100 years.



If the elf military is composed of archers with _hundreds of years_ of experience, all attacking from ambush from within their own enchanted forest, I wouldn't be surprised if they regularly took _no_ casualties from orc incursions.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 9, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> Long lives don't mean much when they have to wait five times as long as other races for a child to grow up to be a soldier. By that time other races already have level 20 heroes.



The number of humans or orcs who reach 10th level, let alone 20th, is infinitesimal.  More importantly, when a human or orc champion arises, he soon grows old and frail.  An elf champion can lead his people through centuries of trying times, aided by all the other elf champions with centuries of experience.


			
				Derren said:
			
		

> And having a favored class wizard only means that elves are better to mix spellcasting with other occupations, but multiclassing a wizard is a rather bad idea.



Multiclassing is only a bad decision for players of PCs trying to maximize their power per level.  Within the game world, a good "build" isn't an issue.


			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Not to mention that the number of elven wizards is still limited by the number of exceptional elves with higher than normal Int.



But that's the _only_ thing limiting the number of high-level wizards in elf society.  Elves grow up in a magical society and have hundreds of years to study and accumulate knowledge.

Humans rarely receive an education, and they die as soon as they master the basics in their field of study.


			
				Derren said:
			
		

> How much space do hunter/gatherer societies need to survive? quite a lot that means the population density of elves would be quite low comapred to other civilized nations.



_If_ elves lived as hunter-gatherers in a typical temperate forest, they _would_ have a low population density.  On the other hand, if they live amongst magically (or simply expertly) cultivated _permaculture_ groves, they may be able to support much _more_ population than medieval human farmers, at a higher level of health, with much less labor.  Which assumptions do we prefer?


			
				Derren said:
			
		

> And with all the disadvantages elves have especially the low reproduction rate it is very unlikely that they have a population size compareable to other races unless their god created them several thousand years before the other races appeared.



Reproduction rate is not an issue in determining a race's maximum sustainable population; it only determines how quickly a race can reach that maximum -- or re-reach it after a shock.

The limit on a population's size is how well it can support itself, which has generally meant how much land it could hold and how productive that land was.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 9, 2007)

Folks, it's worth pointing out that when we've asked someone to leave a thread, it becomes bad form to continue your part of the discussion with them since they aren't able to respond. Please respect that.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 9, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Folks, it's worth pointing out that when we've asked someone to leave a thread, it becomes bad form to continue your part of the discussion with them since they aren't able to respond. Please respect that.



My apologies.  I felt his contributions were good fodder for discussion -- until they got heated and personal.  Can we invite someone back after a brief cool-down?

At any rate, I feel much of the "problem" in this discussion is that the source material is not consistent -- D&D happily contradicts itself -- so citing passages or even rules from disparate sources can lead to any number of conclusions.

If we ignore the demographics from the DMG -- and I do feel that those demographics were tacked on, without much deep thought into their implications -- then elves make much more sense.  If, on the other hand, we slavishly follow their dictates, and follow them equally across races and societies, then elves are just like humans, only very, very slow to learn -- 1st level at age 100? -- and that race probably would be doomed.


----------



## (un)reason (Jun 9, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> The number of humans or orcs who reach 10th level, let alone 20th, is infinitesimal.



Hardly. Given that for each +2 levels, the amount of people of that level approximately halves, (The standard ratio in the DMG) that means that there are approximately 202 level 20 characters per million, or slightly over 1 per 5,000. That's more than enough for any significant population to have at least 1 level 20 character, and dozens of level 10+ ones. The fact that in actual settings this isn't really bourne out (apart from ptolus, which has even more level 20 characters per capita than that) is another matter altogether.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 9, 2007)

(un)reason said:
			
		

> Given that for each +2 levels, the amount of people of that level approximately halves, (The standard ratio in the DMG) that means that there are approximately 202 level 20 characters per million, or slightly over 1 per 5,000.



If we accept those demographic assumptions, then 0.02% of the population is 20th-level.  I'm willing to call that infinitesimal, but if you consider that hyperbole, then I'm willing to call 0.02% _very, very small_.

Of course, I'm inclined to believe that the vast majority of high-level characters should belong to long-lived races like the elves, and that they should not be evenly distributed amongst races.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 9, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> If we accept those demographic assumptions, then 0.02% of the population is 20th-level.  I'm willing to call that infinitesimal, but if you consider that hyperbole, then I'm willing to call 0.02% _very, very small_.




Yes, but work the math backwards - if the number doubles for each level under 20 (and I'm dong my math right) that means a full 6.4% of the population is 10th level.  And, if you add up everyone 10th level and up, you're talking _better than 10% of the population_.  That's pretty much not infinitesimal.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 9, 2007)

I've edited this, as I posted it before I realized that Derren had been asked not to post.  Hopefully this is ok.  I've attempted to make this somewhat neutral, focusing on discussions (by several parties) of elven reproduction rates, without focusing on his comments.

I think something that everyone can agree that the idea of a race taking 100 years to generate a grown adult would definitely have their backs against the wall.  Yet, the rules don't really say this.  All the PHB really says is that adventurers typically start their careers around 100+ years.  It doesn't say anything about their maturity levels before that.

So, this morning, I decided to look in the closest source to core that we have....Masters of the Wild.

Now, I'll admit that I did find in the book that it mentions that elves are less fertile than humans, and that a typical elven couple might have 1-4 children over 50 years, whereas typical human couples have 1-4 over 10 years.

Of course, there have also been spells in the rules that increase fertility...both in 2nd And 3rd Eds. they caused the target to conceive or impregnate (as appropriate based on the gender of the subject) with 100% reliability during their next "encounter".  If the elves were seriously pressured, I could definitely see them using that magic, which was very low level.....like lvl 1 or 2 spells....so, accessible to a large number of their spellcasters.  I will 100% admit that these spells are not core.  They were in Green Ronin's Witch's book, or Relics & Rituals, or something like that.  And in one of those big religion books for FR in 2nd Ed.  I'll need more time to find the specific reference.  The point is that elves have a fair number of spellcasters, and if they had just gone through a war, I could see them using magic to create a "baby boom".  They're individualistic, but they're not stupid....and it's mentioned that they value children highly.

Anyways, Masters of the Wild states on pg. 13 that "Elf children grow almost as swiftly as human children to age 15 or so: a 10-year old elf boy and a 10-year old human boy are nearly the same size and have similar mental and emotional maturity.".  It then states that humans finish filling out between 15 and 20 years of age, whereas elves take until 25.  The delay to 100 is a cultural delay....not a physical, emotional, or intellectual one.  Similarly to how in North American cultures, they say now that 30 is the new 20.  In our advanced culture, people are often remaining somewhat dependent until their late 30's.  But it doesn't mean that they're physically or emotionally incapable of surviving on their own.  Masters of the Wild mentions that elves are discouraged from marrying before 100, though they're perfectly capable of doing so.  It further mentions that when elven communities are under pressure, the delay to 100 is bypassed, and you have 25-year old elves, who are completely adult, taking part in war, etc. as necessary.  They are not child soldiers at that point, as elves are fully grown in all ways by 25.

Further, it states that they are raised communally by their people, after the age of 10, which means that they're far less a drain on any individual family than even human children are on their own families.

This is very very different from the idea of them taking 100 years to reach adulthood.

It's perfectly possible to have an adult elven adventurer at age 30.  The impression given is that the elves spend more time training their people...they're investing more in their "human capital" than humans do.  I think the people who are suggesting the demographic charts in the DMG are likely not really applicable to elves might be correct.  For all we know, PC elves tend to start at lvl 1 at around 100 years old.  But maybe there are many 100 year old Commoner 2/Fighter 2's walking around in elven villages.  They gained training and experience between ages 25 and 100, but, given they're NPCs, it's unlikely that they'll progress as rapidly as the elven PC, who starts at lvl 1 (to balance against other PCs), but will rapidly outstrip the abilities of the elven villagers from his home.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 9, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone contended that they couldn't get food in the forest, just that they'd be living as hunter-gatherers, and we know that hunting and gathering requires a lot of land per person, which has consquences.




Why do they have to be hunter-gatherers?  Very, very early in the thread, I and others pointed out several forest-dwelling peoples in history, who were able to succeed.  The Mayans, with populations of hundreds of thousands, are a good example.  And it was simply by virtue of figuring out where to find really good soil, that could be transported to their cities, and used to permit much larger population densities than you'd typically think possible in the middle of a forest.

I'm sure that a magical race of nature lovers could figure something similar out.  They could have terraced gardens growing food on multiple levels, built vertically on their trees for all we know.  This would definitely reduce their reliance on being hunter gatherers, and allow them to live in the woods, without massive fields of grain.

Banshee


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 9, 2007)

*The Elven Approach (very long post)*

Let me try explaining the Elven Condition from the perspective of Coping With Pain.
  You will not find this in the RAW.  This is a home concept.  But consider it for what it's worth.  It's a dark tact to take, but here it is.

  Let's assume that Coping with Pain is the baseline for everything else.  It is, in other words, something like the 6 core stats, in terms of where we start from.
  The ability to cope with pain is a stat, and how well one copes, physically and psychologically, is as important as their strength or intelligence scores.

  There are many other ways to express the words coping with pain.  
  One of them is to say:  coping with adversary.  A very popular approach.
  Another way is to say:  Adaptation.  This is a big one.  Adaptation can be thought of as something wholly different, but I am basing it on a fundamental core:  adaptation to pain.
  Other ways to express the condition include such words as:  battle, struggle, fighting, competing, winning, achieving, surviving, prospering, overcoming, becoming supreme, self-actualizing, triumph, victory, and similar words.  
  Yet other words include tribes, cities, towns, villages, civilization, tools, industry, the information revolution, aircraft, submarines, spacecraft, and even the automobile.  Homes, couches, lazyboy chairs, pictures, books, television, video games, and yes games.

  All of these are references to coping with pain.  Most people do *not* think of it that way, including - I am guessing - most of you.  I am asking that you assume, just for a moment, that coping with pain is the baseline anyways.  Now for some reasons why ...
  Physical pain comes to one who is hungry.  Or thirsty.  Or cold.  Or hot.  Or engaging in physical exercise to hunt for food.  Historically, the result of this pain was the evolution of the tribe, which made it easier to be warm and have a full stomach.  And tribes evolved into civilization, which makes it easier yet.  Civilization evolved into the giant affair of nations and cultures we have today.
  Loneliness produces pain.  Paradoxically, interaction with other people causes pain too.  But those who formed tribes choose the later over the former, considering it less painful (I honestly think most modern people would prefer dealing with others, than being totally alone ...)  Now, in civilization, dealing with others is requisite.  Some are better at it than others ... which means, some are better with coping with the pain of human interaction (as in, the boss chewed my butt off yesterday, but it's no problem ... or ... I just got broadsided by someone running a red light, but I feel congenial anyways.)

  What produced crops?  Ingenuity and a need to eat.  What produced homes?  Ingenuity and a need to get out of the sun, rain, cold, and heat.  What produced buildings otherwise?  Civilization with all it's grandeur and problems ... and what produced civilization?  A new, unique, and fascinating way in which mankind - and only mankind - has managed to so adapt to reality that he has ... well, he has created a whole new and different meaning for the word adaptability.
  When man sails the seas, that is adapting.  When man travels under the sea in submarines, that is adapting.  When man drives down the road at 55 mph (or 85 mph ... ) that is adapting.  When man flies through the sky, that is adapting.
  There are flags and footprints on the moon, because man is so adaptive.  It all started with tools, and tools were humanity's answer to reality, humanity's answer to the necessity of adaptation, ultimately humanity's answer to pain.

  We are all human, of course.  We deal with pain everyday.  We cope with it.  We cope with adversary.  We adapt.  We do it all the time, we see it being done all the time, and we read and watch on TV as it is done, all the time.
  This is the baseline for humanity, our own experiences in coping with pain, or - if you prefer - dealing with adversary, adapting to things, overcoming problems, fighting the good fight, ruling the workplace, avoiding the traffic jam, and suffering a thousand minor and most annoying deprivations from your fellow workers (such as the mess they left in the bathroom that other day.)

  The baseline for humanity in D&D reflects this.  Now, that is not in the RAW.  Indeed, modern reality is not in the game at all, usually (modern d20 is an exception.)
  But I think the spirit of it is there.  And in novels based on D&D.  
  There are differences.  There may be profound differences in your home campaign.  That's not my point.
  My point is that the baseline is implied.  I see it in all versions of the Player's Handbook, implied.  I see it in all versions of the Dungeon Master's Guide, implied.  I see it even in the various Monster Manuals, implied.  And in the supplements and 3rd party material, implied.

  If you disagree with me, that's fine.  But allow me to continue, based upon the assumption that I am correct, and this baseline exists within the game.  Coping with pain, the resulting baseline for humanity, as the underlying reality.

  In 1st and 2nd Edition, arbitrary restrictions were placed upon non-humans to make humans a more attractive race to play.  These restrictions existed within the game mechanics, and have - in THIS post only - nothing to do with the subject at hand.  They are game mechanical aspects only, not underlying themes such as coping with pain or the human baseline.
  What is relevant, and the reason I mention these restrictions, is because they do *not* exist in 3rd edition.  In 3rd edition, be it 3.0 or 3.5, any race may be any class, combination of classes, or prestige class, and may rise as high in level as they wish (even Dragonlance kender may do so, regardless of whether you want a kender as Head of the Conclave or not.    )
  This lifting of rules, puts elves on an even footing with humans in many respects.  It brings the elvish baseline, as it were, closer to the human baseline.  Yes, there are still differences, such as the longer elven life expectancy, and these are very important.  But in the RAW, there is nothing to indicate that the elven baseline is not pretty close, indeed, to the human baseline.
  Let's assume then, that the two are close enough that I can speak for them both as one.  That's not entirely true, but let's assume that for a minute.

  If the elven baseline is as per the human baseline, or close, then elves face reality much as humans do.  And so we real life humans, can look at the fantasy elves, and say:  hey, these guys are much like us.  Or hey, they are almost just like us.  And they face the problems we face ... or rather, they face the problems our human Player Characters face.
  Meaning, in this post, that elves must cope with pain, face adversary, and adapt, just as humans must cope with pain, face adversary, and adapt.

  That's right:  elves must cope with pain, face adversary, and adapt, just as humans must do so.  I'll say it again, and again, if need be.  Because although it's not in the RAW, that's what is implied in 3rd Edition.

  I'm guessing a lot of players would say:  that's how it should be.
  Others would say:  We already knew that.  Why even bring it up?
  And yet others would say:  Wait a minute.  Elves are elves, not humans.  You are making elves out as humans.  We want something different.

  So, you want something different, eh?  

  Well then, you must house rule that elves are ... different.  The RAW won't do it for you.  You have to do it.  And, very importantly, *you* have to deal with the consequences.  Such is the life of a DM.  Or any writer.
  For example, you decide that elves live in forests.  And do not clear them.  Fine.  You've now given us, and your players, the WHAT of the scenario.  But now, answer the WHY of it.  And most importantly of all, please answer the HOW of it.
  That's not so easy, is it?  It's one thing to say elves live in the forest and do not clear it.  It's quite another to say why - that requires a backstory.  It's still quite another to say how - that requires one of several answers:

  - You simply do not answer the Why.
  - You answer with vaguity.
  - You go to the RAW, and find a mechanical answer.
  - You use house rules, and find a mechanical answer.
  - You use both the RAW and house rules, and find a mechanical answer.
  - You use Fluff for an answer.
  - You use the RAW, house rules, and Fluff for the answer (which I think, is the best answer of all.)

  What has this thread been an argument about, if not how the RAW, house rules, and Fluff relate to the elven condition, or do not relate, are or are not relevant, or which one or combination of several is the best answer?
  And that's because everyone has their own opinion.  Which they should.  Which they have a right to.

  But the 3rd Edition Player's Handbook and 3rd Edition DMG - the Core Rules of 3rd Edition - do not grant the answers to the elven baseline.  They do not offer any answers.  They do not offer optional answers.  They imply much, but they do not give *concrete* solutions.
  Probably, they do not do this because it would require a hundred pages of text, just to offer a series of possibilities for the elves alone.  A hundred more, for the dwarves.  And so on.  Because although the human baseline is pretty well understood, the ALIEN baseline is just that, alien, and if it diverges much from the human baseline then that is going to take a lot of explaining, clarifying, mechanical adjustments, backstory, and so on.
  This is why we have those things called *supplements.*  But supplements are generally viewed as optional, not core, and then there is a whole new mess because core is core and optional is not core (not to mention, not everyone has the supplement in question.)

  So now, if we go with a particular interpretation of elves (below), then the questions arise:

  - Elves live in forests.  The What, given in generality.  Now, any details of the What?  Can you give the Why?  Can you give the How?  Backstory?  RAW or optional rules, please?
  - Elves are communal.   The What, given in generality.  Now, any details of the What?  Can you give the Why?  Can you give the How?  Backstory?  RAW or optional rules, please?
  - Elves are flighty and frivolous.  As above.
  - Elves like to dance, sing, and frolic.  As above.
  - Elves are magically adept.  As above.
  - Elves are very fine combatants with the sword.  As above.
  - Elves are very fine archers.  As above.
  - Elves are chaotic good.  As above ... and what, exactly, is Chaotic Good?  (that is, let's do the alignment thing out ... major, major headache, but hey, the players want to know ...)
  - Elves are reclusive and shy.  As above.
  - Elves do not get along with dwarves.  As above.

  That's one possible (and perhaps, not very good) elven baseline, derived from how elves cope with pain (in this case, it all starts from an effort to cope with pain ... just ask the elves of Elfquest!    )
  There are many, many others, from the Noldor to the Melniboneans to the Dargonesti to the Olvenfolk to Shakespeare's Faerie Elves.
  The 3rd Edition Player's Handbook could never build templates for all of these.  Never.  But it could build templates for just a few, write up RAW for them, offer optional RAW for them, give backstories, and thus give players a skeletal framework to work with.

  It would make a poor DM's life easier.  As this thread shows, nobody can agree on elves.  That includes players and DMs alike.

  -

  -

  -

  Now ... WHY do *I* think 3rd Edition elves are doomed?  (the almighty Doomed!)

  Because, in the RAW, no special capabilities for coping with pain - and thus facing adversary, adapting, progressing, fighting, winning, self-actualizing, etc., etc., etc. - are granted to them.  (Or, from a harsher approach:  That's right, the poor babies don't get any special privileges today.)
  HUMANS do not get any special coping mechanisms - humans get no special abilities at all.  If there is one thing I think of as fundamental to humans, is that they start with nothing.  RAW or implied, humans start with nothing, nill, null, and 0.  (Standard starting equipment, an extra feat, and being 1st level in a class are irrelevant, I'm talking about the general conception here.)
  Well, elves don't get anything special either.  The poor babies, don't you feel sorry for them?  

  When the settings were updated to 3rd Edition, the situation for the elves - based on 1st and 2nd edition realities - was not updated to reflect the new reality of the elven baseline.
  For example, in 3rd edition elves are still stuck in Qualinesti and Silvanesti Forest, on Krynn.  They are still stuck in Celene, Veluna, Highfolk, the Vesve, the Lendores, and isolated other places on Oerth.  They are still relegated to Evermeet and Evereska on Toril (with one change:  they have Cormanthor back.)  They are still driven from their lands on Aebrinis.  Still just one more cosmopolitan race in Zakhara.  Still nomadic tribesmen on Athas.  And still killed on sight in Ravenloft.  Eberron?  I don't know ... but I'm guessing they aren't the majority race there, are they?

  All other things being equal, this presents a problem, for in these settings:

  - Humans outnumber the elves greatly.
  - Humans outpower the elves martially, greatly.
  - Humans outpower the elves magically, greatly, except on Toril.
  - Humans reproduce faster.
  - Humans are generally on the aggressive, oftentimes against the elves.
  - Other races are sometimes on the aggressive, oftentimes against the elves.
  - Monstrous races are sometimes on the aggressive, oftentimes against the elves.
  - Monstrous races oftentimes outnumber the elves, very greatly.
  - Monstrous races oftentimes outpower the elves, very greatly.
  - Monstrous races oftentimes are vastly brighter than the elves.

  If the human baseline and the elven baseline are equal, the coping with pain situation equal, then the elves are ultimately crushed and annihilated in this scenario.

  I will hazard something here.  I hope this is not taken wrongly.  If the settings were updated to 3rd Edition as I think they should be, then the situation with the elves might look like this:

  On Oerth (Greyhawk) the elves are the majority race and rule in:  Keoland, Veluna, Furyondy, Nyrond, and Urnst.  They have large outholdings elsewhere.
  On Krynn (Dragonlance) the elves are undisputed masters of Ergoth and one third of Solamnia.  Prior to the Cataclysm, they are in a power struggle for control of Istar with the other races.
  On Toril (Forgotten Realms) elves control Baldur's Gate, jointly control Candlekeep, have refounded Arvandaar in the High Forest, healed the land and refounded Miritar, are undisputed masters in Amn and Tethyr (regrowing the lost forests and rekindling their ancient realms there), rule Aglarond, contest for Thay with other Thayvians (that is, some elves are Tharchions of Thay), contest for control of Mulhorand, share in the ruling council of Halruaa, form a sizeable part of Shade Enclave, and otherwise are here and there being most annoying to all the other races.
  In Zakhara (AL-QADIM), elves strive against dwarves, halflings, kobolds, and even gith to control the government.
  In Aebrinis, the elves are holding on to their lands quite nicely, thank you.  The invading humans were slaughtered.
  On Athas, the elves threw back Rajaat in the Cleansing Wars.  Combining with forces with those of wrathful dwarves, halflings, pixies, orcs, and others, they cleansed Athas of Rajaat (and Athas isn't a ruined desert, either ... unless the elves became mighty Defilers and even Dragons, and helped ruin it.)

  Get it?  See how different that would be?
  The designers said it, though:  Creating a believable alien fantasy world is a staggering challenge for the writers of fantasy and science fiction.
  So they concluded:  the game should feature humanity, to make the game easier to set up and play.

  That assumption has been discarded in 3rd Edition, so now we have - or should have - alien fantasy settings.
  Yet I see that humans still predominate.
  If humans predominate, when elves are on an equal footing with them in the RAW, then something is seriously wrong with the elves.  What could that be?

  It's nothing in the RAW.  But ...

  Elves are still depicted as having only a handful of children per millennium.
  Elves are still depicted as arrogant, haughty, and oftentimes downright nasty, which translates to:  they wouldn't do well in a Diplomacy game.  And aren't many of the other races (such as humans) not playing that Diplomacy game QUITE well?
  Elves are still depicted as preferring sanctuaries to live in.  Their posture is heavily defensive.  But how long can any standing wall last, folks, when a constant hurricane is blowing on it?
  Elves still have those pesky drow on their backs.  This results in regular loss of elvish life.  It's a handicap, although other races have to put up with the nuisance as well.
  Elves are still depicted, as oftentimes feuding with each other, or even ready to go to war with each other.  And elven prejudice from one elven subrace against another elven subrace is widespread and highly counterproductive.  The elves must deal with this counterproductive situation IN ADDITION to dealing with ALL the other races and threats and problems.
  Elves are oftentimes depicted as refusing resurrection, a game mechanic that could soften the blow of low numbers.
  And other things, which I cannot think of off the top of my head at the moment.

  These portrayals, are not in the RAW.  But they are implied, in the settings, in the 3rd edition settings (if there are exceptions, my mistake), and in many novels based on the settings.

  What it comes down to, grimly and simply and in the final conclusion, is that elves are inherently less capable of coping with pain than humanity.  Thus, they are less adaptive, less strong against adversary, less as fighters, less as winners, less as people able to achieve self-actualization, less able to create, less able to build, less able to enjoy life (one cannot have much pleasure when one is in pain), less able to achieve, less able to succeed, less able to win, to triumph.

  Were elves on a par with humans, they would rule those nations I mentioned.  They would have an equal place as humans in the settings (once updated to 3rd edition, of course.)  They would have an equal chance, compared to the human race, of taking over and dominating the setting.
  Were elves on a par with humans, they might have all the flaws I mentioned above, but those flaws would not hold them back ... anymore than such flaws hold back humans (they do hold back humans ... it is a matter of holding back both races equally.)

  And thus, 3rd edition elves are doomed.

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Wolfspider (Jun 9, 2007)

LOL!  Gotta love the internet.

*chuckles*


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 9, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Were elves on a par with humans, they would rule those nations I mentioned.  They would have an equal place as humans in the settings (once updated to 3rd edition, of course.)
> 
> They would have an equal chance, compared to the human race, of taking over and dominating the setting.
> 
> ...




I think you could then say that all the demi-human races are doomed since none of them are as widespread as humans (with the possible exception of halflings, who seem to fit right in to human cities and spread along with them). 

The idea 'elves should rule everything because of X and Y' is an arguement as old as D&D.

The reason they don't has nothing to do with logical conclusions drawn from source material: it simply ends up that D&D is played by humans and so humans are going to be the dominant race in virtually any setting you look at in either fiction or game settings. You have to have that baseline for the reader or player to be able to relate to the world. Certainly there are a few settings that turn this on it's head (though I can't think of any actual game settings in print at the moment that do this).

You wanna see what a world ruled by elves is like? Read Steven Brust's Jhereg books. The setting is taken from his time as a gamer. The Dragaerians _are _ elves. The main viewpoint character is a human, who has to deal with living in an empire ruled by people who live for hundreds and hundreds of years.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 9, 2007)

I'm bowing out of this.  Nothing has changed in six pages of posts, and tonnes of information to the contrary.

Banshee


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 9, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Were elves on a par with humans, they would rule those nations I mentioned.



So your argument is this: If the elves were more competent, they would rule the world.  Instead, they rule tiny corners of the vast world, so they are obviously less competent than the other races.

That's a reasonable argument, but it has little to do with the game mechanics of elves, and it won't be rectified by giving elves special powers.  In fact, _nothing_ you do to improve elves changes the facts of the argument.  They will always be doomed, because whatever they're doing is obviously not working -- it's already been decided.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 9, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> And thus, 3rd edition elves are doomed.



Huh. Okay. I'll ban them as a PC race.

Actually, a campaign where debased elves skulk in the miserable places of the world, guarding bits of past culture that are no longer understood, would be really cool.


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Jun 9, 2007)

Edena, perhaps I’m being a bit thick but, I can think of nothing to say except I’m reminded of a particular Monty Python sketch:

Pilot: Bunch of monkeys on the ceiling, sir! Grab your egg and fours and let's get the bacon delivered! 
_(General incomprehension. They look at each other.)_ 
Wingco: Do you understand that? 
Squadron Leader: No, didn't get a word of it. 
Wingco: Sorry old man, we don't understand your banter

Sorry Edena...


----------



## Cynic_devine (Jun 9, 2007)

Here's my thought on elves....

Firstly I am just going to stick to core materials (of 3.5) & Races of the Wild (basically I am using core here to refer to Wizards D&D products of the current edition not tied to a setting). If you would like to treat a specific setting then let's do that, but realize that the issues presented only apply to that setting. I am talking about elves in general.

Elves are one of the best martially trained races around. Consider that the assumption in D&D is that the average member of a race is a commoner. Elven commoners (actually all elves) are proficient in a minimum of 4 martial weapons (6 if you count composite varients of bows as separate weapons), A 1st level human commoner can't do that. No other core race has such well trained members. Plus they have better senses then a human & sleep 1/2 as long. All & all an elven military force could be very deadly. Especially if they are fight on their own terrain. Also consider that every adult member of an elven community should be a fair archer as well (Dex boost & bow proficiency). So elves apparently excell at war, so much so that every elf is trained for it.

As to frolicking all day, I don't get that from either source. In fact elves are presented as very driven individuals. Now let's assume that elves love to party, so do humans. Go look at the history of holidays & festivals. Elves do love art & beauty, but this is seems more of a sign of an advanced culture. 

The problem with the whole bad forest issue is that firstly, elves don't just live in forests. Elves live everywhere. High Elves do love their woods, but grey elves like their mountains, aquatic love the sea, etc. Races of the Wild describe elven communities as having a high degree of technology & that their tech is wide spread in communities. They tend to prefer alchemical items & magic. Heck the book mentions magical effects as common in elven communities (things like continual flame spells & parents keeping an eye on their kids with clairvoyance spells). The elven community in the book even has a water wheel. Human communities (as presented in Races of Destiny) simply are not as advanced. I have never heard of human communities commanly using 3rd level spells as a baby-sitting device.

As to elven reproduction, elves actaully mature at 25 (ROTW pg 13) & I guess they don't leave home till after their first century. Elves are said to take an average of 50 years to produce 1-4 children. Doing the math that means in an elven woman's lifetime she could expect to produce 2-8 kids. A low birth rate to be sure, but not that low.

Ok let me address some points..



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> - Elves live in forests.  The What, given in generality.  Now, any details of the What?  Can you give the Why?  Can you give the How?  Backstory?  RAW or optional rules, please?




As above not all elves do.



> - Elves are communal.   The What, given in generality.  Now, any details of the What?  Can you give the Why?  Can you give the How?  Backstory?  RAW or optional rules, please?




Go read Races of the Wild



> - Elves are flighty and frivolous.  As above.




I see none of this in the core material. ROTW does stress the invidiuallism of their culture.
In fact, the PHB mentions how driven elves are.



> - Elves like to dance, sing, and frolic.




So do humans



> - Elves are magically adept.




Yes, again see Races of the Wild & they have wizard as a favored class



> -Elves are very fine combatants with the sword.
> - Elves are very fine archers.




Considering all elves are trained with these weapons, sure



> - Elves are chaotic good.  As above ... and what, exactly, is Chaotic Good?  (that is, let's do the alignment thing out ... major, major headache, but hey, the players want to know ...)




PHB pg 105, see also the Complete Scroundrel, & Book of Exalted Deeds. Most elves tend towed CG.



> - Elves are reclusive and shy.  As above.




Somewhat surely; mainly elven communities tend to be well camouflaged.



> -Elves do not get along with dwarves.  As above.




Actaully these days elves & dwarves get along. ROTW even says that they agree on everything important.



> -Humans outnumber the elves greatly.




In most published settings this is certainly true.



> -Humans outpower the elves martially, greatly.




Only in the sense that humans can field more troops. Individually elves are better trained. Also add in the overwhelming magic factor & humans really aren't



> -Humans outpower the elves magically, greatly, except on Toril.




And in the core.
Elves make seriously overpowered wizards. Consider the "generalist" substitution level for elven wizards or that grey elves get a +2 Int. Also, the elven tendency to disperse magic & tech in their communities means that spells are easier to come by. The elven deities grant respectable domain choices for their clergy. 



> - Humans reproduce faster.




Humans do outbreeding elves, but the elves live longer. Humans breed about 80% faster, but elves live on average 6x longer, it balances out. 



> - Humans are generally on the aggressive, oftentimes against the elves.




I really don't see this in the core material. In fact the PHB & ROTW both stress how closely the two races are linked & how common half-elves are.



> -Other races are sometimes on the aggressive, oftentimes against the elves.
> -Monstrous races are sometimes on the aggressive, oftentimes against the elves.




Really drow & orcs are the main races out to get the elves. Orcs are no where up to the task. The half-orc is really underpowered as a race & the orc isn't much better.




> - Monstrous races oftentimes outnumber the elves, very greatly.
> - Monstrous races oftentimes outpower the elves, very greatly.
> - Monstrous races oftentimes are vastly brighter than the elves.




The problem with this thinking is that it can apply to any race, humans included.



> Elves are still depicted as having only a handful of children per millennium.




And capable of living that long.



> Elves are still depicted as arrogant, haughty, and oftentimes downright nasty, which translates to:  they wouldn't do well in a Diplomacy game.  And aren't many of the other races (such as humans) not playing that Diplomacy game QUITE well?




Well it depends. See elves are described more as aloof & less likely to take petty insults. ROTW describes the relationship with other races & it is mostly positive. What is stressed is that elves are individualists above all.



> Elves are still depicted as preferring sanctuaries to live in.  Their posture is heavily defensive.  But how long can any standing wall last, folks, when a constant hurricane is blowing on it?




Elves are not presented as expansionist, no; however, a non-expansionist culture can fare fine.



> Elves still have those pesky drow on their backs.  This results in regular loss of elvish life.  It's a handicap, although other races have to put up with the nuisance as well.




The drow are problem to be sure, but not as much as it might seem on the surface. Drow got problems of their own (like other drow & all those other nasty underdark races). Also the elves are at a severe advantage on their own turf. Hell human's got a far larger loss of life regularly from being so short lived. Frankly if the drow were that big of threat to the elves, the Seldarine would get involved. Corellon is a greator deity & Lolth an intermediate deity, so there you go.



> Elves are still depicted, as oftentimes feuding with each other, or even ready to go to war with each other.  And elven prejudice from one elven subrace against another elven subrace is widespread and highly counterproductive.  The elves must deal with this counterproductive situation IN ADDITION to dealing with ALL the other races and threats and problems.




The blood feud depicting between sub-races in the core is the drow thing, but then the drow hate everybody. I doubt there are more feuds in elven communities then in human communities. In fact, there are problably less as elves are more likely to be good.



> Elves are oftentimes depicted as refusing resurrection, a game mechanic that could soften the blow of low numbers.




Actually I don't see that anywhere. Elves are presented a less afraid of death. They see it as a natural part of life.

Wow long post.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 9, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I think you could then say that all the demi-human races are doomed since none of them are as widespread as humans (with the possible exception of halflings, who seem to fit right in to human cities and spread along with them).




  Unfortunately, you could say that.  What goes for elves probably goes for others, for the same general reasons.



> The idea 'elves should rule everything because of X and Y' is an arguement as old as D&D.The reason they don't has nothing to do with logical conclusions drawn from source material: it simply ends up that D&D is played by humans and so humans are going to be the dominant race in virtually any setting you look at in either fiction or game settings. You have to have that baseline for the reader or player to be able to relate to the world. Certainly there are a few settings that turn this on it's head (though I can't think of any actual game settings in print at the moment that do this).
> You wanna see what a world ruled by elves is like? Read Steven Brust's Jhereg books. The setting is taken from his time as a gamer. The Dragaerians _are _ elves. The main viewpoint character is a human, who has to deal with living in an empire ruled by people who live for hundreds and hundreds of years.




  Ah, well said.  However ...
  In my case, though, I would like to see an official setting or two where elves are dominant.  And more settings where they are competitive.  The dominance of humans has gotten old, for me.
  I'll look at the books.  But if you are implying that a setting ruled by elves will be unduly hard on humans, that's questionable.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 9, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Huh. Okay. I'll ban them as a PC race.
> 
> Actually, a campaign where debased elves skulk in the miserable places of the world, guarding bits of past culture that are no longer understood, would be really cool.




  LOL, Piratecat.  
  I sorta think the elves of the Great Swamp, in Greyhawk, fit that bill.  Among others.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 9, 2007)

(nods to Cynic_devine)

  Well met there, sir.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 9, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I'm bowing out of this.  Nothing has changed in six pages of posts, and tonnes of information to the contrary.
> 
> Banshee




  Why?  Elves are always worth a discussion, even a long one.

  Let's continue a friendly discussion.


----------



## Cynic_devine (Jun 9, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> (nods to Cynic_devine)
> 
> Well met there, sir.




Likewise. I am a little late in the discussion, but I hope I can contribute.

One point I would make is that I have played D&D & other rpgs along time (going on 27 years). In previous editions & in some settings I share you're frustration with elves & most demi-human. I won't say wizards has solved all my problems, but they have done some. The Races lines is good stuff & does take into account some realism.

If only Wizards could deal with some of the class problems now.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 9, 2007)

Cynic_devine said:
			
		

> Only in the sense that humans can field more troops. Individually elves are better trained. Also add in the overwhelming magic factor & humans really aren't.




Think of the scene in 300. "You see, old friend? I brought more soldiers than you did."


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 9, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Why?  Elves are always worth a discussion, even a long one.  Let's continue a friendly discussion.



Edena, you have not been uncivil, but it does not appear that you're taking in anything anyone else is saying.  You've written a large enough _volume_, but it doesn't seem to respond to any of the points being made, and I can't make heads or tails of it.

_"Bunch of monkeys on the ceiling, sir! Grab your egg and fours and let's get the bacon delivered!"_, as GrumpyOldMan said.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 10, 2007)

It is true that we can't seem to agree on the subject.
  From your point of view, I am not taking in or grasping what you're saying.
  From my point of view, you're not grasping what I'm saying.

  We're just have to agree to disagree, and discuss the subject from our individual perspectives.

  However ...

  I think that if you were to take some of the ideas posted in this thread, and put them in a 4E Player's Handbook, it would make the elves a more enjoyable race to play for many people.
  By ideas, I mean *your* ideas.  If *your* ideas expressed were put in the 4E Player's Handbook, it would be better.  Both the Fluff and Crunch you've offered and presented. 

  In the past, I have noted a lot of players who did not like elves, either as a race or as PCs in their game.  Forrester, that infamous killer-of-elves in the 1st IR, comes to mind.
  And I ask:  why do they dislike elves so?  (Believe it or not, elves are *my favorite race.*  I wouldn't discourse on them for so long otherwise.)

  Well, I don't know why they don't like elves.  Each to their own.
  But I think it may have to do with too much explanation of the How, and not enough of the Why.  As in, elves build mighty cities, are great mages, are impressive warriors, and eat berries in the forest.  You know the clique.  It started with Tolkien, has been going since.
  Not enough of the Why.  If elves outbuild dwarves, I certainly want to know the why of that! (and isn't elven chain better than anything the dwarves could offer, prior to 3E?)  If elves can create great cities when they are forest critters, why is that?  If elves are chaotic good but some of the worst racists around even to their own people, why is that?  If elves are magically adept, why is that?

  Much earlier on, I mentioned the idea of elves throwing Lifeproof to protect themselves.  But I pointed out that I couldn't live with it without providing the Why, which dragged me into writing a whole backstory (ala Haldendreeva, and I didn't do so good a job on that.)

  I was hoping for more of the Why in the 2nd Edition Complete Book of Elves.  There was a lot of What, and a little of the How, but not much of the Why.  ('In the elven treecity, all the elves take care of each other.'  Ok.  That's the What.  Now, about the How?  And the Why?)

  There are so *many* supplements detailing the elven How.  So many.  But not nearly as much on the How, and the Why.  It is frustrating.

  In short, if elves live and play and work and frolic in those there woods, how and why?!  (After 30 years of the What, I think a bit on the How and Why is justified.  Don't you?)

  Yes, you'all have given a *lot* of answers.  And it would be good material for the game, I think.  But our thinking and ideas, ultimately, end up only as house rules.  Our musings will not make it to the core rules.  Someone else, must decide how (or whether) to present things in the core rules.

  Yours Sincerely
  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 10, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> It is true that we can't seem to agree on the subject.  From your point of view, I am not taking in or grasping what you're saying.  From my point of view, you're not grasping what I'm saying.



I'm not sure what the subject is that we are disagreeing about.  This whole time I've vaguely understood your argument to be that _elves are doomed_, because they have _no special stengths_ and any number of weaknesses (namely _pacificism_ and a _slow reproduction rate_).

Recently, it appeared that your argument switched to _elves are doomed_, because _they do not rule the world_, which is a backward sort of argument.  Whatever they're doing must not be working; therefore they're obviously doomed.

Do I understand your argument?

My argument has been that you can easily have doomed elves or thriving elves; just change your base assumptions about how they operate.  They've long been depicted as an ancient race that has fallen, like the Romans or Greeks from a medieval perspective, or like any number of legendary races from any number of mythologies, and they can serve as a metaphor for magic leaving the world, but that's up to you.


----------



## Cynic_devine (Jun 10, 2007)

I think Wizards themeselves have dealt with a lot of the problems with elves in the Core materials. What we have is baggage from previous editions & certain settings. Seriously as a dire hard 2E player I was very suprised at the changes to a lot things in 3.5. 

Elves are awefully different. Halflings changed about as much (from hobbits to gypsy ninjas).


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 10, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what the subject is that we are disagreeing about.  This whole time I've vaguely understood your argument to be that _elves are doomed_, because they have _no special stengths_ and any number of weaknesses (namely _pacificism_ and a _slow reproduction rate_).
> 
> Recently, it appeared that your argument switched to _elves are doomed_, because _they do not rule the world_, which is a backward sort of argument.  Whatever they're doing must not be working; therefore they're obviously doomed.
> 
> ...




  I am conceding the debate.  
  3rd Edition Elves are not doomed.

  I do not have enough evidence to make my case.  Without sufficient evidence for a strong case, I do not feel that my case is legitimate enough, and I must conclude that the other posters have the right of it.

  I can still point to the elves of many of the settings, and make a good case for them being doomed.  That is besides the point, however.  We have been debating the survival of all 3rd edition elves, not the survival of one group of them.  So I cannot make my case from this evidence.

  -

  I would like to continue, however, the debate on the matter of elven reproduction.  This is in the RAW.
  Could someone put up the elven age groups (young, middle aged, old) from the 3.5 player's handbook, so I and we can discuss this?

  Sincerely Yours
  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## DMH (Jun 10, 2007)

*A solution to the elf food problem*

Leaf cutter ants collect vegetable material from the forests they live and use them as fertilizer for fungal gardens. Why not have something similar for the elves?

Instead of fungi, they use epiphytes on every square inch of useable tree trunk and limb. Magic can boost the value of the soil and compost used to fertilize the plants. And the epiphytes themselves have been magicaly altered (or simply bred) to produce fruits and seeds in abundance.

Dwarves could be more like the ants and collect goblin bodies and elf tree roots to fertilize their gardens.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Jun 10, 2007)

Is there an "Elf Food Probelm" I was unaware of?


----------



## DMH (Jun 10, 2007)

I didn't want to read that long thread as most of the elf issues I don't care about. Heck, the food issue doesn't bother me either, but the idea just popped into my head and I decided to share it.


----------



## Peni Griffin (Jun 10, 2007)

My elves are hunter-gatherers with low population density, who historically live well in forests.  The dependence of modern high-density populations on agribusiness should not blind us to the fact that everything lived on wild food until recently (since the end of the most recent glacial period).


----------



## phindar (Jun 10, 2007)

Haven't you noticed how skinny all the elves are?  Mialee makes Nicole Ritchie look like body builder.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jun 10, 2007)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Is there an "Elf Food Probelm" I was unaware of?




Yeah, they reproduce so slowly that when you kill one to eat it takes years for the crop to come back in... 

joe b.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 10, 2007)

What is the sound of one thread merging?


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 10, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I am conceding the debate.  3rd Edition Elves are not doomed.



It has never been my intention to "win" the debate by browbeating you but to understand what you've been trying to say.  Can you succinctly state what you were arguing?


----------



## fusangite (Jun 10, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> What is the sound of one thread merging?



I vote for closing this thread and starting a happy one somewhere else. Perhaps some sort of generic discussion about world building and demi-humans.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 10, 2007)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Is there an "Elf Food Probelm" I was unaware of?



I found that when I gamed with someone with a lot of blood sugar issues, food logistics would come up a lot in play. My player (who once stopped at the 7-11 on the way to lunch because she couldn't go a whole hour without eating) was constantly worried that the characters were as hungry as she would be in their shoes (there were minor food shortages). 

So I imagine it arises at tables of guys who are fueled by constant consumption of carby snacks all day thinking about how thin and cool the elves are, and how far they are from your average brewery or deep fat fryer.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 10, 2007)

I do not vote for closing this thread.

  I requested that someone put out the 3rd edition age tables for elves.  This is relevant to the original topic, since reproduction is relevant to survival.
  I do not have a 3rd edition PHB or DMG available to do this.  Does someone else have the tables?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 10, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> It has never been my intention to "win" the debate by browbeating you but to understand what you've been trying to say.  Can you succinctly state what you were arguing?




  I cannot state it in more simple terms than in my (very long) post on the last page, without producing distortion.
  But I will do so anyways, distortion and all.
  Here is the quick, and distorted, version:

  Elves simply can't take it.  They are not tough enough to handle life.
  They do not have any special abilities granted as per the RAW to help them, either.
  They must compete against races like humans who are tough enough, and against other races not only tough enough, but with special abilities as well.

  None of that is in the 3rd Edition RAW.  So I cannot 'prove' any of it.
  The sole exception is the elven lifespan and reproductive rate, and that is a question mark, a point of debate, and a possible (possible, not certain) weakness for the elves.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 10, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I found that when I gamed with someone with a lot of blood sugar issues, food logistics would come up a lot in play. My player (who once stopped at the 7-11 on the way to lunch because she couldn't go a whole hour without eating) was constantly worried that the characters were as hungry as she would be in their shoes (there were minor food shortages).
> 
> So I imagine it arises at tables of guys who are fueled by constant consumption of carby snacks all day thinking about how thin and cool the elves are, and how far they are from your average brewery or deep fat fryer.




  Actually, I've seen this effect happen as well, with hungry players.


----------



## The Green Adam (Jun 10, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I think that if you were to take some of the ideas posted in this thread, and put them in a 4E Player's Handbook, it would make the elves a more enjoyable race to play for many people.




And therein lies my personal confusion on the subject from your particular take on the species. 

My players love Elves. We think Elves rock. We enjoy them quite a bit. Regardless of the culture we've developed, we own the same Player's Handbook that you do. 

If they Elves are as weak and doomed as you believe them to be, why are they in the book in the first place? Why do people like to play them? How could it be possible that they are some people's favorite race?

Simple. We all look upon the rules and the stories and see what we want to see. In some cases we see LotR, in others Greyhawk or Dragonlance. In my case I don't see any of these but an original concept influenced by all of these, faerie folklore and many of my own views. We all see something different. This is the beauty and genius of RPGs.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 10, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Actually, I've seen this effect happen as well, with hungry players.



Glad it's not just me. This player was a tad eccentric and had an amazing ability to intensify and change play dynamics. The food was just one thing on a list of many. There was the episode she decided to feed all the comatose half-dragons cup of boiling fat, for instance.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 10, 2007)

The Green Adam said:
			
		

> And therein lies my personal confusion on the subject from your particular take on the species.
> 
> My players love Elves. We think Elves rock. We enjoy them quite a bit. Regardless of the culture we've developed, we own the same Player's Handbook that you do.
> 
> ...




  It is a paradox, I still believe.
  One mentions a dwarf ... and people have a pretty good idea of what is being talked about.
  Ditto halflings, drow, and even Dragonlance kender.  
  Gnomes are more nebulous.

  But elves are nebulous, and yet they are in a million books, supplements, and magazines.
  There are more types of elves around than I can shake a stick at:  high, gray, wood, wild, valley, gold, silver, green, star, silvanesti, qualinesti, kagonesti, dargonesti, dimernesti, taladasian, aebrinian (northern continent), zakharian, athan, eberronan, kalamaran, mystaran, mystaran underworld, hollow world, tiefling elven, aasimar elven, other planar elven, ice, snow, mountain, sea, and jungle elves.  That's just from the settings I can think of off hand.  I haven't even started on the books.
  A lot of different interpretations.  When one says the word Elf, it requires a lot more explanation before there can be comprehension!


----------



## fusangite (Jun 10, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> But elves are nebulous, and yet they are in a million books, supplements, and magazines.



This is true. But it's a drop in the bucket compared to all the books, supplements and magazines about humans. 







> There are more types of elves around than I can shake a stick at:  high, gray, wood, wild, valley, gold, silver, green, star, silvanesti, qualinesti, kagonesti, dargonesti, dimernesti, taladasian, aebrinian (northern continent), zakharian, athan, eberronan, kalamaran, mystaran, mystaran underworld, hollow world, tiefling elven, aasimar elven, other planar elven, ice, snow, mountain, sea, and jungle elves.  That's just from the settings I can think of off hand.  I haven't even started on the books.



Again, compare that to all the kinds of humans there are in literature and gaming supplies.

But nobody looks for some kind of generalized "this is how humans are," or "this is what will happen to humans," or "this is what a human would do," or "this is how human society is organized." 

Maybe all this diversity is, itself, a message: there is no essential elf we will discover any more than there is a discoverable essential human.







> A lot of different interpretations.



No. A lot of different kinds. There is a difference.

Teff farmers in Ethiopia, Panchama/Dalit labourers in North India, Communist intellectuals in Paris, Cherokee oil millionaires in Oklahoma and South Carolina NASCAR dads are not a bunch of different interpretations of humans. They are a bunch of different kinds.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 10, 2007)

I will find the book and look up the elven age tables for 3rd edition, bring them to this thread, and then discuss them, since nobody has them available.  Now, if I can find the books ... where did I put them? ...

  I can, generally, only refer to the real world in terms of fantasy settings that use it, such as Shadowrun, the World of Darkness, the Masque of the Red Death Setting, or the City Beyond the Gate from Dragon Magazine.  
  The prohibition against politics and religion is strict on ENWorld, so I cannot discuss real world humans in the terms you describe.

  Also, most players I've ever known simply treat humans in the setting as ... humans.  Period.  Just ... humans.  (There are exceptions, as usual.  There are always exceptions.)
  But elves?  It's got to be a high elf, or a gray elf, or whatever.  Or so said those I played amongst.  

  In reference here, to the word Elf, I mean the Elf as portrayed in the 3rd Edition Player's Handbook.  That's RAW.  All others are house elves (Harry Potter aside ...) or settings elves.
  Now, if I can just find those books ...


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 10, 2007)

Here's your very first post in this thread:



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Elves are not winners, not successful, not able to adjust or cope, not able to survive. These realities are built into the race in 3rd edition (as it was in 2nd and 1st edition and OD&D)




Here's your latest:



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Elves simply can't take it.  They are not tough enough to handle life.
> They do not have any special abilities granted as per the RAW to help them, either.
> They must compete against races like humans who are tough enough, and against other races not only tough enough, but with special abilities as well.
> 
> None of that is in the 3rd Edition RAW.  So I cannot 'prove' any of it.




Can you see why so many people are confused by your arguments? From your original posts it appears you have been arguing that elvish weakness is "built into the race" in 3E. Eventually, you finally concede (correctly) that "none of that" is in 3E RAW.

Your arguments have been phrased in absolutes, whereas the reality is that you are merely stating your interpretation of elves. As you yourself point out, there are many, many interpretations of elves. You have typed many, many paragraphs attempting to argue that your interpretation is the "correct" one. But it cannot ever be, since it is only your interpretation.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 10, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I will find the book and look up the elven age tables for 3rd edition, bring them to this thread, and then discuss them, since nobody has them available.  Now, if I can find the books ... where did I put them? ...




At the risk of dragging this out even more...

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#age

Remember, you've already conceded you can't prove any of your arguments.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 10, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I will find the book and look up the elven age tables for 3rd edition, bring them to this thread, and then discuss them, since nobody has them available.  Now, if I can find the books ... where did I put them? ...
> 
> I can, generally, only refer to the real world in terms of fantasy settings that use it, such as Shadowrun, the World of Darkness, the Masque of the Red Death Setting, or the City Beyond the Gate from Dragon Magazine.
> The prohibition against politics and religion is strict on ENWorld, so I cannot discuss real world humans in the terms you describe.



I don't think the policy would be violated. 



> Also, most players I've ever known simply treat humans in the setting as ... humans.  Period.  Just ... humans.



That's my point, Edena. The human race comprises many many cultures and within those cultures, there is also substantial diversity. There is no stock human response to a situation, no stock human settlement pattern, no stock human economy, etc. 

Why would there need to be a stock elvish culture, response, settlement pattern or economy? Elves seem like nearly as diverse a set as humans. And just like humans, some of their cultures will fail and some will succeed; some of their countries will be poor and some, rich; some, militarily successful, some not. That's my point.







> But elves?  It's got to be a high elf, or a gray elf, or whatever.



The fact that elves can be of different sub-races does not mean that sub-race will be the only difference amongst elves. Sub-race is just one of the myriad of ways elves can be different from one another. It's not a final list.







> In reference here, to the word Elf, I mean the Elf as portrayed in the 3rd Edition Player's Handbook.  That's RAW.  All others are house elves (Harry Potter aside ...) or settings elves.



You could substitute the word human in this sentence and see what would happen: "In reference here, to the word human, I mean the human as portrayed in the 3rd Edition Players' Handbook. That's RAW. All others are house humans or setting humans."

It is not a house rule for there to be different human cultures with different values, economies and lifestyles. Hence, no house rule or setting book is required for us to assume that there are different elvish cultures with different values, economies and lifestyles. 

And thanks for the age table, Fifth Element. Evidently we've all been talking out of our asses/remembering 1e.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jun 10, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Why would there need to be a stock elvish culture, response, settlement pattern or economy?




This has been my biggest bitch with game settings for a long, long time. If I ever have a setting published (heh) it will be composed of many diverse non-human cultures. I find little satisfaction in the monolithic non-human culture paradigm.

joe b.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 10, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> You could substitute the word human in this sentence and see what would happen: "In reference here, to the word human, I mean the human as portrayed in the 3rd Edition Players' Handbook. That's RAW. All others are house humans or setting humans."
> 
> It is not a house rule for there to be different human cultures with different values, economies and lifestyles. Hence, no house rule or setting book is required for us to assume that there are different elvish cultures with different values, economies and lifestyles.




QFT. One cannot argue that elves are only as they are per RAW, without doing so for other races as well, including humans.


----------



## DMH (Jun 10, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I vote for closing this thread and starting a happy one somewhere else. Perhaps some sort of generic discussion about world building and demi-humans.




This is why I didn't want to post my idea here. This thread is such a morass I wonder how many people have given up on it.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 10, 2007)

Thank you, Fifth Element.  A big thank you.

  Elves:

  Adulthood:  110 years.
  Middle Age:  175 years.
  Old:  263 years.
  Venerable:  350 years

   1.  At middle age, -1 to Str, Dex, and Con; +1 to Int, Wis, and Cha.
   2. At old age, -2 to Str, Dex, and Con; +1 to Int, Wis, and Cha.
   3. At venerable age, -3 to Str, Dex, and Con; +1 to Int, Wis, and Cha.

  These are core RAW.

  -

  One thing is stated in the above:  all the races suffer the same penalties at each age category.
  The RAW are stating that elves suffer the effects of aging in a manner similar to humans.  Their stats change just like those of the other races.

  Another thing is stated clearly above:  adulthood 110 years.

  I'm afraid, folks, that this is a heavy blow against the elves.  It doesn't mean they are doomed, but it sure hurts, and here's why:

  -

  There is something called the Mortality Rate per Year, or MRY.
  In real life, it comes from infant mortality, child mortality, teenaged recklessness, accidents, age related illnesses, and so on.  It can also arise from war, plague, and famine, or even injuries that become life threatening and prove fatal.

  In any game where there is the slightest lethality (even one Player Character per 100 games killed) there is a MRY.
  And if there is a MRY for PCs, there is a MRV for NPCs, monsters, and most everything else (not those immortal celestials and fiends, in theory ...)
  What is the rate of this MRY?  I don't know.  It would vary from home campaign to home campaign, from setting to setting.  It would vary from culture to culture, civilization to civilization, nation to nation, race to race.
  For example, the MRY of the Silvanesti elves has proven to be much higher than the MRY of the elves of Evermeet.  The MRY of the human population of Rauxes in Aerdi is much higher than the MRY of the people in the city of Greyhawk.  The MRY of drow seems to be much higher than the MRY of the halflings of Luiren.

  But regardless of the rate, there is - in any campaign with any sort lethality factor (which is nearly all D&D campaigns) - an MRY.
  Where is there not an MRY?  Well, if Melkor had not messed Valinor up, followed by the Numenorians, then Valinor would not have had an MRV ... except wait, the wife of Finwe died having Feanor, so even Valinor has an MRV.
  Get my point?  ALL places have an MRV, except places where all things are immortal.

  Now ...
  This means both humans and elves have an MRY.

  But HUMANS grow up quickly and start having children at 15 (the chart says they become adults at 15.)
  ELVES grow up more slowly and start having children around 110 (the chart says they become adults at 110.)

  MRY is cumulative per year.  If the MRY rate is 1 in 1,000 per year, then one rolls a 1,000 sided dice, and if one's number comes up, one dies (of course, it's due to a specific event, not a roll of any dice ... so that's a metaphorical descriptor.)
  Every year, both the human and the elf must roll that dice.  Each year, the chance in the metaphorical descriptor is the same:  1 in 1,000
  But as you all know, if I could take 100 of these dice and roll them, the chance of that number coming up is much greater than 1 in 1,000.  (If I roll 3d6, the chance of my rolling one 6 is greater than 1 in 6.  If I roll 10d6, my chance of rolling one 6 is much greater than 1 in 6.)
  Thus, there is a significant lethality, a significant MRY danger, for anyone sticking around for 100 years, if the scenario has any real level of lethality in it (which is the case in most D&D games, for PCs and NPCs alike.)

  The danger level in a scenario is up to the DM, but the numbers I am quoting (humans reaching adulthood at 15, elves reaching adulthood at 110) are RAW.  Canon.  3rd Edition core.

  -

  Thus, before an elf can have his or her first child at the age of 110, he or she must have survived 110 years of MRY.
  The human man or woman must have survived only 15 years of MRY, before they begin having children.

  And while it is quite true that the MRY will take it's toll on the humans, if they were to manage 2 surviving children per couple and these children survived to have 2 surviving children themselves, on average ... and so on, generation through generation, for 110 years ... with generational turnover occurring over 40 year periods ... in 110 years 2 humans would produce approximately 8 surviving offspring.
  Meanwhile, the 2 elves have only just grown up, and haven't had any children yet.
  That's 8 to 2.

  And that means the humans have 8 contenders against the MRY, while the elves only have 2 attempting survival.

  In D&D terms, this is a crushing blow to the elves.
  It does not mean the elves are doomed.  But it means they have a serious problem.  A real serious problem.
  If the MRY in the setting is high and elves are humans are sharing it equally, the humans will survive long after the elves are gone.  If the MRY is very low and the elves escape most of it while humanity shoulders the brunt of it, the problem is not so bad ... but it is still there.

  In the old 'classical' approach we discussed, where elves started having children at 100, and had maybe 2 or 3 children per 1,000 years, the MRY advantage of humans would be so overwhelming, so crushing, that the elves would be quickly eclipsed.

  The MRY problem the elves face is worsened by the rapid reproduction rate of orcs and other humanoids of that sort.
  These jokers reproduce like bunnies, in the 'classical' scenario.  Thus the orc hoards hundreds of thousands strong every hundred years or so (rolls eyes.)  And other humanoid hoards.
  The MRY amongst these humanoids is astonishingly high, but their birth rate and overpopulation rate is so great that it overcomes even the MRY, and they produce these colossal hoards of monsters.
  And then the poor elves (and humans also) have to deal with these guys.

  What is worse yet, far worse, is that in 3rd edition every race may have a class.
  This does not mean they DO.  This does not mean that every orc is a barbarian or every kobold a sorcerer.
  But it *does* mean that these abominations could exist, and if they do they have no level limitations or class limitations.  I think the 3rd Edition RAW even suggest that some of them are proficient in certain classes, and one will find those classes within that race.
  And once more, the poor elves (and humans also) have to deal with them.

  The drow are stronger in 3rd edition, because the level and class limitations on them were dropped, thanks to the RAW.
  Thus, if the 2nd edition drow do not change their behavior of launching assaults on elves, in 3rd edition (and nothing in the RAW suggests the drow have changed) then the elven MRY is further increased.

  Also, there are logistical problems with having and raising children.  For the elven couple who wishes to have 65 children (1 per year, for 65 years) they are going to face serious obstacles (obviously) in their family planning.
  Thus, if the elves attempt to 'keep up' with humans (much less orcs) in procreation, they are going to have to be clever and creative and adjust their society to cope with large numbers of children and adolescents.
  They can do this.  I'm not saying they can't.  It would make for an alien civilization (since humans do not raise families of 65 children) of note.

  Thus, elves are doom ...  ... elves have a king sized headache, maintaining their race in the face of their slow reproductive rate versus their MRY.


----------



## monboesen (Jun 10, 2007)

> Thus, elves are doom ...  ... elves have a king sized headache





Allow me to correct the above statement.


Thus, elves are doom ...  ... elves, _in your imaginary game world_, have a king sized headache



And shouldn't we rather discuss how these hordes of orcs continually find the resources to breed into numberless hordes when they also traditionally must carve out an existence in mountains, badlands and so on.


Or why dragons (substitute Balors, Pit Fiends, Incorporeal undeads or any other powerful monster of your particular liking) aren't already ruling the world. I mean how many great wyrms does it really take to seize all power and kill all humanoid contenders.



I'll repeat myself one last time. The actual rules of the game have ONLY to do with player - player and player - opponent relationships. Extrapolating actual societies, cultures or worlds from the rules will result in nonsense most of the time. 

Those kinds of social institutions should be ruled by imagination and the simple law of "If it is fun, flavourful and dramatic, lets go with it"


Since elves and their survival is such an issue for you, why don't you just dole out whatever powers, immunities, etc. that you would like them to have. It doesn't matter to anyone else, you don't need anybody's approval or consent. 

It's your game, you can do whatever you want. That's the beauty of roleplaying. It is all imagination


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 10, 2007)

And ...
  Many of you are, legitimately, pointing out that there are numerous variations on elves besides the elves in the RAW.  Of course there are.  There are as many races of elves as I can shake a stick at, and more.

  But I am discussing only the elves as described by the RAW.
  The debate, as I am phrasing it, is over the 3rd Edition elves, RAW, core rules.

  Other elves, house elves, are not being debated.  (There is, obviously, no way I could ever make any assertions about such elves, for they are as their particular DM wants them to be.)


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 10, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> But regardless of the rate, there is - in any campaign with any sort lethality factor (which is nearly all D&D campaigns) - an MRY [Mortality Rater per Year].



There is not _one_ mortality rate though.  The mortality rate for elves is vastly different from the mortality rate for humans, which is only a weighted average for different kinds of humans living in different places with different lifestyles.

Just as mortality rate differs from place to place and time to time, so does reproduction rate.  Even if all humans are biologically human, the reproduction rate of middle-class Americans is nothing like the reproduction rate of medieval peasants -- and elves likely change their reproduction rate drastically depending on their circumstances.

What is true is that long-lived elves who invest mightily in each offspring would be safety-conscious.  Like modern Americans, they would value blood more than treasure, and they would spend a tremendous amount on military magic (which is analogous to technology) rather than throw lives away.  Orcs would make the opposite trade-off.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 10, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Many of you are, legitimately, pointing out that there are numerous variations on elves besides the elves in the RAW.



No, Edena. Re-read what I said. What I said was that there are many variations _within_ the elves described in the RAW, just as there are many variations within the humans described in the RAW.

Do all RAW humans in all possible cultures in all possible D&D worlds have exactly the same culture, birth rate, mortality rate, population growth rate, economy and society? Of course not. We don't need to change the rules governing the race "human" to produce wide variations. Why would we need to change the rules governing the race "elf" to produce the same wide variations? 

All humans have the same average stats, the same bonuses and penalties, the same age table, the same height and weight table. And yet, some cultures flourish while others die out. Some human cultures have high birth rates and yet never grow. Some human cultures have low birth rates and expand anyway. 







> The debate, as I am phrasing it, is over the 3rd Edition elves, RAW, core rules.



Agreed.







> Other elves, house elves, are not being debated.



Right. But given what we already know about human culture diversity in D&D, we have proof positive that your group does not need to have different stats in order to have a different culture, society, birth rate or mortality rate. 

So, unless you would like to posit that all human cultures are essentially identical and will have essentially identical consumption, growth and settlement patterns, you cannot make such a claim about elves.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 10, 2007)

Also notice that dwarves has a very long lifespan similar to elves (but not quite to the same extent), and would have similar problems related to that.

Add to that the fact that dwarves live underground....what do they eat, fungus?...so I guess dwarves are probably doomed as well.

Anyone want to do gnomes?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 10, 2007)

(rather militantly stated, for all responses below)



			
				monboesen said:
			
		

> And shouldn't we rather discuss how these hordes of orcs continually find the resources to breed into numberless hordes when they also traditionally must carve out an existence in mountains, badlands and so on.
> Or why dragons (substitute Balors, Pit Fiends, Incorporeal undeads or any other powerful monster of your particular liking) aren't already ruling the world. I mean how many great wyrms does it really take to seize all power and kill all humanoid contenders.




  We can discuss that.  But that is a different discussion.



> I'll repeat myself one last time. The actual rules of the game have ONLY to do with player - player and player - opponent relationships. Extrapolating actual societies, cultures or worlds from the rules will result in nonsense most of the time.




  *We do not agree on this.*
  In my opinion, one starts with the rules, and extrapolates from them to create those fantasy societies, cultures, and worlds, and this is the fundamental way in which things work in the game.
  As in, the Player's Handbook and DMG are rulessets, and modules are rulessets, and boxed sets are rulessets, and the settings as we know them came from those, and our own home settings are inspired by books like the Player's Handbook ... for it gives us the skeletal rules to base the imagination on.
  *Thus we disagree.*
  But that is ok.
  Let us agree to disagree.

  As for it resulting in nonsense, that is so complicated an issue I think it would require a new thread.  Let me summarize by saying that I *partially* agree with you, on that *particular* point.  And let me also say, that nonsense is sometimes what we enjoy, which highlights the complexity of this subject.

  I am debating from a rules point of view also, because it is pointless to debate from a house rule perspective ... house rules vary from group to group.  This debate began when I made a comment at 3rd Edition elves, and so it remains a debate about them ... within the RAW.



> Those kinds of social institutions should be ruled by imagination and the simple law of "If it is fun, flavourful and dramatic, lets go with it"




  I happen to believe, to be blunt, that the Player's Handbook should have far more crunch and fluff on the non-human races.  I think it is a failure of the book that more is not there.
  Should the imagination of player and DM be the primary factor?  Yes.
  Should the PHB and perhaps DMG have more crunch and fluff as well?  Yes.



> Since elves and their survival is such an issue for you, why don't you just dole out whatever powers, immunities, etc. that you would like them to have. It doesn't matter to anyone else, you don't need anybody's approval or consent.




  I do just that.  I wish the Player's Handbook would give me some support, however.  And/or the Dungeon Master's Guide.  And aren't they supposed to be there to give support?



> It's your game, you can do whatever you want. That's the beauty of roleplaying. It is all imagination




  Yes.  Now, let's put some rules, crunch and fluff, in the PHB and DMG to help stimulate the imagination.  There cannot be enough support from those books.  The DM and players need as much help and support as the books can offer.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 10, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> There is not _one_ mortality rate though.  The mortality rate for elves is vastly different from the mortality rate for humans, which is only a weighted average for different kinds of humans living in different places with different lifestyles.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> What is true is that long-lived elves who invest mightily in each offspring would be safety-conscious.  Like modern Americans, they would value blood more than treasure, and they would spend a tremendous amount on military magic (which is analogous to technology) rather than throw lives away.  Orcs would make the opposite trade-off.




  We happen to agree on this one.  
  Elves invest in their children to an enormous degree.  Orcs, invest very little.
  That's house rule thinking on our part.  But there it is, nonetheless.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 10, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> No, Edena. Re-read what I said. What I said was that there are many variations _within_ the elves described in the RAW, just as there are many variations within the humans described in the RAW.




  Can you cite these variations, for the purposes of this debate?
  I am not sure what you are referring to, within the core books.



> Do all RAW humans in all possible cultures in all possible D&D worlds have exactly the same culture, birth rate, mortality rate, population growth rate, economy and society? Of course not. We don't need to change the rules governing the race "human" to produce wide variations. Why would we need to change the rules governing the race "elf" to produce the same wide variations?




  Obviously, we do not need to change the RAW to extrapolate from them.  We do extrapolate, and thus we create house rule races.  That's quite the right thing to do, as you are implying.
  But in *this* case I must stick with the RAW (which is why I ask for the variations you cite within the RAW for elves) because this debate is based on the RAW.



> All humans have the same average stats, the same bonuses and penalties, the same age table, the same height and weight table. And yet, some cultures flourish while others die out. Some human cultures have high birth rates and yet never grow. Some human cultures have low birth rates and expand anyway. Agreed.Right. But given what we already know about human culture diversity in D&D, we have proof positive that your group does not need to have different stats in order to have a different culture, society, birth rate or mortality rate.




  Agreed.  And agreed.  No argument or debate on this.  It's patently obvious you are right.
  I am only debating from the point of view of the RAW.  There is no solid ground for either of us to debate on otherwise:  house rules are not solid ground, but shift and change as we shift and change them.

  Of course, the elves can be extrapolated into anything you want.  That's a given.  They could be extrapolated into lords of the settings.  Or into situations as wretched as those the  gully dwarves live within.  Or any situation in between.  Or all of them.
  But we are discussing the RAW.  And they are standardized.  It's a narrow framework (as previously, long ago pointed out) but the only framework from which to have a debate.
  And remember that from the RAW come the extrapolations.  Don't we know ... remember all the uproar over raising level limits, because they were too low in 1st and/or 2nd edition?  I do.  (That was quite an uproar, I recall ...)  From the RAW spring the extrapolations.
  Consider Tolkien's works to be a kind of RAW.  And look what happened.  The concept of 'doomed elves' proliferated.  It still proliferates.  It will go on proliferating.  Extrapolation, in this case, from books ... but they laid down a framework, just as game rules do, to extrapolate from.
  So, we debate the RAW for 3rd Edition.



> So, unless you would like to posit that all human cultures are essentially identical and will have essentially identical consumption, growth and settlement patterns, you cannot make such a claim about elves.




  See above.  I make no such (obviously and patently absurd) claims.  But a baseline must be used, for the debate.  We cannot debate what is undefined.  We will get nowhere.  Example:  the RAW do not state elves live in forests.  Many house rule that elves do.  But we cannot debate it, for one side will simply claim it's not in the RAW, and the other side will claim the RAW are irrelevant, and the chaos will go from there.  Indeed, it's already happened ... in this thread.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 10, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Also notice that dwarves has a very long lifespan similar to elves (but not quite to the same extent), and would have similar problems related to that.
> 
> Add to that the fact that dwarves live underground....what do they eat, fungus?...so I guess dwarves are probably doomed as well.
> 
> Anyone want to do gnomes?




  The topic of dwarves and gnomes and their troubles would be a fascinating discussion.
  I stress:  discussion.
  But that is another thread or three.

  I happen to think dwarves do have similar troubles.
  What I said about the PHB and DMG offering crunch and fluff on the non-human races, goes for dwarves and all the others.  It would aid the DM and players alike.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 10, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> We can discuss that.  But that is a different discussion.




No, it's not. It's precisely the same discussion. You say that elves are doomed because humans and orcs should be overunning them, and elves can't compete with these races. Alright, then, humans and orcs are doomed because a single dragons can slaughter thousands of them. Humans and orcs cannot compete with dragons.

You can't arbitrarily draw the line exclusing dragons and other super-powerful creatures. If you want to consider one creature's place in the "standard" fantasy world, you need to compare them to *all* other creatures in the world (or rather, you need to compare *each* type of creature to each other), not just a couple of cherry-picked examples.

You can't say, "no, we're only comparing humans and elves here" because you're leaving out most of the context of the fantasy world.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 10, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> No, it's not. It's precisely the same discussion. You say that elves are doomed because humans and orcs should be overunning them, and elves can't compete with these races. Alright, then, humans and orcs are doomed because a single dragons can slaughter thousands of them. Humans and orcs cannot compete with dragons.
> 
> You can't arbitrarily draw the line exclusing dragons and other super-powerful creatures. If you want to consider one creature's place in the "standard" fantasy world, you need to compare them to *all* other creatures in the world (or rather, you need to compare *each* type of creature to each other), not just a couple of cherry-picked examples.
> 
> You can't say, "no, we're only comparing humans and elves here" because you're leaving out most of the context of the fantasy world.




  Ok ... but ... consider what you're getting into here.
  So far, we have only been discussing elves.  If we bring all of the rest in, we are discussing the viability of the entire campaign setting itself.
  The core rules - PHB, DMG, and MM - do not create campaign settings.  So we must now go to the core 3E settings.  In which case, we must decide which books represent the 'core' settings and which do not.  Or perhaps all of them do?
  If we try to discuss the settings without doing that, or discuss house settings, on what basis are we discussing these things?  The DM in question of that particular setting must set down the rules and realities of his or her setting, before we can discuss them, no?

  Unless you have a way of discussing it within the context of the core rules (PHB, DMG, and MM) only.  If you do, explain, because how to discuss an entire campaign based on just those is over my head.

  Do I believe the rest of the campaign counts?  Is relevant?  Is relevant to the elves?  Yes, yes, and a big yes.  Of course they do.
  I just don't know how to bring all these variables into the discussion, how to approach them, without hopelessly muddling things.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 10, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Can you cite these variations, for the purposes of this debate?



The variations are obvious. Everybody _assumes_ that human beings have a wide diversity of cultures, settlement patterns, economies, etc.







> Obviously, we do not need to change the RAW to extrapolate from them.  We do extrapolate, and thus we create house rule races.  That's quite the right thing to do, as you are implying.



Edena, I'm implying no such things. What I am telling you is that because we _know_ that you don't need to change humans' stats one iota in order to produce humans cultures that are radically different from one another, there is no need to create any house race rules whatsoever for elvish groups to be as different from one another as human groups are.







> But in *this* case I must stick with the RAW (which is why I ask for the variations you cite within the RAW for elves) because this debate is based on the RAW.



I could make the same arguments re: humans. I am using nothing but the RAW when I state that human beings are capable of being massively diverse. I don't need to houserule anything at all to have some human cultures dying out and others flourishing; I don't need to houserule anything to have some human cultures enjoy high levels of population growth and others enjoy negative population growth. 







> Agreed.  And agreed.  No argument or debate on this.  It's patently obvious you are right.
> I am only debating from the point of view of the RAW.  There is no solid ground for either of us to debate on otherwise:  house rules are not solid ground, but shift and change as we shift and change them.



You keep accusing me of somehow deploying house rules when I say over and over again that I do not need to create one single house rule for elves to be as culturally diverse a group as humans. Why would I need a rule to state that?

Different human cultures produce radically different rates of reproduction, mortality, growth, etc. even though the basic stats for humans in all of these cultures are exactly the same. Why would elvish cultures not produce equally radically divergent rates of reproduction, mortality, growth, etc?







> Of course, the elves can be extrapolated into anything you want.  That's a given.  They could be extrapolated into lords of the settings.  Or into situations as wretched as those the  gully dwarves live within.  Or any situation in between.  Or all of them.
> But we are discussing the RAW.  And they are standardized.



The fact that humans are standardized does not alter the fact that in some settings, they are on the brink of extinction and in others, lords of the world, all without changing the RAW one iota.

Elves are exactly as standardized as humans in the RAW. Both groups are equally standardized under the rules. But that standardization does not mean that there is some set of base characteristics for human cultures. 

Let me put it to you this way:
*Humans and elves are equally standardized under the RAW.*
*Without deviating one word from the RAW, a GM can produce an incredibly wide diversity of human societies.*
*Therefore, given that elves are no more standardized in the RAW than humans, a GM should be able to create an equally wide diversity of elvish societies without one single house rule.*


> It's a narrow framework



It's not narrow. The rules do not radically circumscribe what the human race can be in a setting; therefore, they cannot radically circumscribe what the elves can be in a setting because the rules do not constrain the options of elves any more than they do humans.







> See above.  I make no such (obviously and patently absurd) claims.



But you do. You claim that all RAW elves in all possible settings are undergoing a demographic crisis.







> But a baseline must be used, for the debate.



I don't know what you mean by "baseline."

What is the "baseline" for RAW humans?


----------



## monboesen (Jun 10, 2007)

> In my opinion, one starts with the rules, and extrapolates from them to create those fantasy societies, cultures, and worlds, and this is the fundamental way in which things work in the game.
> As in, the Player's Handbook and DMG are rulessets, and modules are rulessets, and boxed sets are rulessets, and the settings as we know them came from those, and our own home settings are inspired by books like the Player's Handbook ... for it gives us the skeletal rules to base the imagination on.
> *Thus we disagree.*
> But that is ok.
> Let us agree to disagree.





Yes I'll have to agree to disagree. 

I don't count on, look to, or even want to use rules books for fluff or ideas. My campaign and world ideas usually start out from litterature, movies and random idle thoughts. Once the campaing gets going the actual act of playing the game provides the needed ideas and input.


I can, and have, easily use(d) several different rules systems for games set in the same world. So that means, gasp...., that my elves, dwarves and any other race suddenly had slightly different abilities, powers and immunties. You know what, it didn't matter, the feel of the races were just the same anyway.

Rules are IMO not that important for gaming. And, again IMO, when you allow them to be important, the imagination and fun suffers.


Edena are you actually participating in any D&D (or any other) role playing game at the moment?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 10, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I just don't know how to bring all these variables into the discussion, how to approach them, without hopelessly muddling things.




Indeed, that's what I was trying to illustrate. There are *so* many variables in a fantasy world that you can't simply point to a couple of things and say "elves clearly can't survive in this world", since I can point to a couple of other things and say "those humans you say should dominate the world can't survive either."  It is not a simple matter, and as such trying to dissect a very narrow section of the fantasy world (elves living in the woods) is impossible to do with any degree of certainty. - i.e., one cannot prove elves are doomed, as you have already conceded, I believe.

In the end, you need to suspend your disbelief, because that is what fantasy is all about.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 10, 2007)

I have described what I think is a problem.
  Here is my solution to the problem:

  Have the core books offer templates for the elves and other PC races.
  These templates would be higher than ECL0.  They would grant the core races extraordinary and supernatural abilities.  They would grant feats and skills.  They would grant a great deal of backstory and description.
  These templates would all be optional, but there would be a baseline template for each race.

  Humankind would not have a template.  Humankind is well enough understood already.  If a human template did exist, it would be for a particular human nation or culture, and far less of a change from the norm than the templates for non-humans (unless the human nation or culture had gone far along the road towards becoming alien itself.)


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 10, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Have the core books offer templates for the elves and other PC races.
> These templates would be higher than ECL0.  They would grant the core races extraordinary and supernatural abilities.  They would grant feats and skills.  They would grant a great deal of backstory and description.




So you want to use racial paragon classes?  Go ahead.

As for needing a template to grant backstory and description, that's seriously flawed.  The backstory and description of any character should not be up to the rules.  It should be up to the player's creativity, and the DM's input.

Unless you mean something else by that comment, in which case, please clarify.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 10, 2007)

(looks at the posts above)

  Pardons all, but tired here.  Let me get back later, and answer your posts.
  You're all making good points.  Good points indeed.  I just need to rest my eyes a bit, here, before making more commentary.

  Yours Sincerely
  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Jim Hague (Jun 10, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> See above.  I make no such (obviously and patently absurd) claims.  But a baseline must be used, for the debate.  We cannot debate what is undefined.  We will get nowhere.  Example:  the RAW do not state elves live in forests.  Many house rule that elves do.  But we cannot debate it, for one side will simply claim it's not in the RAW, and the other side will claim the RAW are irrelevant, and the chaos will go from there.  Indeed, it's already happened ... in this thread.




Except that you have, and continue to do so - elves cannot compete because humans reproduce faster, therefore must have more high-level characters, etc.  That's been the crux of your entire argument - that the generic PHB elves are doomed because other generic races in the PHB and MM have such an overwhelming advantage.  You've made the claim, based your entire thesis off of it.  I'm sure others would be happy to quote you...there are examples aplenty by you in this very thread.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jun 10, 2007)

The races of the wild states that elves can adventure at age 20.

Thus I would would presume that the rest of their 90 years to adulthood is cultural, and not really physical development.

Thus 3.5 elves are not doomed.


----------



## shilsen (Jun 11, 2007)

DMH said:
			
		

> This is why I didn't want to post my idea here. This thread is such a morass I wonder how many people have given up on it.



 *raises hand*

I pop in once in a while and read some of the posts, but not all of them. And I'm barely bothering to skim Edena's ones, since they seem to always be a reiteration of the same points with no additional argument or evidence to back them up. And there's not much incentive (at least not for me) to post an agument any more myself, since just abotu everything that needs to be said seems to have been, and the same dead elven horse is still being kicked.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 11, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> *raises hand*



Well, let's do it. I'm thinking that the interesting issues here are what races correspond to in D&D. Are they like human societies, human phenotypes, human lineage sets or like radically different species (a la Empire of the Petal Throne/Glorantha)? What kind of generalizations can we make about their members? 

I'm about to start running the first game I've run in 5 years in which there have been multiple possible PC races and over the past five years, my thinking has shifted. What do you think, shilsen & dmh? What did you guys want to discuss in this potential thread?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 11, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> and the same dead elven horse is still being kicked.




Hey, the point is the elves aren't dead, remember?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 11, 2007)

It was Moon-Lancer that came up with the rebuttal against my MRY point.
  And although the source Moon-Lancer cited is not core, it is close enough.  I'll take it at face value and concede the debate.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 11, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> It was Moon-Lancer that came up with the rebuttal against my MRY point.
> And although the source Moon-Lancer cited is not core, it is close enough.  I'll take it at face value and concede the debate.



Edena, I hope that you will proceed with the extra abilities for elves in your own setting. It sounds like an idea that will make you happy as a GM, whether it is objectiely necessary or not. Don't let the rules get in the way of your vision for your campaign world.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 11, 2007)

.....


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 11, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> What is worse yet, far worse, is that in 3rd edition every race may have a class.  This does not mean they DO.  This does not mean that every orc is a barbarian or every kobold a sorcerer.  But it *does* mean that these abominations could exist, and if they do they have no level limitations or class limitations.  I think the 3rd Edition RAW even suggest that some of them are proficient in certain classes, and one will find those classes within that race.



The fact that there's no explicit limit placed on orc classes or levels does not imply that orcs hold the same classes at the same levels as elves.  Can we agree on that?

A typical elf might be a 10th-level character -- whether an expert, bard, ranger, wizard, or some mix -- and a typical orc might be a 1st-level character -- a barbarian, if he's part of an attacking horde.

What the race rules tell us is how an _N_th-level elf differs from a similar character of another race.  The rules do not demand that a typical elf be the same as a typical orc except for those few stated differences.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 11, 2007)

mmadsen, 

Edena has conceded the debate twice. I think it's time to stop baiting him and move on.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 11, 2007)

Oh, this whole thread is just silly.  You make a lot of assumptions about elves.  Your whole argument revolves around the phrase, "Elves have the same problems as Humans."  However, from what I have read, you miss the key point, just because they have the same problems as humans doesn't mean they resolve those problems the same way as a human counterpart might.

An Elf Druid could make food grow in abundance with little effort and low level, now they have time to frolic and dance, really, that there ruins your whole argument, but let's explore a little more.  Water in the forests is not always stagnate, today's society has done that to most of our drinking water, not nature, although nature can, just not as frequently as you seem to think..  Elves could like to have lots of kids, I don't recall anything saying they don't.  Just because they live a long time doesn't mean that a pregnancy last longer than 9 months like a human, you just assume it does because of the long life span.  

Also, from Dragon Lance Tanis' son grew up to adulthood rather quickly, under 30 years.  Granted he is 1/4 human, but he is mostly elven.  By your theory he should have been a new born for 100 years.  There is nothing to say, other than simpleton humor, that an elf will spend 80 years in "huggies" or that he even stays an infant for a long time.  It could be that they grow as children rather quickly, say reaching the equivalent of our teenage years, as soon as 13-30 years, then drastically slowing down in terms of aging.  Just because they don't start adventuring careers until after a hundred years doesn't mean they couldn't do so earlier and certainly doesn't make them lazy.

For all you know, perhaps they populated the whole of the world long before the first human ever set sight on the world.  Perhaps in that time they developed advanced technology, like forging metal or whatever, and then hoarded that knowledge to themselves.  Then, over the following centuries they decided to gift the lands they deemed unworthy, plains, desserts, mountains etc, to the humans and other races and took the forests for themselves.  Now you have an advanced society that doesn't share technology, much like the Vulcans in Star Trek Enterprise (they made he humans learn it for themselves) who chose the best and most lush forests as their home.  They have no want for food because the lazy 1,000 year old 5th druid and the semi lazy 600 year old 3rd level cleric have provide for many through prayer and druid powers (by the way, I would suspect that a 1,000 year old elf might just be a tad higher level than 5th).  They have advanced technology, but haven't had a need to really craft anything for centuries and they chose to keep to themselves and observe the outside world rather than interfere with it.  They were there before the humans came and they will be there long after the humans have killed each other.

Obviously you are a city person, I can tell by your lack of love for the outdoors.  99% of the people in Minnesota would love to live in a nice cabin away from the world, deep in a forest, bugs and all.  Actually, good thing that you don't live in a fantasy world because you would inflict hate crimes on the elves and plague them with your racism.  Seriously, if this is the best you have to offer on why the elves are dying out, I think you should go back to the drawing table.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 11, 2007)

Oh, and there are tribes today that have lived in South America for thousands of years and did just fine, eating plants and hunting for food until we decided to go in and cut down the forest for paper.  Then they started to die off because we introduced them to diseases like the common cold, but they survive other diseases that we can't, like Malaria.  If you are born into the setting, you develope immunities or resistances.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 11, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Edena has conceded the debate twice. I think it's time to stop baiting him and move on.



My apologies, but I don't think he ever addressed the point I was trying to make: What the race rules tell us is how an Nth-level elf differs from a similar character of another race. The rules do not demand that a typical elf be the same as a typical orc except for those few stated differences.​That is, the difference between an elf and an orc is _not_ just the difference in game mechanics for a PC choosing one race versus another.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 11, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> My apologies, but I don't think he ever addressed the point I was trying to make: What the race rules tell us is how an Nth-level elf differs from a similar character of another race. The rules do not demand that a typical elf be the same as a typical orc except for those few stated differences.​That is, the difference between an elf and an orc is _not_ just the difference in game mechanics for a PC choosing one race versus another.




  It would be better, if we had more Rebuttals and fewer Rebukes in this debate.  I will admit that.
  I have conceded that the rules allow elves to survive.  Whether or not they survive otherwise is a matter of philosophy, and up to the individual DM.

  There is no reason, Mmadsen, that an elf need be any different from any of other races.  Or they can be very different.  The 3rd edition rules demand nothing here.  The DM and players are free to do as they please with elves.
  Does that address your point?

  -

  What is still worth the discussion is a *serious* philosphical discussion of elves.
  Imagine that we are writers and game designers.  Far fetched?  Hardly.  We are DMs, and a DM must be both writer and game designer, minus the appreciation that a published writer or game designer would get, and (regrettably) sometimes minus the appreciation of his or her players.
  Now imagine that you have decided to put elves in your campaign, along with all the other creatures and circumstances of the place.
  You then design the What of the elves.  They have ... cities? ... nations? ... specific cultures? ... a specific place amongst the others? ... tend towards certain classes?

  The What of the elves is in all the published settings.  That is, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Kalamar, and so on.

  But let's say we want to go further.  Our writer's instinct drives us.  We want the How.
  The How can be derived from the game mechanics, or extrapolated separately, or just plucked straight from the imagination.

  Then, we want the Why.  And again, that can come from the rules, or extrapolation, or straight from creativity and imagination.

  Elves, like all fantasy races, are just that ... fantasy.  So a certain suspension of belief is required.  So, just how much do we suspend belief with them?  How far do we go?  And how do we do it, specifically?

  Writers and game designers deal with this all the time.  And so do DMs.  We are DMs.

  How do you handle the What, How, Why, and fantasy aspects of your elves, in your setting?
  What philosophical approach do you take, to your creation?

  In another thread above, someone has asked:  Is murder what is required to succeed (as a Player Character, I presume) in D&D.
  Well, that is a philosophical question and a question concerning the game mechanics, both.  But I'd call it more of a philosophical question in general.
  D&D has a lot of philosophy in it.
  Let's discuss the philosophy as it relates to D&D elves.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 11, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Oh, this whole thread is just silly.  You make a lot of assumptions about elves.  Your whole argument revolves around the phrase, "Elves have the same problems as Humans."  However, from what I have read, you miss the key point, just because they have the same problems as humans doesn't mean they resolve those problems the same way as a human counterpart might.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> ...




  Now this is a Rebuke.  A long and thought out post, a lot of effort and time put in here, and also quite a Rebuke.
  I will answer this Rebuke, by once more describing the What, How, and Why of the elves of my setting, known as the Elves of Haldendreeva.

  As this will be a long article, and I must temporarily leave the computer, I will be back with the full tale.
  Be back, and I will expand on this post.  And yes, there is a lot of philosophy - albeit rather dark philosophy - in that tale.

  Yours Sincerely
  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 11, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> How do you handle the What, How, Why, and fantasy aspects of your elves, in your setting?
> What philosophical approach do you take, to your creation?




In the first place I think the race is created from the perspective of "this is an adventure game".  I don't think many people have the kind of technical knowledge necessary to conclusively establish that elves would have language, metallurgy, agriculture, and other society/technology factors that would allow them to be successful.  In areas where you are an expert (like Tolkien was with linguistics), then I suppose it's an interesting excercise to create something for elves, but I would hardly think that it would be worth it in every single field that humanity is creative in. 

The way I see it is that you can either become a genius-expert in every aspect of human society and survival, or you can just handwave the issues and accept that elves have corrected for whatever disadvantages you think they have.  Because any one of the following is possible in areas where you are not a genius-expert:
a.  you're wrong about the disadvantage
b.  the disadvantage is pretty easily overcome by technology consistent with the elf persona
c.  the disadvantage is pretty easily overcome with a trivial tweaking of elf biology
d.  the disadvantage is easily offset by one or more advantages arising from a-c above.

I also strongly disagree that the SRD has anything to say about issues that would be pertinent to the survival of a race.  The core rules (or indeed, probably any game rules) are incomplete from a simulationist perspective.

Another problem is that a lot of your analysis relied on making comparisons between elves and other races.  It wasn't that elves were doomed on their own, your statement AFAICT was that they were just less advantaged than other races.  This implicitly puts you in a situation of having to do an a-d analysis of every other race as well.  For example - the advantages that you claim for orcs - as far as being violent and fertile, may very well be disadvantages in the light of other factors.  Again, unless you're a PhD sociologist with a concentration in fantasy-races-that-never-were, I'm not sure how you conclusively prove anything in a single lifetime.

So IMO it's better just to get down to playing the game, and gloss-over any aspect of the world that's not fully formed (which is probably most, if not all).  If you want to make up some fantasy forest-crops so that your elves have something to eat, why not?  That's my philosophical approach to creation.


----------



## monboesen (Jun 11, 2007)

> How do you handle the What, How, Why, and fantasy aspects of your elves, in your setting?
> What philosophical approach do you take, to your creation?





As little as possible. 

I prefer to spend my precious game planning time to actually plan the game, rather than obscure aspects of the game world that rarely come into play.


If philosophic questions about elves should turn up in a game I would either pull answers out of my ass or acknowledge my complete ignorance and ask the players to move on.


All in all I suspect I have a very different approach to the game than you do Edena. I'll ask again out of curiosity. Do you actually play role playing games at all anymore?


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Jun 11, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> How do you handle the What, How, Why, and fantasy aspects of your elves, in your setting?




I use two completely different types of elves in my games. But I did not ‘create’ either.

Elves are:
Sindarin: physically, they resemble humans but tend to be slimmer, shorter, graceful and fair. The Sindarin are immune to human diseases, tending to suffer from ailments of the spirit rather than those of the flesh. Unless they fall victim to violence, elves live forever. Their immortality profoundly influences their character, giving them great patience, sensitivity, wisdom and moodiness.
The elves neither farm nor keep livestock, not likeing to interfere with the natural beauty of their forest. They are, in effect, hunter gatherers of such skill that they never seem to starve or suffer a dearth of leisure time for the pursuit of their unique poetry-music and other arts. Non-sindarin are rarely permitted in their forest.
In comparison with others, elvenculture lacks structure. There are no unfree persons, no slaves, no serfs, but there is an enlightened nobility, served out of love, respect and tradition, rather than out of fear.
The elves of Hârn, from the first edition HârnDex.


Or, elves are:
Aldryami: These species belong to the vegetable kingdom. As essentially mobile plants, they are significantly different from other humanoids and beasts. 
Elves and several related species commonly associate in a single forest community. Since all claim descent from (and actively engage in worship of ) the goddess Aldrya, the members of these mixed forest communities are collectively named after her -- Aldryami. Each species seems to derive from types of plant; in general, the size of any Aldryami depends on the size of its plant counterpart. Thus most of the Red Elves are frequently mislabeled as runners. 
The Aldryami, especially the elves, are old antagonists both of dwarfs and of trolls. 
Elves: slight of frame, quick, and intelligent, the elves of Glorantha are a species coupled to trees. They become quite shy when taken from their protective forests. Among their trees, elves are supreme, living in complete harmony with their environment. 
The elves view themselves as caretakers of the forest, and their every activity is directed towards that end, ever ready to clear up an outbreak of giant aphids or incursions of human loggers or landclearing farmers. 
Elves come in various races, identified as colors by humans, dependent upon the type of forest in which they are found. The Green elves are native to coniferous trees, the Brown to deciduous temperate forests, the Yellow to tropical jungle, and the Red to ferns and other primitive plants. 
Dryads: these tree spirits are very much like the dryads of classical Greek mythology. Each of these wood nymphs is tied to a special tree, copse, or grove -- as her tree fares, so fares the dryad. 
Runners: these are small elves, related to small plants the way elves are related to trees. The classification is important only insofar as runners usually lack intelligence and courage as well as size, while most red elves lack only size.
The Elves of Glorantha, from Introduction to Glorantha.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 11, 2007)

The answer to your question, monboesen, is yes.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 11, 2007)

The baseline for my elves came from the core setting of Greyhawk, starting just before the Greyhawk Wars.
  There was an elven nation, tens of thousands strong, roughly where the Vesve is on the map (my Flanaess was a bit different, mapwise, from the canon.)  These elves were akin to the elves of Highfolk off to the west.  
  They imported food, and exported finished goods.  They created small cities within the forest, in the Myth Drannor style (but without it's mythal or magical prowess.)  They had a fair sized textile manufacturing capability, a modest metallurgy industry, and a thriving local economy.  They employed magic to ward off disease and infestation, and they were heavily communal in an effort to cope with the pitfalls and problems of such lifespans, and the care of large numbers of children.

  During the Greyhawk Wars, they sent their small army (which consisted only of males) to the fortress city of Archendrea on the pass through the Clatspurs to the northeast, to protect their realm from Iuz.  They suffered some losses, but Archendrea successfully warded them.  Incursions from giants to the north were thrown back as well, since Miralea was the center of magical learning and the wizards there moved swiftly to counter the threat.
  Otherwise, dwarven Chauntosbergen warded them to the east, (gnomish) Swantmoor and Veluna to the south, southwest and southeast, and (centaurian) Calrune and Highfolk to the west protected Delrune and her peoples.

  As you know, the Greyhawk Wars destroyed nation after nation, people after people.  Medegia, Almor, other parts of Aerdi, parts of Nyrond, much of Tenh, much of the Horned Lands, the Shieldlands, much of Furyondy, part of Veluna, much of Bissel, much of Gran March, Geoff, Sterich, the Hold of the Sea Princes, parts of Onnwall and Idee, the eastern half of the Principality of Ulek and the southern Wild Coast, and the borders of Celene, were all lain waste.
  Most of the remaining lands suffered significant population loss.  The MRY of the Flanaess was very high indeed during these several years of war.

  Peace broke out due to general exhaustion, but everyone agreed the peace would not last long.
  The elven people drove the humans from the Lendores, and made a sanctuary out of these isles for those of their folk ready for the sojourn to Arvandor.

  The Greyhawk Wars are the canon for the Flanaess.  Delrune was not canon, nor was Swantmoor, Calrune, or Chauntosbergen.  For that matter, neither was the Spirit Empire of Garnak (Baklunish, south of the Paynims) or Istivar, east of Garnak and west of the mountains.  And a secret elven nation existed, using powerful magic, in the woodlands east of the Theocracy of the Pale, right under the edge of the mountains.
  Beyond the Black Ice were the Godspires, high mountains holding a legion of dark races and powerful monsters.  This also was not canon.  These dark peoples and monsters had united into one nation, known as the Solistari Empire.  They stayed out of the Greyhawk Wars.
  The region of waste between the Baklunish nations and the Celestial Imperium kept the Celestial Imperium out of the Greyhawk Wars.  The nations further west yet had troubles of their own and did not become involved.  Zingia and Nippon also stayed out, as did the mighty equatorial elven nation of Varnaith (not shown on the world map) west of Zingia.  Negotations and skirmishes with the Scarlet Brotherhood occurred from these nations, obviously.
  Hyperboria did not send any force to intervene in the Greyhawk Wars.  But, the Solistari Empire recruited vast forces from Hyboria, and many powerful monsters living on the arctic continent decided to join forces with those in the Godspires, across the polar sea.
  The yuan-ti empire in Hempmonaland did not involve itself in the Greyhawk Wars.  But it did ally with the Scarlet Brotherhood.  Other nations on the east and south coasts of Hempmonaland found themselves under attack from yuan-ti and Scarlet Brotherhood armies alike.
  Off in the Solnor Ocean, the Skydwellers readied their forces, for an attack west from their large island nation against the feuding flannae peoples, wishing to take their lands.  Only the Sea Barons knew of this, and they had already forged a secret alliance with the Skydwellers.
  The sahuagin empire north of Zeif allied with the Solistari.  The pearl elves in the Denzac Gulf had always been allies of Varnaith.  The merman and triton lords of the Solnor wished to maintain their neutrality.
  In the skies, gith mercenaries, elven fleets, scro armadas, illithid squidships, and a fair number of neogi slavers, among others, readied themselves to help their ground allies in the expected war to come.

  A complicated mess?  Yes.  The Greyhawk Wars brought it about.  They lit the fuse on a roomfull of dynamite.
  The surface elves of the Flanaess suffered significant losses in the Greyhawk Wars.  Now, they were caught up in this larger situation.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 11, 2007)

The Solistari War erupted.
  The Solistarim took and destroyed Zeif, Ekbir, Tusmit, Ket, Ull, Perrenland, Highfolk, Calrune, half of Delrune, Swantmoor, Veluna, Furyondy, Bissel, Gran March, Verbobonc, the northern Wild Coast, the Shield Lands, and the western two thirds of the Empire of Iuz.
  They drove Mordenkainen into exile, and destroyed the dwarven and giant nations of the Yatils.  They slew Iuz outright.  They besieged Greyhawk City.  They devastated northern Keoland and the northern Lortmils and Kron hills.
  The Spirit Empire of Garnak, Istivar, Keoland, and great forces from Nippon and Varnaith (Zingia remained neutral) fought back, slew the leader of the Solistarim, and the Solistari assault ground to a halt.
  The Solistari withdrew suddenly, each dark race fearing treachery on the part of the other, leaving a vast scoured region of land behind them.  A new leader kept the Solistari from launching a new assault, but the southern nations - depleted from the war and not wishing catastrophic losses in the Godspires - did not press the offensive.

  What drove the Solistari?  Simple.  They wanted all that land for themselves.  If others held those lands, those others were to be removed.  Permanently.  There would be no sharing of resources or space.  Extermination was required.

  Someone pointed out, earlier in this thread, that a dragon could kill thousands of humans and elves.  Many dragons allied with the powerful Solistari, came south, and started a kill-fest.  Nothing could withstand them, it seemed.  Entire cities fell before them, and were burned to cinders and fused rock.

  In the east, the Skydwellers attacked, and from their Flying Citadels devastated many parts of the Flannae east.  
  Unexpected by all, Acererak showed up in Rauxes, slew Ivid, and ascended the Fiend Seeing Throne himself, declaring himself Lord of Aerdi.  The Scarlet Brotherhood immediately recognized his overlordship.  The yuan-ti followed suit.  Messagers from Acererak went to the Thillronian Peninsula, and those Suloise descendents quickly caved and joined the empire.
  Most of Aerdi refused to recognize Acererak, as animuses and monstrous rulers everywhere pooled their strength against him.  Acererak summoned infernal armies, and human help arrived from both north and south.  War raged across Aerdi.

  Nyrond and the Urnst nations fomed the Alliance of the Flanaess, in an effort to hold off the storm both east and west.  The Adri was absorbed into this alliance. 

  Meanwhile, the Skydwellers assaulted everyone.  Until magical ways were found to blow their citadels out of the sky.  After that, they were reduced to raids, their main war effort aborted.

  Turrosh Mak took advantage of the confusion to renew his own assault.  Celene fell and it's people slain or driven out.  The southern Lortmils fell, and Turrosh Mak avenged his people's slaughter of the Hateful Wars.  The Duchy of Ulek and the other southern nations were already under attack.  Now they had orcs in the mountains to the east.
  Finally, once the Solistari had fallen back, the allied nations assaulted this orcish nation.  But Turrosh Mak had the help of the scro, and held out against the combined strength of Varnaith, Nippon, Keoland, and the Pearl Empire.  After numerous battles and severe losses on both sides, the war was broken off.

  Finally, Ahlissa, Irongate, Sunndi, Rel Mord, the Grandwood, central Aerdi, the Sea Barons, and the Lendores were all in Acererak's hands.  North Kingdom remained free (it had joined the Alliance of the Flanaess), along with several other northern cities and areas.  Acererak broke off the assault and began the reorganization of his new empire.

  In the underdark, the drow and the illithid evolved great empires of their own, ignored by those on the surface.

  This mess, known as the Solistari War, killed more than half of all the elves in the Flanaess.  Highfolk, Celene, and the Lendores were gone.  Veluna was in ruins and it's elvish population decimated.
  Elven populations elsewhere were depleted as they were forcibly swept up in the war, or sent aid to allies, or were targeted in colossal magical assaults.  And after the war, Acererak and the suloise had no use for elves, and enslaved those in their lands.  In the Thillronian peninsula, where the people were friendly to elves but allied with Acererak anyways, the elves and humans lived in a detente (both wondering when Acererak would send an edict their way concerning the situation.)
  Varnaith and the Pearl Elves were not so badly affected.  Both suffered moderate losses only.

  But in Delrune, the western half the country had ceased to exist.  Half it's people were dead.  Perrenland, Highfolk, Calrune, Swantmoor, Veluna, and Furyondy were gone.  Only Chauntosbergen remained, and those elves of the Vesve beyond, as organized allies and trading partners.

  This situation proved to be both the How and Why of the later Haldendreevan elves.  What ended as Haldendreeva, began with this horrific situation in Delrune.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 11, 2007)

The post-Solistari War situation in Delrune was not conducive to a long and happy life for anyone.
  The shedding of so much blood might as well have been the fall of celestial acid onto the gutrock of the Flanaess.  The gutrock shattered, volcanoes exploded, lands cracked apart, some lands rose, and other lands fell.
  Delrune had been an area of hills with a cold temperate climate.  Now it gradually sank into badlands and sordid pools, and the climate turned subarctic in the east, and subtropical in the west.  Volcanic fumes and ashfalls were common in the west.

  No food imports were available.  The elves had to relearn how to produce food, with limited soil to work with, and forests tainted and poisoned.  The elves had to recover from the shock of losing their capital city and half their people in a single blow, in those numbers an equal number of civilians and soldiers alike.
  Meanwhile, raiders from the wastes about struck at Delrune, Chautosbergen could not give aid (it was under attack from the illithid), and the drow struck gleefully at their weakened surface brethren.
  And all the while, the threat from the Solistarim in the north, efreeti and salamander and several red dragons from the west, Acererak to the east, and a nascent illithid nation to the south (where Furyondy had been) had to be dealt with.
  Further help from elven Varnaith was not possible, because Zingia and Erypt had both invaded it simultaneously, and the Scarlet Brotherhood had joined in the fun.  Nippon remained neutral, and Varnaith - as powerful as it was - was beset.
  Help from Greyspace did not come.  The elven spelljamming fleet was engaged in war with the scro, and helping Varnaith as they could.
  Help from other planes was summoned, as much as the elven wizards remaining in Delrune (Miralea still stood) could manage it.  But elves in other worlds had their own troubles, and generally would not send armies to help (although individuals came.)  Instead, they invited the elves of Delrune to migrate as refugees to their lands on those other worlds.

  A great number of the elves of Delrune took this out, and left Oerth permanently for other worlds.
  More fled on foot, travelled the wastes to Keoland, and sought shelter in the south.
  Some fled to Chautosbergen, were accepted by the kindly dwarves there, and a mixed people arose there.

  The remainder, eking out an existence in the ruined hills of Delrune, became militant, paranoid, and most turned from the Seldarine to the darkness for power.  
  Lolth appeared amongst them and offered her alliance, and the alliance of the drow, if the elves would embrace her.  Some elves - so traumatized by their situation as to be out of their minds - accepted, and some were seduced.
  Eventually these elves dominated over all the others, the drow came to the surface in Delrune, and the alliance of the two races saw the rise of a Corrupted People.
  Now militarily strong again, these Corrupted People fortified and entrenched, ensured their own short term survival, and - like the drow themselves - lived a generally miserable existence.

  When the elves embraced the darkness, the Faerie left Delrune.  The elves, in accepting dark power, threw away their greatest remaining ally and hope.  Most of them considered it a case of good riddance.  Such was the misguided nature of these Corrupted Elves.

  But that was not the end of their evolution.  Other events were yet to come.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 12, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> It would be better, if we had more Rebuttals and fewer Rebukes in this debate.



That was not meant as a _rebuke_.  I honestly don't believe that you've recognized what the race rules describe, which is _not_ how a typical member of that race is, but what advantages or disadvantages a character of that race gets over similar characters _of the same class and level_.

Does making the typical elf 10th-level, which is totally reasonable given their lifespan, solve your problems with them not having enough advantages over other races?


			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> There is no reason, Mmadsen, that an elf need be any different from any of other races.  Or they can be very different.  The 3rd edition rules demand nothing here.  The DM and players are free to do as they please with elves.
> 
> Does that address your point?



I don't _think_ so...


			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> How do you handle the What, How, Why, and fantasy aspects of your elves, in your setting?  What philosophical approach do you take, to your creation?



I try to think about how a race or culture resembles a real-life culture (or bits of various cultures) from our own history, and I work from there.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 12, 2007)

The Doomgrinder clicked into position.  Vecna and his Legions came from the past into the present.
  Vecna elected not to become a deity.  Conversely, he was not opposed by any deity directly.
  Kas came forward in time also, ready to oppose Vecna.  But Iggwily the Arch-Traitor had foreseen the coming of Vecna and was enamored of him.  She slew Kas and hid his sword.

  The combined strength of the Flanaess would have been sufficient to withstand Vecna, had they been united and at full power.  But the Flanaess and other places were decimated and divided.  And Acererak declared himself Vecna's loyal vassal, and placed himself and his services at Vecna's feet.

  Vecna immediately went on the offensive, after emerging from Tovag Baragu in the heart of the Spirit Empire of Garnak.
  He decreed annihilation for all the Baklunish, all elves, all drow, all humanoids, and most other chaotic beings.  His legions, countless millions strong, moved swiftly to make those edicts into reality.

  The Union of the Flanaess - Furyondy, the Urnst Nations, Nyrond, Keoland, the Duchy and County of Urnst, the Yeomanry, Greyhawk City and the Council of Eight, Varnaith, Nippon, the Pearl Elves, the Pomarj (Turrosh Mak faced destruction otherwise), the Fellreev, and others allied against Vecna.  Even the Celestial Imperium joined.
  But Delrune stayed apart, Chauntosbergen out of sheer terror did not join, the Solistarim refused to even talk to diplomats sent their way, Zingia declared it's support for Vecna against Varnaith, and the Skydwellers were indecisive.  The drow refused to ally with anyone, but the illithid immediately and eagerly took Vecna's side, much to Vecna's pleasure (they would be rewarded for this, later on.)
  The Baklunish would have joined, but the war was over for them before they had a chance.
  Other nations of Oerik in the west did not heed the diplomats in time, so by the time they armed and readied, the war was upon them.  In Greyspace, the powers out there simply did not react fast enough, and the war was upon them also, by the time they were ready.

  Swiftly Vecna destroyed the Baklunish, then the drow under the Hellfurnaces, Crystal Mists, and Barrier Peaks, then the Valley of the Mage.  He then crushed the Union of Oerth, broke the Celestial Imperium, accepted the surrender of the Solistarim and Skydwellers, then conquered the western parts of Oerik.
  Simultaneously, his legions destroyed the Pearl Elves and the merfolk and triton nations of the Solnor Ocean.
  Acererak's peoples were spared.  Vecna allowed that suloise humans would become citizens of his new Suloise Imperium.  The oeridians and flannae would be allowed to remain ... as slaves.  Dwarves were welcome to remain, as long as they worked for him.  The illithid were granted full rights and vast cattle farms to suit their needs, and given large realms to be their own.  Halflings were useless to Vecna, so they were given over to the illithid.  Gnomes were considered chaotic, and exterminated wherever they were found.  As a general rule, the solistari races were spared, and put to work for the greater glory of the suloise people.
  A similar situation to the one in the flanaess, occurred elsewhere across the planet, then across Greyspace.  Trade with other crystal spheres broke off.  The gith mercenaries fled the system, along with many others.
  Vecna declared himself Emperor, and made his new seat of power Greyhawk City.  He began the restoration of the Sea of Dust to it's original green state.

  Peace descended upon Greyspace, Oerth, and the Flanaess.  Vecna's peace.

  In Delrune, the elves and drow - regardless of their new dark power - found themselves up against an opponent they could not win against.  They fought, and they perished.  All of them.
  All except the elves of the city of Haldendrea.  That city was missed, for the same reasons one stepping on thousands of ants might miss some of them.  The fifteen thousand elves therein found themselves suddenly alone, totally isolated, and not daring any communication outbound.

  The blood spilled caused the planet of Oerth to convulse.
  The Yatils heaved upward in plateaus, lakes of magma, and spewing volcanoes.  The Yatils crumbled and sank beneath the waves of the Whyestil (Chautosbergen remained, however.)  The former ridges of Swantmoor surged up into a line of jagged teeth.  All the land northwest of what had been Perrenland rose into highlands.
  Delrune sank, badlands and all.  The pools grew and joined.  The poison from blood shed spread into every tree and shrub, every rock, every inch of topsoil.  The now frigid Whyestil enlarged and ran into the region.  The new swamp spread into former Calrune, and right up to the cliffs of the convulsing Yatils.  It spread north to the highlands beyond Perrenland.  It lapped at the base of the rock spires to the south.  It became known as the Great Grungy Swamp.
  The climate of western Delrune became superheated, the east arctic, and the central region where Haldendrea was became stormy, alternating from hot to cold, water to snow, pure air to poisoned air.
  Very quickly after this happened, all manner of monsters came into the swamp.  The swamp killed most of them, but some thrived and made a bad place even worse.  The civilized races around the Swamp avoided it, and - thinking all the elves therein were dead - Vecna turned his attention elsewhere, to bigger things.

  This, then, was the environment in which the elves of Haldendrea had to live in, from that point on.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 12, 2007)

Now I ask you,  mmadsen ... how would your elves - assuming they were in the place of the fifteen thousand remaining surviving elves of Haldendrea - do?  How would they cope?  How would they survive?  
  What answers would they choose?  What civilization, if any, would they create?  What answer to their problems would they find?

  That question goes for the rest of you.

  Or, feel free to go back in time in the scenario, to a time when Delrune was less beset, and tell me how your elves would have handled things.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 12, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> [H]ow would your elves -- assuming they were in the place of the fifteen thousand remaining surviving elves of Haldendrea -- do?  How would they cope?  How would they survive?



You _have_ doomed _your_ elves, Edena.  They have lost to a stronger foe who will begin the hunt anew as soon as they show themselves.

With a population of just 15,000, cut off from any possibility of trade, they will have difficulty maintaining a highly complex society.

I assume they would _try_ to preserve their culture, build up their defenses, and work the land (in a very elven way) to improve its productivity -- all while maintaining secrecy.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 12, 2007)

The elves of Haldendrea did maintain secrecy.  In this, you are quite right.
  The elves also tried to reassert their culture, by disassociating themselves from the dark they had embraced (see below.)
  There was, indeed, an attempt at food production.  It proved a little harder than the elves had hoped it would prove (see below.)
  The elves were unable to build up a defense, other than those they already had.  All their effort went into finding food and water, and trying to survive in their new, hostile world.

  Theirs, was a sorry state.

  -

  The first thing the elves did was appreciate the deities of evil had failed them.
  Recognizing that the evil clergy among them would not quietly go, the elves struck first and killed them.  After that, the elves destroyed all the shrines to the evil deities they had turned to after the Solistari War.
  The few drow amongst the elves perished in this assault.

  The elves subsequently tried to return to the Seldarine.  They found no contact was possible.  They then attempted contact with other neutral and good deities.  No contact was possible.
  It has been determined since that the Seldarine deliberately did this, foreseeing in it the only remaining hope for their surviving children in Delrune.

  But the elves did not see it that way, obviously.
  They were now bereft of the ability to cure wounds, cure disease, create food, or create water.  The now flooded (in 5 feet deep water) city of Haldendrea had a few weeks of food and fresh water on hand.
  Safe water was only available otherwise through rainwater, and even that was tainted slightly by volcanic chemicals.
  Safe food was not available.  The animals of Delrune were almost all gone, or mutated into abominations.  The birds were gone or mutated.  The trees and brush were sickly from the poisoning in the ground.
  Blasts of snow and frigid cold alternated with blasts of furnace heat, blizzards and thunderstorms in turn, with near hurricane force winds.  Under this assault, the trees and shrubbery mostly perished.

  -

  But on one side, away from Haldendrea around 10 miles towards the erupting Yatils, it remained warm enough that the trees and shrubs did not die.  They remained, twisted and mutated, sickly and pale, affected by the blood shed and poisoning and rotting of the bedrock below, and the volcanic fumes above.
  Between Haldendrea and this bonanza of possible food (bonanza???) was 10 miles of deadwood, poisoned water, slimy mud, black ichor, lifeless and broken trees and shrubs, and a few twisted, mutated green trees and shrubs that had magically adapted to the changes in air and climate.  Of these few, most were sentient and carnivorous, attacking anything that came near.

  Yes, this was the world of the Haldendrea elves.

  But if you pity them, consider what Vecna was doing to their kindred elsewhere.  Nation by nation, place by place, hiding hole by hiding hole, he found them.  He killed the lucky ones.  The rest were brought back for his entertainment and for magical experimentation.
  Some elven nations, like Varnaith, fought back fiercely, and it took Vecna a long time to defeat them.  This, naturally, infuriated Vecna, who made *special* examples out of them to serve for all the others.
  But nobody thought to look in the dead swamp, considered uninhabitable, and covered with choking volcanic smog or powerful storms.  And those charged with magically sweeping for elves with divination never bothered with the dead swamp ... with the Great Grungy Swamp, as they called it.  They were too busy, in any case, with the remaining elves, and with the drow of the Underdark, who fought to the bitter end against Vecna and all his allies (the illithid, especially.)

  Several precious decades were bought, for the elves of Haldendrea, by the heroics of their fellows, and the mad desperation of the drow.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 12, 2007)

(muses)

  The reason the elves survived those first horrible years after Vecna's Ascendance, was because they were *elves.*  Not humans.  Not drow.  Not great warriors.  Not great wizards.  Not because they had great stats.  Not anything else.  But because they were *elves.*
  As elves, they had inner strength and magic which arose to the fore in this crisis.  This was not something that had been recognized before, although it had been often seen ... and dismissed.
  The elves developed Agnakok abilities, then became Agnakoks, gaining full immunity to the heat, cold, and poisonous air.  They became able to eat the sickly vegetation, along with the occasional monster caught and killed.  They also took to eating insects.  Later on, they attained immunity to sunblindness.  These abilities exist in all Oeridian elves today, seeded from that time and carried over to the present, hundreds of years later.
  But it came at a cost.  The elves grew to greatly love eating leaves and bugs, and nothing else except ... captured enemies.  They discovered that a captured enemy eaten alive, granted life force and greatly enhanced sustainance.  A just killed enemy granted some extra power.  A simply dead foe, or a non-enemy (such as an animal, living or dead) provided nothing extra at all, and the elves never touched these.
  The elves took to chewing wood, especially recently cut livewood.  It did not sharpen their teeth, but it seemed to promote health.  Chewing on the bones of eaten foes provided demonstrable energy, and was commonly practiced.

  The elves discovered that they could call clerical spells out of themselves (in spite of the rules in the 1E Dungeon Master's Guide about this.)  The Power of Miracles did not just come from deities.  It came from within themselves.
  But unlike the Dragonlance SAGA situation, the elves of Haldendrea found that they could pull full power from themselves, and raise in level as clerics, just from their own strength.
  Thus they at first slowly, then rapidly, regained low and mid level clerical magic.

  A greater part of the elves did not live to see this happen.
  Faced with more pain, physical and psychological, than they could possibly bear, some chose to fade away to Arvandor.  Some foolish ones tried to escape the Swamp (they didn't make it out.)  Many died of hunger, poisoning, infections, wounds, disease, and infestation.  Still more died from the suffocating air, the frigid cold, and the sweltering heat.  Many just keeled over in exhaustion and lay in shock, too weak to act or stand or whisper for help, and went out into the dark.
  The survivors, all 5,000 of them, who lived to see the day they had regained much of their clerical magic and become agnakoks, were the ones with a fanatical desire to live combined with the greatest inner strength to live.

  Thus, the elves gained the Supernatural Abilities of Lifefire and Spiritual Adamance (great strength of body, mind, and spirit to resist and endure all adversary, supernatural physical resistance to dying, and a supernatural ability to resist being corrupted or broken by magic or psionics.)

  None of this comes from the RAW, of course.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 12, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> You _have_ doomed _your_ elves, Edena.  They have lost to a stronger foe who will begin the hunt anew as soon as they show themselves.
> 
> With a population of just 15,000, cut off from any possibility of trade, they will have difficulty maintaining a highly complex society.
> 
> I assume they would _try_ to preserve their culture, build up their defenses, and work the land (in a very elven way) to improve its productivity -- all while maintaining secrecy.




  Is there any way they could have won, Mmadsen?
  Or was what happened, sadly, inevitable?


----------



## Shadeydm (Jun 12, 2007)

I don't see this as an Elven racial shortcoming, it sounds like everyone in your setting is hosed not just elves lol.


----------



## Herobizkit (Jun 12, 2007)

The Elves turn to their environment, and learn to adapt.  Forsaking "clerical" magic, they reach out and try to get in touch with what few nature spirits reside in the polluted land... they become Druids... and begin to heal the land.

Perhaps some of them become Mystic Theurges and begin to create hordes of magic items.

I guess I'm coming in late, but I'm a huge fan of turnng adversity to fruition.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 12, 2007)

Alright then ...

  After several years, the Great Grungy Swamp had become full of life again, life adapted to it's extremes of topography, climate, and adverse conditions.  Quasi-magical trees were sprouting, and the swamp floor and marshes were covered in greenery.

  The elves rebuilt homes around the ruins of Haldendrea in their new image, creating Mordenkainen's Mansions with all the lack of comfort of home (read:  it was as much a cesspool inside as out.)  The elves had grown to love their new environment, to think of it as home.
  Even though they had regained access to arcane magic, and their divine magic was reasonably strong, and they could have altered the local area back into a truly habitable and nice place again, they did no such thing.  They were quite content with how things were.

  The number of monsters in the Swamp (the elves had heard of the new designation for Delrune - the Great Grungy Swamp - and were much amused) had skyrocketed.
  The elves were in constant battle with these monsters.  Life was constantly painful and harsh.  Life was a crucible that the elves lived and breathed.
  Thanks to the RAW, thanks to the D&D reality where overcoming adversary gains one experience and levels, the elves grew stronger by gaining levels.  In roleplaying terms, they became more and more battlewise, more and more skilled at war, ever more accustomed to war and all it's horrors.

  Their will to live ever increased, until they begin to actually glow with life force to those with eyes to see.  Their mental fortitude and spirtual fortitude ever increased.  They became harder to kill (the game mechanics altering more and more from the norm, the elves able at this point to go to -10 and remain conscious, and to -20 before they died.)
  They metamorphosed into staunch, ferocious warriors, each and every one of them, regardless of any class taken, regardless of gender, regardless of age (except for the truly young.)

  Vecna was still off fighting in Greyspace.  His Legions were out with him.  Subservient nations were arising in the shattered Flanaess under his rule.
  One of these was the illithid nation of Isyrium, south of Haldendrea where Veluna and western Furyondy had been.
  Illithid scouts penetrated the Swamp and ran into several elves.  The elves killed them.  Perceiving this new threat for what it was, many of the elves embarked on efforts to develop their psionic potential.  A few of them proved to have that potential, and began to explore it.

  At this point, the elves looked at the situation, and saw how grim their predicament was.  The illithid would surely send more scouts, and eventually they would be discovered.  That news would be carried back to Vecna, and then they would suffer the fate of all their brethren.

  The elves had evolved enough arcane magic, or rediscovered enough in the ruins of old Delrune, to simply leave by creating a Gate.
  The elves, elected to stay.
  All 3,000 of them.

  They threw a Ritual.  On Toril, it might have been called a Mythal, but Mythals tend to affect areas, and this affected only the elves themselves.  It enhanced certain behavioral traits, inhibited others, and prohibited certain behaviors altogether.

  It prohibited:  
  - Elves killing elves (while allowing them to magically recognize other elves), harming other elves, or plotting any action deliberately intended to bring any harm upon an elf. 
  - Elves permanently leaving the community (it limited how long they could stay away at all.)
  - Elves knowingly betraying the community (if unknowing, it killed them before they could betray.)
  - Elves refusing to aid the community.

  It inhibited:
  - All prejudices towards other elves in the community for their ways
  - Any tendency to look down on other elves in the community for any reason
  - Any tendency towards verbal sparring or verbal aggression between elves of the community

  - The ritual prevented elves, through the combined might of all of them, from being sucked in and devoured by evil magics and dark forces.  (In effect, it served as a rope from which a cliff climbing elf could descend, right down into the depths of What Elves Were Not Meant To Know.)
  - The ritual granted the elves telepathy among the community, at extremely high speed (a hundred times faster than human speech, and the ability to send images, points of view, and deep thoughts and feelings.)
  - The ritual fortified the elven will to live further, bostering that will with the backing and strength of the entire community.
  - The ritual conveyed constantly, endlessly, the value of other elven lives in the community, creating a situation where the well-being of one's fellows was of epic value.
  - The ritual attempted to strengthen certain personality traits.

  In honor of this ritual, which was successfully cast, the elves renamed their city Haldendreeva (the City that Transcends.)

  But the ritual did not work out the way the elves intended.  
  For over a decade after the encounter with Isyrium and the subsequent ritual, no civilized force entered the Swamp, and the elves remained undetected by Vecna's Legions.  Vecna finished his war of conquest, was annointed at Greyhawk City, then went off to work on further goals (to unseat the Lady of Pain in Sigil.)
  But hoards of monsters made the Swamp their own, large numbers of undead emerged from the blood of the fallen, and the Elves of Haldendreeva were up to their ears in war.

  The war changed them, bit by bit, into something unrecognizable.
  They immediately started Raising their fallen after the Ritual.  Because of the lifefire among them and the Ritual, the deceased desired to return.  Better Resurrection spells were come by over time, making Resurrection easier until the elves finally perfected a Resurrection spell that cost no experience to cast.
  After that, Resurrection was automatic if they could find your body.  Then, you started leaving a lock of hair in case your body wasn't found.  Then, your lifefire grew so great your Constitution could not drop below 10 from Resurrections.  Finally, your Constitution could not drop at all.
  After that, life and death lost their meaning.  One merged into another and into another.
  War stopped being war, and became a game.  Because of the Ritual, you played it to the utmost of your ability and strength, and the Ritual drove you harder and harder with the passing of time, not less and less.
  You stopped being afraid of dying or capture or torture.  They became normal.  You inflicted them as normal on the foe.  Life lost all meaning except the meaning given by the Ritual, to fight for the elves, to fight for the community, to fight on endlessly, to go on fighting forever.  To literally go on fighting forever.
  You still cared about your loved ones.  You still cared about your community.  But you lived in an abstract world where war became life, where they were one, and if there was not war the idea of still being alive was unimaginable.

  With this attitude becoming ever more prevalent and ever more pronounced, then extreme, the Elves of Haldendreeva took on all comers and won.  As they won, they (within the RAW) gained more levels and hence more power and understanding.  With childish glee, they turned greater power and understanding into greater war.

  Then even this was not enough.  The elves discovered a magic that would transform other beings into any other being, with all it's knowledge and skills and spells (if applicable) retained.  They started using this to turn powerful enemies into Elves of Haldendreeva, who in turn were powerful.  The Ritual immediately ensnared these new elves, made them over, and infused them with the particular madness of their new kindred.

  Sometime late in this phase of their development, the elves discovered Lifeproof, and Lifeproofed their entire community in a matter of weeks.  It is thought they used chronomancy, and actually it took them years to accomplish this goal.  But the elves had made their first break throughs on magical and psionic longevity, and age itself was no longer a factor.

  The RAW made the madness pay off, since D&D is a game based on killing.
  Even the 3rd edition RAW for experience paid off, since as a general rule the elves hid from the bigger encounters until they were ready for them.

  With each new high level spell or high level psionic power gained, the elves turned reality on it's head once more.  With each new gain, they gained the power to practice their madness more.  And practicing their madness just kept on making them more and more powerful, with more and more insight and understanding into becoming ever yet more powerful.

  And still Vecna could not be bothered by the strange reports from his spies.
  Something was happening in the Great Grungy Swamp.  Something involving a lot of magic.  Something scouts were not finding, because they never came back.  Something involving elves.
  Vecna dismissed the reports.  Then grew irritated at further reports.  Then gave his minions leave to go in and scour the Swamp for pests (he had decided no elves actually existed ... no elves could have survived in there, but some joker was trying to convince him of the impossible.)
  Finally, a very annoyed Vecna, intent on his plans for overthrowing the Lady of Pain in Sigil, authorized his servitors and servitor nations to do something about the pests.
  But Vecna himself still did nothing, spending every last minute in other plans and preparations, barely sparing a thought for the Swamp and it's problems.

  It was now 18 years since Vecna had leveled Delrune.
  At this point, every elf in Haldendreeva (many thousands strong now) was 17th level or higher.  Many were in the lower epic levels.
  All were quite insane.  An insanity they had deliberately chosen, had deliberately inflicted on themselves, because it was the only way (other than flight) that they could survive.

  The RAW for D&D and a conception born of frustration, made it all possible.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jun 12, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Alright then ...
> 
> 
> The RAW for D&D and a conception born of frustration, made it all possible.




No, actually you made it all possible. It has nothing to do with Elves and everything to do with you and the world you created. Accepting responsibility will be your first step in recovery.


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Jun 12, 2007)

Edena

It seems to me that, when you started this thread saying ‘all elves are doomed,’ what you you meant was, ‘because of the way I have run the world-changing wars in my campaign world, I have doomed the elves.’

It also appears that you really are not interested in generic answers to the ‘elf question.’ You’ve dug yourself into a hole as a referee, and you want help getting out of it. There have been eight pages on this thread, if you re-read them carefully you will find a lot of things that other people would have done differently.

You ask:



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Is there any way they could have won, Mmadsen?
> Or was what happened, sadly, inevitable?




Edena, it is your campaign world, you made it happen, not Mmadsen, and certainly not the rules. If you’ve got an outcome you don’t like, that’s your fault. You can’t blame anyone else and you certainly can’t blame the rules.

Was it inevitable? No!
Could they have won? Yes!
How? That’s really for you to decide.
What could you have done? Pretty much anything you want! I don’t know enough about Greyhawk to make specific recommendations, but it appears that your elves were doomed by an unstoppable ‘evil alliance’ of your own creation.
A ‘Lord of the Rings’ solution, would have been to have the forests awaken and drive out the enemy.
A political solution would have been to have the Evil Alliance collapse into infighting as each separate part tries to consolidate their gains. Alternatively, while the armies and warlords are away, the long repressed ‘freedom fighters’ at home strike.
A military solution might (and I stress might, I don’t know the geography or politics) have been to have resistance movements spring up in the occupied states, think French Resistance WW2 or the ‘insurgents’ in Iraq. In both situations (for right or wrong) a few determined warriors can tie up a huge occupation force. Once an invading force is sufficiently stretched, they must stop and consolidate, or fail.
You could have done things differently, you didn’t.
In my view you have two choices.
Either, continue to use the world you’ve made and accept what you’ve done (and stop blaming the rules or the elves for what’s happened in *your* campaign).
Or, reset the game to an earlier point, or find a new world.
If your players aren’t happy with the world you’ve created, I’d recommend the latter. But there are opportunities too.


----------



## Moggthegob (Jun 12, 2007)

WHat it comes down to is that elf as a race ties to cover way too many bases. As a result we have a nature loving bunch who enjoy unnatural magic. A long-lived race that live in tiny communitied numbering around 200, which to me suggests small families but could suggest a limited number of families( as per PHB fluff) yet they are suceptible to disease. i understand the magic argument but I do not buy it all the way, magic costs money and the typical non-adventurer elf I would assume to have the same income as a commoner which the phb seems to suggest is mere silver pieces per week. So how do they survive- free healing? It is possible it just seems very unlikely to me. It stands to reaso na long-lived race would have disease resistance but they do not--- thats the point all the things they need to function they do not have.
Also with eating- hunting gathering is fine for the summer but what about the wnter months do they store food places like bears and squirrels? I just have a hard time imagining it. So if they do not farm and presumably do not store food places how do they eat in anyway that does not involve large amounts of free spellcasting

They are some what xenophobic in some sources yet they rely on trade. There needs to be either an executive decision on what an elf is instead of trying to streamline a lot of different ideas. A wood elf and a grey elf should look significantly different in terms of what they can do and how they live not very similar with different stats.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 12, 2007)

Finally, Vecna threw the first Legion at Haldendreeva.  The first epic challenge was presented to the elves.  They smashed the Legions, routed it, sent the remnants fleeing in all directions.  
  The elves had so overturned reality with stasis clones, clones, simulacrums, contingencies, wishes, extraplanar hideouts, and epic magic, that they no longer existed within a recognizable D&D reality.  They no longer existed within any recognizable reality.
  They lived, instead, inside a cocoon created by the epic rules and the standard rules maximized.  Within this cocoon, their madness grew to epic levels also, and the very name Haldendreeva was synonomous with War.

  So when Vecna himself attacked, and leveled Haldendreeva and everything around for miles, and killed many of the elves, it was useless.
  The elves just fled to the four corners of the multiverse, resurrected their fellows, and ultimately returned for a second round.
  Vecna came with all his legions and wiped Haldendreeva out again, this time pursuing the elves with a vengeance, spreading war throughout many worlds and planes of existence.
  Again, the elves dematerialized into the ether, and rematerialized in the Swamp.
  Vecna destroyed Haldendreeva again and again.  He found it rematerialized like magic, so long as a single elf from this hideous place survived his attack, and some elves always managed to survive.

  A vexed Vecna used his most powerful soul killing magic, so that resurrection was not possible.  The elves had hid their souls, so that didn't work.
  A vexed Vecna used Epic Wishes, but the elves had already used Counter Epic Wishes to prevent them from working.
  A vexed Vecna decided to literally blow the Great Grungy Swamp off the face of the planet, and did so.  The elves put it back.  Then the elves blew Greyhawk off the face of the planet, until Vecna put it back.
  Vecna finally opened Gates to Places Unspeakable, and let forth beings that frightened even him.  The yeth hounds and minions of Cthulu hunted the elves through space and time ... but it was the elves who won.

  Then the Elves of Haldendreeva returned the favor.  By now they were hundreds of thousands strong, and all 40th level or higher.
  But Vecna was not so easily unseated, and killing Vecna was beyond even the power of the Elves of Haldendreeva.
  So the war continued to rage, both sides escalating, artifacts and relics in play, titanic magics and psionics at work, a war throughout the planes, space, and time.

  And all of it a meaningless child's game.
  For to the elves it was simply ever escalating fun, and to Vecna it was an ever more challenging and interesting puzzle for a jaded old lich.
  The war went on for decades.  From the point of view of both sides, it went on for centuries.

  Then Vecna decided he had better things to do, and simply left Oerth.  As simple as that.  Recognizing a lost cause, he gave it up and returned to his plan for Sigil elsewhere.

  When Vecna left, the war ended.
  When the war ended, there was no further purpose in existence, and most of the Elves of Haldendreeva simply faded away.
  Those that remained were the weakest of their kind (still quite strong, but not epic) and newest to the madness.

  And the madness relaxed.  War as the sole purpose to exist ceased to be so.
  The surviving elves of Haldendreeva smanaged to reclaim all the Swamp, smash all their neighbors, and establish a great realm, in spite of their greatly lessened power.
  Then the madness weakened further.  Perhaps the Ritual was fading (although it's prohibitions still stood) in power as the need for it was past.  Perhaps the Seldarine were intervening.  Perhaps the elves themselves were, no longer beset, reverting to their true selves.
  After a few more lesser wars and skirmishes, the elves abandoned further warfare, considering it to be too costly, too painful, and unnecessary, ideas they would never have considered before.

  In the subsequent peace, the elven children born were nearly normal elves, albeit with agnakok abilities and a great will to live.
  But with that came a great love of all life, something quintessentially elven.  
  With the children came renewed joy, merriment, and a semi-normal mentality.

  The descendants of Haldendreeva all continue to have special abilities, all continue to eat leaves and bugs and sometimes fallen foes, all have an adamant love of life and will to live, and all are willing to be resurrected.
  Still rather different as a people, these descendants live in the new Flanaess today, two hundred years after the destruction of old Delrune.  Haldendreeva remains as a symbol of what was, what could be again, and the necessity of community, vigilance, and readiness.
  Because what happened, will happen again.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 12, 2007)

(amused look)

  Something similar to the above story happened in the main settings.  The difference was the ending.

  The Suloise and Baklunish obliterated each other.  Their descendants continue this work.
  The Elves of Ansalon have been devastated, their homelands wiped out.
  The World of Athas is devastated and most of it's races are exterminated.
  Evil reigns unchecked and grows out of control in Ravenloft.
  The Forgotten Realms are in ruins from past magics.  Only a learned few dedicated to peace keep the remnant of the world from obliterating itself.

  The standard ending has the elves of Haldendrea simply dying out.  They chose an alternate way, and the ending was different.
  Was it madness, as I keep saying it was, or was it a strange kind of sanity?

  If the elves of Delrune and elsewhere in the Flanaess could have altered what happened, how could they have done so?
  What was needed?  What mindset was required?  What actions were necessary?

  And no, a setting need not be engulfed in war, much less ultimate war.
  It just happens that this particular setting was engulfed in war, then ultimate war, and now it is at peace ... but the present day races reflect the past events of the setting.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 12, 2007)

Wow! That's some lovingly-created setting history you have come up with. I can see your reluctance to abandon it; it's dramatic and detailed. It sounds like there are some things you could stand to change in it if you want to elves to do better; but it's certainly a fun narrative as it stands.

It also makes sense of your concerns about birth rates and how elves could recover from a demographic disaster. Obviously, this is a big issue in your campaign world and the number one question that is facing your elves. 

Just remember: even societies with traditionally low or declining birth rates sometimes have lots of kids in the aftermath of demographic disasters like the one in your campaign world. Elves, like European and American humans in our world might be very long-lived and slow to reproduce but, after a war, change their short-term reproductive behaviour to produce some sort of baby boom.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 12, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> And of course those diamond sources do not involve any mining and forest clearly or other environment destroying things...




Mostly, no, they don't. Which is why rebel groups can hunt for the diamonds without engaging in industrial activity that would give them away to government observers. Mostly, the process is lots of guys simply grubbing through the muddy dirt until they come across a diamond.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 12, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Is there any way they could have won, Mmadsen?  Or was what happened, sadly, inevitable?



It was their _wyrd_ only because you made it so, Edena.  Your elf saga has little to do with the rules as written and everything to do with tragedy -- which is great, but I really wish you had started a thread titled _I have doomed my elves!  Help me rescue them!_.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 13, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Wow! That's some lovingly-created setting history you have come up with. I can see your reluctance to abandon it; it's dramatic and detailed. It sounds like there are some things you could stand to change in it if you want to elves to do better; but it's certainly a fun narrative as it stands.
> 
> It also makes sense of your concerns about birth rates and how elves could recover from a demographic disaster. Obviously, this is a big issue in your campaign world and the number one question that is facing your elves.
> 
> Just remember: even societies with traditionally low or declining birth rates sometimes have lots of kids in the aftermath of demographic disasters like the one in your campaign world. Elves, like European and American humans in our world might be very long-lived and slow to reproduce but, after a war, change their short-term reproductive behaviour to produce some sort of baby boom.




  Thank you.  And thanks again, Fusangite.  Thanks for the compliments.

  It's been 100 years since Vecna left, and 80 years into the Long Peace (after the Great Retribution - against Vecna's Legions.)
  It's the current time of the setting, and campaign.

  Elves retained their agnakok abilities from the old Haldendreevan time.  
  Elves retained their supernatural will to live, their mental fortitude, and their spiritual strength, from that time.
  Elves retained their inability to kill or strike at other elves from that time (they must stay away from other elves not so constrained, an irony if ever there was one.)
  Elves retain an innate ability to recognize other elves - Haldendreevan or not so - and innate telepathy with Haldendreevan descendants.

  The Elves, grew (perhaps because they were elves) a monumental love of all life, out of their own love of life.
  Thus they look back at what happened with horror, thinking their Haldendreevan ancestors horribly warped, and yet conceding they would have been exterminated otherwise, and unable to resolve what their ancestors should have done.
  They then, must confront their own conundrum.

  For elves of Haldendreevan descent, although inhumanly peaceful, turn inhumanly warlike when provoked.  The Haldendreevan taint is still there.
  They are really good people ... except when they are really evil.
  They are willing to be reasonable even with their supposed foes, congenial and talkative ... unless the Haldendreevan taint kicks in because they were attacked, and then they enjoy torturing and killing and eating the foe.
  They are merry and frivolous, flighty and frolicking, and become merry killers, frivolous murderers, and frolicking torturers once attacked.

  They spend most of their time now in peacetime pursuits.  Haldendreeva itself is an architectural wonder, rising out of the waters of the Great Swamp (as it is now called) soaring in graceful arches and tall towers over clear blue waters.  
  They spend time in pursuits humans would spend time in:  romance, love, child care, homekeeping, working to restore and heal their surroundings, working as healers in general, bringing beneficience to a wracked world.
  Except when they are attacked.  Fortunately, nobody has done this in the last 50 years.  The last time they were attacked, they all but obliterated the offending nation.

  The elves vary, some more Haldendreevish, some far less so (although they retain the beneficial abilities from that time.)

  The elves do a lot of soul searching, practice constant restraint and self discipline to control their tainted nature (such efforts actually work now, against the taint), try very hard to remain true to what they consider their True Selves, their Elvishness, and even restrain their more warlike members (sometimes forcibly.)
  But if you still see them munching on leaves and bugs, don't take exception, for it's normal.  If you see one chewing on a branch, pay it no heed.  If you see one munching on a thigh bone, criticize if you would, but attack at your own risk.

  Will the elves moderate completely back to the elves of old Delrune?  Unknown.
  Will the elves lose their taint?  Possibly.
  Will the elves lose their special abilities?  Unlikely.  Those abilities mostly emerged before th madness, when the elves merely sought survival.  What was kindled, cannot easily be put out.

  Fusangite, they are having quite a lot of children.  And the raising of large families is making them a very communal society.  They so very much cherish their children, that they make the utmost effort to be there for them.

  These elves are open as Player Characters of ECL 1, for any of my players who wish to go with them.

  -

  As for the Flanaess, it is a land of volcanoes, badlands, new seas, new lands, and no map publicly exists to cover it (maps that have been made were seized and hidden.)
  Greyhawk City still stands.  Haldendreeva has relinquished rulership of the Swamp and claims only the small area around itself.  Chauntosbergen remains.
  Here and there, isolated, are small countries and city-states, each of a different race and culture, each in renewed exploration of the strange world around them.
  In the east, a gaggle of nations warily eye each other, based on suloise-oeridian-flannae rivalries, remembering Aerdi, but all refrain from war.  Even there, vast areas are unmapped and unknown.
  One great black cloud hangs over the illithid nation, where the cattle farms number in the millions.  But the illithid keep to themselves, and others leave them alone.  For now.
  There are even other - normal - elves again.  Some of those who fled the world during the wars came back, and brought settlers from other worlds.  Varnaith had a sizeable exodus, and those people are back.
  As for the climate, it varies depending on where you are.  The Yatils in the north are tropical.  In the Adri, the climate is glacial (someone let the ice elves out.)  It snows in places at the equator, while parts of Hyboria are warm.  Magic, not physics, dictates the climate anymore. 

  Dwarves survived.  Most became evil, dark dwarves under Vecna's corruptive rule, and live deep underground now.  But surface dwelling dwarves are generally true dwarves, perhaps more so since they have seen the worst and cherish family and home all the more for it.
  Gnomes survived.  Their answer was to shapechange into an entirely different race, so that not even Vecna would discover them.  Contingencies set up awakened them after Vecna's departure, and some returned to their gnomish nature.  Some even returned to gnomish form, but never quite back to what they were.  These modified beings are known as quixotes, but the most normal among them are called quixote gnomes. 
  Halflings and half-elves did not survive as peoples.  But many halflings attempted flight and received aid during the wars, and escaped to other worlds.  Many more were rescued by retreating Faerie (not taken to Faerie, unless permanently ... but most sent on to other worlds.)  Some of the halflings are returning as pioneers.  A few of the latter are helping them, Faerie beings themselves now.
  Aasimar intervened and helped individuals of many races escape.  Some, or their descendants, are returning now, often aasimar themselves.
  Natural and elemental forces are widespread, and not generally friendly to anyone.  Powers of chaos and raw fury, they are just innately dangerous.  Or very angry, at how mortals have behaved.  (the Unseelie are so outraged, that it is dangerous for anyone at all to approach them.)  The Faerie, however, are helping as they can to bring healing and recovery, and aid any group involved in these efforts.
  Mankind is still mankind.  But mankind is no longer the dominant race, his numbers so greatly lessened that he is dominant only here and there, interspersed amongst a gaggle of races and new nations founded by alien peoples.  A lot of tieflings plague mankind, especially in darker realms and places.  But Vecna's legions are gone, destroyed or fled.  Acererak, who became involved to plot to overthrow Vecna, has returned to his secret Tomb.  Iggwily, spurned by Vecna, roams the wild places in fury.  Mordenkainen was killed in the War with Vecna, and his Circle of Eight destroyed.  But it is thought clones survived and may have returned to Oerth.  Nobody can confirm this.  Rary is stronger than ever, in isolation in the deep forests where the Sea of Dust once was.  (A relatively strong nation of humans are the storm riders, who literally ride small tornadoes into battle, and have great command of the elements, in their wind swept hill country where the Burneal once stood.)

  Such is the Flanaess today.  How is it elsewhere on Oerth and in Greyspace?  Few know.  Pioneers are trying to find out the state of things now.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 13, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> It was their _wyrd_ only because you made it so, Edena.  Your elf saga has little to do with the rules as written and everything to do with tragedy -- which is great, but I really wish you had started a thread titled _I have doomed my elves!  Help me rescue them!_.




  As you can now see, since I have finally completed writing out the story, my elves were not doomed.  Their existence today in my setting is proof of their capacity to endure.
  I put the story down as a way of showing how I think, how my conception of elves required a backstory to satisfy the How and especially the *Why*, and thus how Things As They Are came to be so.

  Someone pointed out elves do not live in a vacuum, and a discussion of the greater picture was needed to accurately describe the elven condition.
  I have attempted to begin this discussion, by setting down the backstory given above.

  -

  Did you know the elves consider they failed?
  They wish they could have found a different way, a better way, than the madness they so willingly embraced?
  Every time the lingering taint afflicts them, and they stop to consider this (they don't always immediately stop to think about it ...) they wish anew a better way had been found.

  In no way do they consider the answer they chose, the madness, elvish.  In fact, they consider it was the antithesis of all that is elvish.

  The fact the Seldarine *still* do not respond to their prayers, may well prove this is quite so.  Then again, maybe it proves nothing.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 13, 2007)

*A question*

Imagine that one of the the strong elven nations in your home campaign, was substituted for the elves of Delrune.
  It is just prior to the Greyhawk Wars.  The Solistarim are being ignored (as they were in my backstory.)  The warning omens of Vecna's return are being ignored (as they were in my backstory.)
  Iuz is preparing to set the Fists and Barbarians off.  The drow are preparing to launch the Giant Troubles.  Aerdi is gearing for war, and Almor is preparing a desperate defensive plan.  The Scarlet Brotherhood has taken the Tilvanot Peninsula and it's spies work elsewhere.  Turmosh Mak has united the humanoids of the Pomarj.  In the west, the Baklunish nations (including the non-canon Spirit Empire of Garnak and Istivar, south of the Paynims) are quiet.
  Delrune is at peace.  It's fortress city of Archendrea protects it from the one pass enemy forces could come through, and the Vesve peoples beyond that pass are friendly.  (Non-canon) Calrune and it's centaurs and humans are a trading partner.  (Non-canon) Swantmoor and Veluna are solid allies and trading partners to the south, and Highfolk beyond Calrune is an ally and trading partner to the west.  Chauntosbergen, the dwarven nation in the mountains between Delrune and the Vesve, is neutral towards the elves.  So is Perrenland, the flannae nation to the northwest.  The giants in the mountains north of Delrune are quiet.

  The onslaught of the Greyhawk Wars are 3 years off.  If history is not altered, things will go for Delrune just as they did in the backstory.

  But these are not my elves of Delrune.  They are *your* elves.

  What would happen, with *your* elves?
  How would things end up, if it were your history to write?


----------



## fusangite (Jun 13, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> What would happen, with *your* elves?



My elves wouldn't end up in this situation, for a variety of reasons. The elves in the world I've just built and will start running in August are in a bad way, no doubt. But my worlds tend not to have the same style of history as yours does. It's just a GM flavour difference.

But my general answer is: the elves would not act as a cohesive group. Different groups of elves would reach accommodations with more powerful societies. If I had your world to manage, what would happen is what often happens when a decimated minority must seek the protection of a more powerful neighbour. The elves would see what kind of "deal" they could get from other groups. And probably not all would pick the same group or the same deal.

Think of the Copts, Jews, Gypsies, Armenians, Greek Orthodox, etc. in the Middle Ages. Or 19th century Indians in the Americas. You bend like a willow; you don't snap like an oak.







> How would things end up, if it were your history to write?



Well, it wouldn't be my history to write. It would be a history that my players and I would write by playing the game together. Sure, there are some factors only I would control but I like PC choices to be able to alter the world.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 13, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> My elves wouldn't end up in this situation, for a variety of reasons. The elves in the world I've just built and will start running in August are in a bad way, no doubt. But my worlds tend not to have the same style of history as yours does. It's just a GM flavour difference.




  Thanks for posting, Fusangite.  
  I guess things will be quieter, with half of ENWorld off to Origins.  I welcome any feedback anyone wants to give.
  And you're quite right:  it's just a DM flavor (American version of that word) difference.



> But my general answer is: the elves would not act as a cohesive group. Different groups of elves would reach accommodations with more powerful societies. If I had your world to manage, what would happen is what often happens when a decimated minority must seek the protection of a more powerful neighbour. The elves would see what kind of "deal" they could get from other groups. And probably not all would pick the same group or the same deal.




  I myself concentrated on Delrune and how that nation reacted.
  Highfolk, the elves of Veluna, the Duchy of Ulek, Celene, the elves of the Grandwood ... they all sought different answers.
  It's just that in my scenario, things got *so* bad that all the other elves effectively became extinct.  So only the Haldendreevan elves remained to rekindle the elves, and their taint came along for the ride.  Other elves do exist, though (The players can choose any race of elves they wish.)

  Note that it is quiet now in my setting.  The Long Peace is 80 years in the making.  A lot of power groups are doing everything they can to keep it that way.  Most nations and peoples (those that survived) are still trying to recover from what happened.
  There are a *lot* of ruins sitting around.  And in these ruins are a lot of treasure and lore (from the original nation, and from the conquerors.)  And a lot of monsters, and even the original inhabitants in very few numbers (who do not appreciate thieves coming to pilfer their homes ...)



> Think of the Copts, Jews, Gypsies, Armenians, Greek Orthodox, etc. in the Middle Ages. Or 19th century Indians in the Americas. You bend like a willow; you don't snap like an oak.Well, it wouldn't be my history to write. It would be a history that my players and I would write by playing the game together. Sure, there are some factors only I would control but I like PC choices to be able to alter the world.




  Well put.  The elves - and all the other peoples and nations - are aware that such a catatrophe could occur again.  None of them want to be that oak you mentioned.
  The elves, with long memories, are particularly aware of the danger.  And they are brainstorming, building alliances, even contacting and trying to ally with nations on other worlds, trying to figure out a way to protect themselves from the warmongering lunatics should those show their ugly heads again.
  They do not wish to fall back into the madness (even though they retain a strong taint of it still) and want a better answer to enemy aggression.

  Again, the world is in relative peace.  So the actions of the PCs are thus enhanced, and make far more of a difference.  For they are the ones going places and doing things, while everyone else is rebuilding and cautiously planning and sitting put.


----------



## Machetaso (Jun 13, 2007)

*Elves: an historical approach*

Hi guys,

Interesting thread.  I think trying to systematically think about this is a good start.  FYI if you want a good consistent Elven society similar to the one in Tolkien, I reccomend Burning Wheel, thats the one which rang the truest to me.  Usually in most systems Elves seem fake, just generic uber people.

Anyway, here is my take on all this.  I didn't read the whole thread (which I hope will be forgiven) but i wanted to address a couple of the points mentioend in the O.P. and some of the first couple pages of followups.

Here's my little essay.

=================================


The standard logical thing within the framework of RPG, especially D&D, is to look for Magic-as-Technology to trump the apparent paradoxes presented by extrapolating from some of the principles in the game.  But if you think outside the box a bit I believe you can find much more elegant solutions to this which don’t require endless ‘Magic creep’ or ‘power creep’.  Some people like campaigns like Eberron etc., perhaps others might prefer not to be forced into ultra- High Magic to make a given society make sense.



Most of the mythology that RPG elves are based on comes from Germanic, Finnish, Celtic and (especially in the case of Tolkien) Norse mythology.  All you have to do if you want to understand how Elves might actually live is look at the history of some of these people, and through that dispel some of the modern myths which have actually replaced our understanding.  To kind of explore this I’m going to take a look at two prominent Barbarian groupings, the La Tene era Celts and the Norse from during the peak of the Viking Age (8th – 10th Century AD) … for convenience I’m just going to use the term “Celts” and “Vikings” here.



So let’s consider the Celts.  In many ways theirs was a timeless culture much like that of most RPG elves.  Their material culture (i.e. artifacts recovered by archeologists) evolved and grew in subtlety and complexity over the years, but did not change radically in short periods like that of the Romans.  Most of their traditions and cultural norms seemed to stay the same.  In many aspects they seemed lost in time, or timeless.  The statue of the ‘Dying Gaul’ http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/d/d4/Dying_gaul.jpg from Pergamon in Anatolia (where Turkey is today) in 220 BC is virtually identical in appearance, (in hair, moustache, weapons, equipment, and adornment like torcs), to the descriptions Julius Caser gave of Celts in Gallic Wars 150 years later, and to Agricola’s descriptions of Britons 100 years after that.  So in some aspects it was a stable if not static culture, and yet it was also very advanced.  Which brings me to…



MYTH #1: BARBARIANS WERE BACKWARD AND DIRTY



The Celts were very inventive and creative, and sophisticated in the hard sciences; they were far ahead of the Romans in metallurgy and many key military technologies.  The Celts introduced mail ( ‘chainmail’ in the RPG world) to the Romans, and the Romans also copied their helmets (Coolus type) swords (Gladius Hispaniensis, Spatha and Falcata) from the Celts, as well as the critical weapon-related technology of pattern welding.  The Romans claimed that their equipment was superior to that of the Celts but modern tests have shown that it was by far the other way around.  The Celts also introduced soap, barrels, pants, wheeled carts, various horse tack, and made some of the most sophisticated and beautiful gold and silver jewelry the world has ever seen.  Former Monty Python writer and amateur Historian Terry Jones recently pointed out that they apparently also made a very sophisticated wheat harvesting machine like a combine, which they themselves were apparently not particularly impressed by and the Romans obviously didn’t talk about much.  They also left Calendars which were several orders of magnitude more accurate than contemporary Roman equivalents.  I could go on and on.



As for being Dirty, the Celts bathed regularly, brushed their teeth, combed their hair, apparently cleaned wax out of their ears with little spoons, and lets not forget, THEY INTRODUCED SOAP TO THE ROMANS (the Romans quickly saw the value for washing laundry but didn’t take to the idea for bathing with it for a long time, preferring to scrape sweat and dirt off their body with a little curved stick).  Similarly, the Vikings also bathed regularly, if not as often as we might today, both in steam saunas and in cold water as they still do.  There is for example a document from a Bishop in England in the 10th century complaining that the Danes were tempting the local women to sin by their habit of bathing every week.  Even in Christian Europe bathing was practiced regularly until the early Renaissance.  Public bath-houses for both sexes existed in nearly every major city in Europe until the 13th -14th centuries.  They remained very popular despite being condemned by Church officials.  A shortage of firewood to heat the water also apparently contributed to their decline.  Pagans lacking all terror of the human body apparently liked to be naked and enjoyed bathing, the Celts seemed to be obsessed by it.  From some of the new research coming out, they even had cities, running water all that stuff only the Romans were supposed to have, one good example of all of the above being the famous Celtic town of Numantia, in Spain.



In addition to being clean, the Vikings were similarly also technologically advanced.  Like the Celts, they were very sophisticated in metallurgy.  We know from records in period that Viking swords were sought out by their contemporaries from the much more ‘civilized’ centers of the Khazari and Byzantine Empires, and in Persia and Arabia.  Their real technological marvel though was their ships.  The extremely sophisticated clinker-built warships of the Norse were by far the fastest ocean going warships of their day, and also had a shallower draft than any contemporary vessel of comparable size; as a result they were able to travel far up rivers (such as when Norse and Danish Vikings got in a fight with each other and local Saxons and pulled down London Bridge, whence the famous nursery rhyme.  Believe it.  Or not.)  They also built stout sailing vessels which, as we know so well, roamed farther than nearly any other ships at sea.



The key difference between these Barbarians and say, the Romans, was a matter of cultural priorities and social organization, not a high tech society wiping out a low tech society, which is another myth.



MYTH #2: BARBARIANS WERE SICKLY AND DISEASED DUE TO THEIR BACKWARD LIVES IN THE WILDERNESS



This is sort of a clashing modern myth, because when it comes to “barbarians”, on the one hand you have the gym jock Arnold Schwarzenegger-as-Conan look, rippling muscles and perfect teeth, and on the other you have the ‘caveman’ look which is used in every movie from Gladiator to Braveheart.  We are supposed to believe that all ‘Barbarians’ were cave men who, unlike the ones in the Geiko commercial, understood neither hygene nor how to use a comb, and liked to wear ragged furs more than anything else.  I refer you to the section on hygene above, and try to think of the ultimate origins of say, Irish lace, Scottish Tartans, Argyle sweaters… 



The O.P. pointed out how tough it was to survive in the forest.  Apparently, not really so much.  I guess it depends which forest, in what part of the world, and which people.  Much of Germany, and (especially) Scandinavia is forested even today, back in the Iron and Medieval Ages respectively, Ireland, Germania, Belgium, and Scandinavia were heavily forested, there was very little cleared land.  And yet, far from starving and struggling to survive, the Barbarians who lived in these areas seemed to thrive, more than thrive.  In fact scientists believe that the major Barbarian invasion cycles around 400 BC (when the Celts sacked Rome) 50 BC, 400 AD (Franks and Gauls), and then with the Vikings started swarming all over Europe and Russia in 800 AD, were due to huge population booms in the Barbarian lands.  So apparently they were getting food somewhere.  Another interesting little factoid, they did some forensic analysis of La Tene Celtic skeletons (I think from Switzerland) dating to around 50 AD, and Roman skeletons from Teutoburg forest (also about 50 AD) and from Pompeii (around 150 AD).  They found that the “barbarian” Celts were much healthier, and apparently just much larger people than the “Civilized” Romans.  Some of the female Celtic skeletons were over six feet tall, wheras very few of any of the Romans were over five feet.  Since there was considerable generic overlap in the populations (many ‘Romans’ were Cisalpine Gauls for example) so the difference is attributed to nutrition.  The Celts also had much better teeth, and fewer signs of parasitic infestation.



Similarly, everyone has no doubt heard the claims that the Vikings were huge people.  I have read contradictory evidence as to whether they actually were bigger than other people in the same time period or not.  But I never heard them described as malnourished pygmies by anybody.



The Fianna in Ireland were youths who lived in the forests almost exclusively from hunting, admittedly a tough lifestyle, but they seemed to pull it off.  Old permanent campfire sites where they used to cook game can still be found in Ireland. 



Tacitus described how German tribes, who were swarming in population, barely farmed at all, preferring to live by the sword and ‘earn their bread and mead through wounds’



How did the Celts and Vikings thrive?  From contemporary accounts it seems like they had plenty of game (the boar, and to a lesser extent the deer or stag feature hugely prominent in the artifacts of both cultures), they did a lot of herding of sheep and (especially) cattle (tough archaic breeds well capable of living in forests and steep hills) and they did a lot of fishing.  Both cultures seemed to revere the Salmon, which the Celts thought was a symbol of wisdom.  Contemporary observers described huge yields of fish in Denmark, for example.



Plagues didn’t seem to re-appear after some flareups in the Classical era until European Christians began to crowd together in rapidly growing cities (and on their increasingly long voyages aboard ships) which lacked adequate provisions for sanitation.  That and the whole nakedness is Sin / lack of bathing business, and an increasingly poor diet probably all contributed to the virulence of the Black Death when it first hit in 1348.  



Magic can also play a role here, but Magic of a subtler kind.  



DILEMMA: BARBARIANS WERE LED BY RUTHLESS BARBARIAN TYRANTS, BUT ELVES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE CHAOTIC, EASY WITH THEIR WOMEN AND LOVE FREEDOM



Freedom.  Celts, and Vikings were both apparently heavy into it.  Both were more democratically inclined than either the Romans or the Greeks.  We know for a fact that true Monarchies didn’t emerge in Scandinavia until the end of the Viking age (after many very bitter struggles)  There was still a remnant of Celtic democracy left thousands of years later in the Tanistry system of the Irish, Welsh and Scottish monarchies.  The Vikings (Norse settlers fleeing the rise of the first king of Norway) established the oldest continuous Republic on earth in Iceland, based on the All-Thing, a kind of combination Parliament and Supreme court which was central to all Scandinavian tribes during the pagan era.



Women had great freedom in both Iron Age Celtic society and Dark Ages Norse society.  One of the more realistic and historically accurate of the Icelandic Sagas (Njál's saga) hinges around the divorce of a man by his wife, on the basis that he could not please her sexually.  This exact same rule exists in Irish Brehon law, a Celtic remnant still extant in the Christian era.  Under Brehon law, a woman could divorce her husband for failure to provide adequately, for getting fat, for snoring, for engaging in homosexual activity, or for being unable to sexually satisfy her.  Divorce means she gets half, or in some cases all of the common property (much of which was usually from brides dowry).  It wasn’t until the 7th Century in Ireland and Scotland that Christian bishops established the ‘Law of the Innocents’, outlawing women from fighting in battle, or being made to fight.



Both Celtic and (especially) Norse women’s graves have been found with weapons, as well as blacksmith’s tools, merchants scales, and numerous other artifacts normally associated with males.  Not just decorative weapons either, notched up, repeatedly honed fighting swords made for the hand of the woman they were buried with, who in many cases bore signs of healed wounds on their skeletons.  A bunch of recently excavated female Scythian graves in the Ukraine actually had arrow-heads lodged in their ribs and spine.  (Scythians are believed by some to be related to the Celts)



DILEMMA: ELVES ARE SAID TO HAVE BETTER KIT THAN HUMANS, YET THEY LIVE IN THE WILD LIKE SAVAGES

The hard-edged blade with its woven patterns quivers and trembles; grasped with terrible sureness, it flashes into changing hues. 

  - excerpt from the Anglo-Saxon poem Elene.

Definitely go right to the Norse or the Celts (especially) for this one.  Want a good basis for magic swords?  How about pattern welded blades?  The Romans described the pattern welded weapons as ‘writhing like a serpent’, the Vikings later called it ‘the wyrm in the steel’.  At the end of the 5th century Cassiodorus described pattern welded sword made by the Teutonic Warni tribe: “The central part of their blades, cunningly hollowed out, appears to be grained with tiny snakes, and here such varied shadows play that you would believe the shining metal to be interwoven with many colours. “



http://www.powning.com/jake/images/patternwlded10.jpg





This is a reference to the wavy patterns of pattern welded steel, which would normally be visible only when the sword was etched with acid.  The Vikings, prized these swords so much after they lost the technology around the end of the first millennium, that they used to rob them from the graves (barrows) of their ancestors (just like in the Hobbit) and believed that they had been made by Giants or Trolls.  They could identify such a blade by plunging it into the snow, then breathing across it to warm it… for a moment, the serpentine pattern would appear.



http://www.templ.net/pics-making/welded_steel/cleaning_steel06v.jpg





Now whether you think pattern welded steel just makes a nice looking blade or that it actually had some superior metallurgical properties, it’s not much of a stretch to imagine Elves making weapons like this.  When you add in the fact that the Celts made such exquisite armor and helmets, you have a good basis for your elite Elven artifacts.  And they were rare compared to your Roman / Christian civilization centers because the Celts lacked mass production, they just didn’t believe in it really.  The Romans did it through slave labor and later the Medieval Christians mass produced weapons through the use of water-wheel and win-mill powered automated bellows, trip-hammers, and grinding wheels (all of which would be good technology for Dwarves or Gnomes IMHO)



DILEMMA: ELVES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SKILLED WARRIORS, YET LESS WARLIKE THAN HUMANS:  Is it really such a dilemma?  If you look at it one way, this is the Celts in a nutshell.  Raiding, duels of honor, cattle rustling and the like are a way of life; yet populations still boomed because the kind of depopulating wars the Romans (and later, the Medieval Christians) engaged in were very rare.  Many battles were decided in fights between champions.  It was similar with the Vikings.  Duels or judicial combat were pretty common, so was raiding.  Whole populations being put the sword and enslaved was fairly rare, yet everyone obviously knew how to fight, or fight a highly organized war if they had to (and when it came to foreigners, they could be pretty cruel)



But if you take away the hard drinking and the population pressure, you eliminate 90% of the violence, bad chaos and mayhem from either Norse or Celtic society.  It’s not much of a stretch to imagine Elves being like Celts or Vikings, except they drink like the French or the Spanish do rather than say, like the Irish or the Swedes.  If you put in the very low birth rate and longevity of the Elves, instead of being a problem, it becomes a solution to making this society stable, by helping address overpopulation.



And if you start with the individual prowess and fanatical courage of the Celts, and add the organizational skills and resourcefulness of the Norse war machine, you have a pretty potent adversary for anyone to deal with.  There is a reason why Scandinavia was not ever really invaded through the Viking age (with the exception of some incursions into Denmark by the Carolingian Holy Roman Emperor) and there is a reason why it took the Romans 300 years from their own city being sacked before the could conquer Gaul.  The Vikings themselves remained an extreme menace until they were converted to Christianity and their tribal federations were turned into centralized Monarchies.  Then they finally settled down to become peasants like everyone else.



DILEMMA: ELVES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE EXPERTS WITH SWORDS AND BOWS – BUT WHY SHOULD THEY BE ANY BETTER THAN HUMANS?



Celtic and Viking cultures were both sword cultures, the sword was probably the most prestigious possession a man (or a woman) could own in either culture.   We know they were good warriors with sophisticated Martial Arts systems and specific fencing skills.  The famous Tain Bó Cuailnge describes the hero attending a fighting school, (presided over by a woman) where one had to learn specific Feats useful in combat, such as jumping over a high rod or fighting four men at once. Yep, Feats, sound familiar?  Not a coincidence.   But how about that bow?  Well, apparently history has something for us there too.  Depending on who you believe, the longbow, a vastly superior weapon to the smaller bows of Europe, was brought to the British Isles by the Vikings, or it was simultaneously developed by both the Norse and the Welsh.  Either way, it was either a Celtic or a Norse weapon or both.  It took the British Monarchy to organize the Welsh (whom they had just conquered in a bitter struggle lasting centuries) from being the deadly effective guerilla fighters, into the massed archer formations which proved devastating in the battles of the later Medieval period.  But given the tactical organizational skills of the Pagan Vikings, it’s not much of a stretch to imagine our neo-Celtic / neo-Viking elves organizing parts of their armies in a similar fashion.  Conversely, if you take the spiritual depth and cultural stability of the Celts and combine that with the resourcefulness and flexibility of the Vikings you have a society which would be both formidable and technologically and culturally very advanced, like Elves are supposed to be IMHO.



Does any of this mean that people will start using the historical sources for Elves or anything else?  Obviously not, many good historical supplements came out for D20 and they went over like the proverbial lead balloon.  But maybe you can use one or two of these concepts for the Elves in your campaign instead of distributing some new Magic item or Spell-like ability to each Elf in your world.  Hopefully, some tiny fraction of the no doubt, very bored and irritated people reading this post will actually fade in their hatred for historical sources by some small iota.  If even one gamer shifts on degree on that, this will not have been a complete waste of time 



Machetaso


----------



## Asmo (Jun 13, 2007)

That was an impressive start  

Welcome to the boards Machetaso, and happy posting! I hope you will enjoy EnWorld.


Asmo


----------



## Machetaso (Jun 13, 2007)

Asmo said:
			
		

> That was an impressive start
> 
> Welcome to the boards Machetaso, and happy posting! I hope you will enjoy EnWorld.
> 
> ...




Thanks Asmo

You just liked it because of where you are from though 

Actually, I've been around here intermittently over the years, ever since I wrote an RPG book a long time ago (not a historical suppliment though!).   Don't even remember what name my account was under last time.  Been away for quite a while.  

I usually posted about historical stuff like this which usually gets people annoyed at me so I go away again...  i guess I haven't learned my lesson yet.

M


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 13, 2007)

Hey there, Machetaso.  
  Just some comments on your post.  No debate points, no rebuttals at all.  Just commentary.



			
				Machetaso said:
			
		

> Hi guys,
> 
> Interesting thread.  I think trying to systematically think about this is a good start.  FYI if you want a good consistent Elven society similar to the one in Tolkien, I reccomend Burning Wheel, thats the one which rang the truest to me.  Usually in most systems Elves seem fake, just generic uber people.




  I see a lot of complaints about this.  Forrester was against elves because Forrester saw them as over-powered people.
  But Forrester was against them also because he saw them as sneering, condescending, better-than-you people (much like the illithid attitude, but without the power to back it up.)
  3E elves don't seem to be special in the RAW.  Nothing exceptional ... they are ECL 0.
  Certainly, the elves of old Delrune were generic.  There were differences in appearance, behavior, and culturally, but there were a basic 1E/2E/3E race.

  (snip)



> The standard logical thing within the framework of RPG, especially D&D, is to look for Magic-as-Technology to trump the apparent paradoxes presented by extrapolating from some of the principles in the game.  But if you think outside the box a bit I believe you can find much more elegant solutions to this which don’t require endless ‘Magic creep’ or ‘power creep’.  Some people like campaigns like Eberron etc., perhaps others might prefer not to be forced into ultra- High Magic to make a given society make sense.




  That is exactly what the Elves of Haldendreeva did, to an extreme, if I read you right.
  In simple terms, they thought:  New spell called Lifeproof (new technology), alters things in our favor (changes combat mechanics to favor them), let's mass cast it (build enough infrastructure to mass produce new weapon.)  Stasis Clone was a bigger and better thing yet, and once the Constitution problem was addressed, it was used continuously (producing multiple episodes of the 50 Manshoons debacle, and other assorted uproars throughout a number of worlds and planes.)
  Much more eloquent solutions?  Exactly so.  Exactly.  The main effort of current Haldendreevan elves is to find that eloquent - and elvish - solution, and not a solution based on human thinking and power escalation.  (They haven't succeeded yet, though.)
  Most of the current peoples in my settings roll their eyes at the idea of another Super-Magic War (then kill the warmongers trying to start one.)  They've had quite enough of it.  Unfortunately, it took a Super-Magic War to knock this sense into them.
  Some don't listen to reason anyways.  Some peoples have infiltrated the City of the Gods in the Black Ice (that city of super-science that has sat, undisturbed, throughout the whole scenario.)  And they think to capitalize on secrets learned.  Will they?  Or will they be put down?  Time will tell.



> Most of the mythology that RPG elves are based on comes from Germanic, Finnish, Celtic and (especially in the case of Tolkien) Norse mythology.  All you have to do if you want to understand how Elves might actually live is look at the history of some of these people, and through that dispel some of the modern myths which have actually replaced our understanding.  To kind of explore this I’m going to take a look at two prominent Barbarian groupings, the La Tene era Celts and the Norse from during the peak of the Viking Age (8th – 10th Century AD) … for convenience I’m just going to use the term “Celts” and “Vikings” here.




  The ideas of killing other people, of greed, of jealousy, of powermongering, were already in the elves of old Delrune.  Although they were culturally more pacifistic than Furyondy or Perrenland, the seeds of darkness were already there.
  The elves recognize this fact keenly now.  But like the Noldor, they recognized it only after the painful fact.



> So let’s consider the Celts.  In many ways theirs was a timeless culture much like that of most RPG elves.  Their material culture (i.e. artifacts recovered by archeologists) evolved and grew in subtlety and complexity over the years, but did not change radically in short periods like that of the Romans.  Most of their traditions and cultural norms seemed to stay the same.  In many aspects they seemed lost in time, or timeless.  The statue of the ‘Dying Gaul’ http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/d/d4/Dying_gaul.jpg from Pergamon in Anatolia (where Turkey is today) in 220 BC is virtually identical in appearance, (in hair, moustache, weapons, equipment, and adornment like torcs), to the descriptions Julius Caser gave of Celts in Gallic Wars 150 years later, and to Agricola’s descriptions of Britons 100 years after that.  So in some aspects it was a static culture, and yet it was also very advanced.  Which brings me to…




  Prior to the Greyhawk Wars, the elves of Delrune had spent a millennia at peace.
  After the Twin Cataclysms, the high elves moved into the Delrunian Highlands.  Even as the flannae peoples of Perrenland were left alone by the incoming oeridians, so were the nearby elves of Delrune.
  It was a long, peaceful, prosperous, and pleasant time to be in, for the elves.  
  Does that compare with the Celts?




> MYTH #1: BARBARIANS WERE BACKWARD AND DIRTY
> 
> The Celts were very inventive and creative, and sophisticated in the hard sciences; they were far ahead of the Romans in metallurgy and many key military technologies.  The Celts introduced mail ( ‘chainmail’ in the RPG world) to the Romans, and the Romans also copied their helmets (Coolus type) swords (Gladius Hispaniensis, Spatha and Falcata) from the Celts, as well as the critical weapon-related technology of pattern welding.  The Romans claimed that their equipment was superior to that of the Celts but modern tests have shown that it was by far the other way around.  The Celts also introduced soap, barrels, pants, wheeled carts, various horse tack, and made some of the most sophisticated and beautiful gold and silver jewelry the world has ever seen.  Former Monty Python writer and amateur Historian Terry Jones recently pointed out that they apparently also made a very sophisticated wheat harvesting machine like a combine, which they themselves were apparently not particularly impressed by and the Romans obviously didn’t talk about much.  They also left Calendars which were several orders of magnitude more accurate than contemporary Roman equivalents.  I could go on and on.




  Sadly, to the victors go the writing of history, and the Romans were victorious in England and Wales.  They annihilated the Celtic culture there.
  The Solistarim were not interested in the Delrunian culture.  Like the Romans, they simply wished to annihilate it and the elves and take the land.



> As for being Dirty, the Celts bathed regularly, brushed their teeth, combed their hair, apparently cleaned wax out of their ears with little spoons, and lets not forget, THEY INTRODUCED SOAP TO THE ROMANS (the Romans quickly saw the value for washing laundry but didn’t take to the idea for bathing with it for a long time, preferring to scrape sweat and dirt off their body with a little curved stick).  Similarly, the Vikings also bathed regularly, if not as often as we might today, both in steam saunas and in cold water as they do to this day.  There is for example a document from a Bishop in England in the 10th century complaining that the Danes were tempting the local women to sin by their habit of bathing every week.  Even in Christian Europe bathing was practiced regularly until the early Renaissance.  Public bath-houses for both sexes existed in nearly every major city in Europe until the 13th -14th centuries.  They remained very popular despite being condemned by Church officials.  A shortage of firewood to heat the water also apparently contributed to their decline.  Pagans lacking all terror of the human body apparently liked to be naked and enjoyed bathing, the Celts seemed to be obsessed by it.  From some of the new research coming out, they even had cities, running water all that stuff the Romans were supposed to have, one good example of all of the above being the famous Celtic town of Numantia, in Spain.




  Fascinating stuff.  History is a far more complex subject than a lot of people think.



> In addition to being clean, the Vikings were similarly also technologically advanced.  Like the Celts, they were very sophisticated in metallurgy.  We know from records in period that Viking swords were sought out by their contemporaries from the much more ‘civilized’ centers of the Khazari and Byzantine Empires, and in Persia and Arabia.  Their real technological marvel though was their ships.  The extremely sophisticated clinker-built warships of the Norse were by far the fastest ocean going warships of their day, and also had a shallower draft than any contemporary vessel of comparable size; as a result they were able to travel far up rivers (such as when Norse and Danish Vikings got in a fight with each other and local Saxons and pulled down London Bridge, whence the famous nursery rhyme.  Believe it.  Or not.)  They also built stout sailing vessels which, as we know so well, roamed farther than nearly any other ships at sea.




  LOL.  Again, fascinating stuff.  Thanks for putting this up.
  The elves of Delrune were not so clever.  One must wonder why.  What was it about the vikings that made them so very clever and inventive?  What did they have, that the elves (and real world peoples they opposed) not have?



> The key difference between these Barbarians and say, the Romans, was a matter of cultural priorities and social organization, not a high tech society wiping out a low tech society, which is another myth.




  And yet the Romans beat the celts in war.  How did they do that?  What did the romans have that the celts did not, to win? (or was it sheer luck?)
  Why didn't the celts of Scotland and Ireland strike back and retake England and Wales?



> MYTH #2: BARBARIANS WERE SICKLY AND DISEASED DUE TO THEIR BACKWARD LIVES IN THE WILDERNESS
> 
> (snip)
> 
> ...



 The Fianna in Ireland were youths who lived in the forests almost exclusively from hunting, admittedly a tough lifestyle, but they seemed to pull it off.  Old permanent campfire sites where they used to cook game can still be found in Ireland. 







> Were they a numerous people?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## fusangite (Jun 14, 2007)

Great work Machesato. Welcome to the boards.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 14, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I myself concentrated on Delrune and how that nation reacted.



What I was suggesting was that not everybody in Delrune would act the same way. Depending on one's social position there, one might choose different survival strategies. For instance, elvish widows might try to marry into nearby human aristocracies. Elvish warriors might creat mercenary legion that work for the highest bidder. And the nobles and notables of Delrune might offer to become a vassal state to a more powerful state, perhaps sweetening the deal with some territory, widows, gold or luxury goods. Itinerant crafter/tinker guilds could emerge, working seasonally outside Delrun and returning during planting and harvest.

Anyway, just some random thoughts. Feel free to utilize or discard as you like.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 14, 2007)

Machetaso said:
			
		

> The standard logical thing within the framework of RPG, especially D&D, is to look for Magic-as-Technology to trump the apparent paradoxes presented by extrapolating from some of the principles in the game.



Fair enough. I think that's a good general criticism of D&D reasoning. However, the direction the thread ultimately took was more along the lines of Ronald Wright's idea of culture-as-technology.







> Most of the mythology that RPG elves are based on comes from Germanic, Finnish, Celtic and (especially in the case of Tolkien) Norse mythology.  All you have to do if you want to understand how Elves might actually live is look at the history of some of these people, and through that dispel some of the modern myths which have actually replaced our understanding.



Except that elf myths were often romantic myths about displaced or conquered peoples. So elf society is more about how people imagined the people they replaced having lived. The culture of the myths' creators is refracted through their own mythology about the societies they understood themselves as having conquered (which may or may not have been closely tied to the societies they actually displaced).







> So let’s consider the Celts.  In many ways theirs was a timeless culture much like that of most RPG elves.  Their material culture (i.e. artifacts recovered by archeologists) evolved and grew in subtlety and complexity over the years, but did not change radically in short periods like that of the Romans.



This is only true if you see the Celts who urbanized and Romanized as ceasing to be Celts. But I would argue that the Empire of the Gauls episode weighs against the idea. People like Gregory of Tours were Gauls *and* Romans. 

Rural parts of cultures change slower than the urban parts. So the moment you conflate a cultural identity with ruralness, you create the illusion of a static culture.







> The Celts were very inventive and creative, and sophisticated in the hard sciences; they were far ahead of the Romans in metallurgy and many key military technologies.



Agreed. People often see technology as a proxy for scientific knowledge rather than the sign of a relative labour shortage.







> The key difference between these Barbarians and say, the Romans, was a matter of cultural priorities and social organization, not a high tech society wiping out a low tech society, which is another myth.



Spot on! All the stuff of yours I just omitted from the quote I agree with too.







> MYTH #2: BARBARIANS WERE SICKLY AND DISEASED DUE TO THEIR BACKWARD LIVES IN THE WILDERNESS



This did come up later in the thread. I tried to pull mmadsen into a discussion about disease but it didn't go anywhere. 

Suffice to say, the ancient and medieval worlds had a pretty consistent demographic rule: the less urbanized your society, the better its birth rate. Cities were killer places that would have shrunk if not for constant immigration.







> The O.P. pointed out how tough it was to survive in the forest.  Apparently, not really so much.  I guess it depends which forest, in what part of the world, and which people.



Agreed. Check out my posts about California and the Northwest Coast.







> Tacitus described how German tribes, who were swarming in population, barely farmed at all, preferring to live by the sword and ‘earn their bread and mead through wounds’



Tacitus, a helpful informant, cannot be taken at face value. Much of the rhetorical purpose of his text about Germans was more a criticism of the loss of the citizen-soldier ethic in Roman society. 

But I agree with you about the importance of wild game in sustaining the societies. Let's also not forget fish!







> Freedom.  Celts, and Vikings were both apparently heavy into it.  Both were more democratically inclined than either the Romans or the Greeks.  We know for a fact that true Monarchies didn’t emerge in Scandinavia until the end of the Viking age (after many very bitter struggles)  There was still a remnant of Celtic democracy left thousands of years later in the Tanistry system of the Irish, Welsh and Scottish monarchies.



Agreed. The Barbarians had more participatory structures. But participatory <> democracy. Celtic and Viking societies were oligarchic rather than monarchic. But the bottom rung majority in these societies were just as shut out as that rung was in the imperial despotisms. (Except, arguably, for the citizenries of Rome and Byzantium who were slightly more dealt-in). 







> The Vikings (Norse settlers fleeing the rise of the first king of Norway) established the oldest continuous Republic on earth in Iceland, based on the All-Thing, a kind of combination Parliament and Supreme court which was central to all Scandinavian tribes during the pagan era.



 And was the first to allow female suffrage!







> Women had great freedom in both Iron Age Celtic society and Dark Ages Norse society.  One of the more realistic and historically accurate of the Icelandic Sagas (Njál's saga) hinges around the divorce of a man by his wife, on the basis that he could not please her sexually.  This exact same rule exists in Irish Brehon law, a Celtic remnant still extant in the Christian era.  Under Brehon law, a woman could divorce her husband for failure to provide adequately, for getting fat, for snoring, for engaging in homosexual activity, or for being unable to sexually satisfy her.



16th century Spanish law was pretty similar. But nobody's ever tried to argue that the society that gave us the Inquisition was a big proponent of female equality.

Anyway, I agreed with your post overall but couldn't resist a little nitpicking.


----------



## Rothe (Jun 14, 2007)

Machetaso, spot on stuff.  Count me as one who loves the historical detail.




			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> ...
> (snip)
> 
> What was it about the vikings that made them so very clever and inventive?  What did they have, that the elves (and real world peoples they opposed) not have?



Different peoples were inventive in different ways.  The Romans were masters of innovation in construction and organization.  The steepe dwellers of Asia innovators in the horse and bow.




> And yet the Romans beat the celts in war.  How did they do that?  What did the romans have that the celts did not, to win? (or was it sheer luck?)



They had organization, and were good at dividing and conquering their foes.  From time-to-time they had generals that were tactical and strategic genuises.  They also had overall an effective combination of technology, even if they adopted it from others.  They also had a standing army that did not need to worry about getting back to the farm.





> Yet slain boar, deer, and other animals decay quickly.  How much was salvaged by medieval preservation?



Salt. Vinegar.  Smoke/Drying.  Controlled fementation, pickling, can do wonders.  There is a nifty little book called "Salt" that describes somewhat the vast use of salt to preserve food.  There is also another nifty little book called "Cod" that shows the importance of dried fish as a food source.  I often think a more historically accurate D&D adventure should have the PCs finding a stash of salt as treasure.  





> The Romans and Greeks should have looked to themselves.  The Romans were a plantation slave society, from what I've read.  A small middle class and upper class looked up to an Emperor with near total carte blanche.



They did start off as a Republic founded on the citzen-soldier.  But yet we condem Brutus, et tu?


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 14, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> This is contingent on your environment and culture; it is not absolute. 15th century California and the Northwest Coast sustained higher population densities without agriculture than did New England and the Great Lakes regions with agriculture.



I meant to ask you about this earlier, fusangite.  Can you point me to any interesting sources on that?


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 14, 2007)

Since you "tried to pull [me] into a discussion about disease," fusangite, I thought I'd address this:


			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> Not to nitpick but Tenochtitlan, as the largest city in the hemisphere (with a population of about 200,000) had amongst the highest death rates from smallpox. Densely-populated areas of the Mexico Valley and Andes had the worst epidemic disease at contact of almost anywhere.



That was my point when I said:  It depends on the time frame you're looking at. In the short term, population centers are much more vulnerable to epidemics -- particularly if they bring together multiple species that can spread diseases back and forth, e.g. pigs and humans.

In the long term, urban populations develop immunities to the various diseases that have passed through, while distant hunter-gatherer populations do not.

Thus, when the Europeans started arriving in the New World, locals died in droves. (Although there's some argument that local diseases may have reappeared at that time...)​The large, concentrated population of a city puts many, many people in danger from any disease that breaks out -- but urban societies that mix many, many people with many, many animals end up breeding people with a resistance to disease.

That's one of the key points of Diamond's _Guns, Germs, and Steel_.  Eurasians developed resistance to many diseases that spread across the populations of Europe, North Africa, and Asia -- but only because they faced so many diseases along the way.


			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> Ultimately, the societies that have the best disease resistance tend to be migratory pastoralists, not city dwellers. In migratory pastoralist societies, contagion exposure is not as bottlenecked through a small number of trading specialists but is more evenly distributed through society.
> 
> EDIT: Recent science seems to indicate that it is this ranging and trading, not the zoonotic explanation that accounts for this.



Interesting.


----------



## Machetaso (Jun 14, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Hey there, Machetaso.
> Just some comments on your post.  No debate points, no rebuttals at all.  Just commentary.




Very welcome, I'm sorry I can't comment too much on the Elven (?) kingdoms you are talking about because I'm not familiar with the story at all.  Sounds pretty detailed though.  Are those from your campaign or from WOTC stuff or some D20 company?



> Fascinating stuff. History is a far more complex subject than a lot of people think..




Thanks Edena, you just made my day 

Machetaso


----------



## Machetaso (Jun 14, 2007)

Rothe said:
			
		

> Machetaso, spot on stuff.  Count me as one who loves the historical detail.



  Thanks, nice to have an ally here 



> Different peoples were inventive in different ways.  The Romans were masters of innovation in construction and organization.  The steepe dwellers of Asia innovators in the horse and bow.




Agreed, the Romans were brilliant adapting whatever they found to their own purpsoes, and they didn't steal everything either, concrete is a pretty big invention   They were also absolute masters as seige warfare.  Hiding on a hill?  The Romans build their own hill to reach you.  Hiding in an impenetrable forest?  The Romans cut it down.  Hiding across an impassable river ?  The Roman army builds the first ever bridge across it and goes over without even really breaking stride...  Hiding on the other side of the Mediterranian protected by your huge, unbeatable naval fleet?  The Romans capture one of your ships, make 500 copies of it, improve the design with ingenious siege weapons, and pretty soon your city is plowed under with salt...



> They had organization, and were good at dividing and conquering their foes.  From time-to-time they had generals that were tactical and strategic genuises.  They also had overall an effective combination of technology, even if they adopted it from others.  They also had a standing army that did not need to worry about getting back to the farm.




Agreed, all the way 'round.  Also, two biggies you left out:  1) Armor, the Celts may have invented it, but the Romans put it on every single one of their heavy infantry.  Armor is much more valuable in real life than it is in D&D (or just about any RPG) This 'staying power' Caesar talked about so much in his Gallic Wars was largely due to the fact that hardly any of the Celts had armor and the Romans did.  2)  Tribal societies didn't fight war on the same terms.  When the Celts sacked Rome, they took a big ransom and left.  That is what happened just about every single time the Celts beat them in Spain or Britain or Gaul too.  Same for the Germanic tribes later for the most part.  The Romans lost over and over and over in Spain against Virathus.  But they only have to win once.  If the Romans win, they might make you into a client state, but if they are irritated at you or think you are a threat, they also routinely depopulate your entire country, kill all the warriors and take away everyone else as slaves, resettle the lands with veterans from the Legions.  game over.   

Either way your are finished though, if they make you a Client state, they appoint puppet 'kings', send all your able bodied men to go fight thousands of miles away in some backwater like Britain, get everybody strung out on wine, confiscate the weapons and put 90% of the people to work on the big Latifundia (farms) as Serfs or slaves, and the rest form the new ruling class.

Wine, by the way, is another major reason why the Romans conquered the Barbarians.  The Celts had problems with it not very different from the Native Americans in the 19th century...  Of course though, in the long run, it was the Romans who were conquered.  Or were they.... 



> Salt. Vinegar.  Smoke/Drying.  Controlled fementation, pickling, can do wonders.  There is a nifty little book called "Salt" that describes somewhat the vast use of salt to preserve food.  There is also another nifty little book called "Cod" that shows the importance of dried fish as a food source.  I often think a more historically accurate D&D adventure should have the PCs finding a stash of salt as treasure.




Again, you beat me to it.  Salt was indeed quite literally a treasure in many parts of the ancient world, for a long time, especially for the Celts and the Norse.  They talk about it all the time in the Sagas.

They also of course smoked a lot of meat and fish.  Another big one is honey.  They preserved Alexander the Great's head in it when they had to bring it back from India.  If you think about it, remember when jam and jelly used to be called 'preserves'?  Mixing fruit with honey (or later, sugar) was part of how they literally preserved some of the summer fruit harvest for eating later, often much later, all the way up to the 19th century and the early 20th.  

Also consider the climate.  This isn't Miami we are talking about here.  Basically they harvest fruit and meat and fish in the summer, then they dry it, and when winter comes, it stays fresh-frozen in the cellar somewhere through the winter.  Then when summer comes again they can hunt, harvest, fish etc..  

But there is even more to it than that, I don't think we have figured out all their secrets yet.  The Vikings were really into fruit, so much so that they apparently had it imported from pretty far away, straberries for example from the Mediterranian.  They must have had other tricks for preserving fruit on trade missions that far.

EDIT: I just remembered another good one, i once saw a History channel show about how these re-enactors were trying to figure out how the Celts stored wheat sealed in these underground holes, kind of mini-cellars.  Given the local climate, the wheat should have rotted.  So they tried it.  What happend was that some of the wheat germinated, sucked up all the oxygen in the hole, then bascially you had anerobic conditions, and nothing rotted.  I think if I remember like 3/4 of the underground wheat caches lasted three months without rotting (wheras they would only last like a week above ground)  The key turned out to be to use this type of clay so the 'cellars' ended up air tight.



> They did start off as a Republic founded on the citzen-soldier.  But yet we condem Brutus, et tu?




Not me, I'm rooting for Brutus all the way 

Machetaso


----------



## fusangite (Jun 14, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> I meant to ask you about this earlier, fusangite.  Can you point me to any interesting sources on that?



The professor I worked with on the issue was Dr. Paige Raibmon. It has been several years since I worked with her so I'm not remembering the sources on this stuff that do comparitive work. The most recent stuff I read on Northwest Coast populations is actually literature about the continent-wide smallpox epidemic of the 1750s reaching the area; so that might be a good place to start.







			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> The large, concentrated population of a city puts many, many people in danger from any disease that breaks out -- but urban societies that mix many, many people with many, many animals end up breeding people with a resistance to disease.
> 
> That's one of the key points of Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. Eurasians developed resistance to many diseases that spread across the populations of Europe, North Africa, and Asia -- but only because they faced so many diseases along the way.



Indeed, it's Diamond's zoonotic assertions that medical doctors, historians and geneticists have been challenging for the past 10 years. 

Diamond's theory that any long term packing of people with domestic animals at close quarters will ultimately produce new diseases is problematic in two ways:
(a) this does not seem to be how the original zoonotic processes giving rise to TB, smallpox, etc. seems to have arisen; the transfer of these diseases from animals to humans appears to have preceded domestication
(b) population density positively correlates to spread rates but that's about as far as it goes

As I mention further on, resistance is highest in populations with high rates of trade and movement per capita. The Mexico Valley, despite having stayed denser for longer than anywhere else on earth did not develop any such resistances, in part, because the rates of movement and trade per capita were extremely low and, mostly, because the exceptionally low genetic diversity of Native Americans and the emergence of TB, influenza and smallpox in Eurasia were more a "luck of the draw" thing than evidence of some big generalizeable pattern about trade axes, urbanization or most of Diamond's other theories.

The problem is that Diamond wants to find an explanation for the conquest of the Americas that is systemic rather than coincidental and so he therefore enumerates all the ways that Eurasian and American societies were different from one another and, in most cases, mistakenly infers that these differences were important structural determinants.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 14, 2007)

Machetaso said:
			
		

> Very welcome, I'm sorry I can't comment too much on the Elven (?) kingdoms you are talking about because I'm not familiar with the story at all.  Sounds pretty detailed though.  Are those from your campaign or from WOTC stuff or some D20 company?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




  This is going to sound like brown-nosing, but I was always in awe of people who truly understand history, such as yourself (or such as Burke, in the series Connections.)

  History is so complicated, such a puzzle, it might as well be calculus.  Burke showed that.
  I know a little history, but I am not a Historian.  You appear to be a full fledged Historian, Machetaso, and my hat is off to you.

  As far as creating a history for my elves, I fear all I could accomplish was the usual Nonsense.  I did try.  I did try to think things out, ask a truly large number of Why questions and answer them, and keep the elves as alien, not human.  But in no way do I claim I did a good job.
  I think you would have done a good job.  (I would be fascinated, to know how your elves would have handled the shock of the loss of half their people in the Solistari War, and upon reading the portents of doom and *not* ignoring them (as my elves did, concerning the Coming of Vecna) taking appropriate action!)

  Everything is from my campaign.  I do not work for WOTC or any of the d20 companies.
  I tried to give an off-handed compliment by using the Greyhawk setting.  It was appropriate for the backstory I wrote, whereas the other main campaign settings were not.
  I tried to mimick the real world aggression of nations, the drive to produce better weaponry for conquest, and the notion that great occurances come sweeping through carrying all with them.
  What truly defined the elves of old Delrune, and the Elves of Haldendreeva, are the conscious choices they made, and the primordial reaction of their bodies, minds, and spirits of their elvish selves, to the sweeping events that took place.  And magic, took it's role in the primordial elf, as well as in their conscious decisions.

  Your long post deserved a better reply than I gave, and I have some other things to say.  But I'm currently under the weather, and it's hampering me.  Pardons here.

  Yours Sincerely
  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 15, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Now I ask you,  mmadsen ... how would your elves - assuming they were in the place of the fifteen thousand remaining surviving elves of Haldendrea - do?  How would they cope?  How would they survive?
> What answers would they choose?  What civilization, if any, would they create?  What answer to their problems would they find?
> 
> That question goes for the rest of you.
> ...



mmadsen is right, you don't seem to see that the PHB gives the basic stats for a member of that race, not a setting or situational basis..

I think though, that this is different than the original post.  In the original post you make it seem as if all elves are destined to die because they lack the knowledge and the resources to survive in the world.  What you failed to mention is that you are referring to a home-brew world, or your version of the Greyhawk setting.

Of course, if the lands have been ravaged by war, the soil salted, the water poisoned, etc. then yes, things will be harsh if not down right impossible for the remaining elves to eek out a living.  However, such a large scale war has problems in and of itself.  The numbers of troops that you would require to inflict such devastation would be beyond almost all counting.  Such a force of arms would take tons of food from the human lands, more then could be grown in a year since some of the farmers would have been conscripted into service.  That is, unless it was the armies of the dead, who don't need to eat.  The point is,  for tat.  Now your humans can't eek out a good living either and stop all wars because they too have poisoned water, salted farm land, etc.  

I don't know the whole history of Greyhawk, but it sounds as if you have invented much of this history yourself for your world or based on your past campaigns.  I stand by my original post concerning most elves in a normal setting.  It is clear now that you are not talking about a normal setting.  In this case, I can't really even comment further because I don't have the knowledge of your world or your elves or the numbers and classes and levels of the surviving elves.  If you are looking for a way for the elves to survive under these conditions, then I would need to know the lay of the land, the surrounding lands, relations with the surrounding lands, what exists for natural resources, exactly what they currently import and export, how many elves are in the forest, how many clerics, fighters, mages, rogues, npc classes, etc., what creatures and animals dwell in the forest, what levels, who is their leader, what allies they have, what current enemies., you get the point.

You are not looking for a justification that elves are destined to die in a regular setting as first believed, you are asking, how can these elves in my home-brew world survive because they got screwed by war?


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 15, 2007)

Machetaso said:
			
		

> Does any of this mean that people will start using the historical sources for Elves or anything else?  Obviously not, many good historical supplements came out for D20 and they went over like the proverbial lead balloon.  But maybe you can use one or two of these concepts for the Elves in your campaign instead of distributing some new Magic item or Spell-like ability to each Elf in your world.  Hopefully, some tiny fraction of the no doubt, very bored and irritated people reading this post will actually fade in their hatred for historical sources by some small iota.  If even one gamer shifts on degree on that, this will not have been a complete waste of time
> Machetaso




Fantastic post!  I think you have hit on, and expounded upon, in far more detail and accuracy, several core notions that had been brought up earlier in the thread.  But you've really done a good job of adding in strong examples, which really helps.

Banshee


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 16, 2007)

(muses)

  Looking at the detailed history given above, I see a pattern:

  The victors were nations and peoples who:

  - Had good leadership and good generals (who knew their strategy and tactics well.)
  - Had a large number of soldiers to throw into the war
  - Were persistent in fighting wars

  I note that, as written, more advanced weapons did not win the wars, necessarily.

  The Gauls who sacked Rome were in great number and very persistent.
  Rome took Gaul and Britain under an accomplished general, with perseverence and huge numbers.
  The Germans destroyed two Roman Legions because they had fine leadership.  Rome declined to pursue the war.
  Greece fell to Rome in one of the Ten Battles of the World, when the legion proved superior to the phlanx.
  Rome finally fell due to internal weakness and the perseverence and numbers of barbarian invaders.
  Charlemagne was an able leader and general, making successful war on the Germanic tribes.
  The Vikings were extremely perseverent (practically making a new definition to the word), developed a new kind of ship that acted as a superb weapon of war, and employed novel techniques of war.  This enabled them to attack or settle from the northern Russian coast through Normandy to Gibraltor to Asia Minor.
  Then the Mongols got into the act with novel ways of waging war, novel ways of transporting food and goods, and relentless perseverence.  And they almost wiped out Eurasia.
  Novgorod was saved by luck and strategic position.  The Mongols were stopped short of the city by swamps.  The teutonic knights lost when the ice on a lake broke under their weight.


  During the Greyhawk Wars (Canon for Greyhawk) Aerdi was unable to win against Nyrond because of poor leadership and poor generals (the good ones got turned into animuses.)  Aerdi also did not have persistence, but collapsed into numerous successor states.
  Almor, had good leadership and a brilliant general, and invaded and caused damage through Ahlissa, the Nauxes lands, and Medegia.  Then Aerdi attacked and through sheer overwhelming force destroyed Almor.
  Iuz was neither a good leader nor a good general, but he was reasonably persistent.  He wasn't persistent enough:  when the siege of Chendl was broken, Iuz retreated to Crockport, and Furyondy withstood his assault.
  Turmosh Mak was an able leader and general, and doubled the size of his empire as a result.
  The Scarlet Brotherhood pursued a slightly different agenda.  Instead of open war, they subjugated other nations by assassination of their leadership, and swift attacks on loyal troops (the rest of the army simply surrendered, typically, after their leadership was gone.)  This demonstrated apt leadership and tactics, and persistence.  All those hoards of Hempmonalanders were not needed, and remained as backup for the Scarlet Brotherhood.

  Now, getting away from the Canon ...

  The Solistarim were 700 years in the making.
  They had an *extremely* fine leader and capable generals.
  They were persistent, in that they spent hundreds of years planning the war, and once in execution they were persistent in waging war.
  They about equalled their foes in numbers, so they summoned vast armies of elementals, infernals, and undead to assist them.

  Their foes were unaware of the impending attack.  The Solistarim gained total surprise.

  Their first foe was Iuz.  They had a magical fix on the Old One, Gated in, trapped him within magical boundaries, then Soloron himself slew him.
  Their second target was Chendl, where King Belvor of Furyondy still reigned.  Again they pinpointed his location, Gated in, and killed him.  They killed all his family and all high level members of the government as well.
  Their third target was Mitrik, and High Priest Hazen of Veluna.  The High Priest had omens of impending danger and was prepared, but the force sent was overwhelming.  A good part of Mitrik burned in the ensuing battle, but the Solistarim won it.  This shattered the government of Veluna.
  A very large and determined force struck at the Iron Citadel of Mordenkainen.  At great cost, they took the fortress and seized the magic inside, but Mordenkainen escaped and fled.
  At the same time, a army of monsters assaulted the capital of Zeif.  They took it in a single night of slaughter and red ruin.

  Most of the attacking strike forces consisted of the Exalted Wizards of Our Lord, the direct servants of Soloron (not to be confused with exalted characters.)  They were accompanied by liches in league with them, beholders, illithid, and the great among the wizards of the dark dwarves and grey gnomes.  Many devils, some notable, were among their numbers, along with fire elementals and salamanders.
  Last, and not least, dragons morphed into human form came through the Gates, assumed normal form, and attacked.
  The army assailing Zeif was different.  This army consisted of sahuagin and numerous lesser allies led by aboleth, along with elemental and infernal forces.

  The Empire of Iuz was weakened from years of war, it's armies were all deployed southward, Iuz was bending his attention southward (to Furyondy) and the attack came from the north.
  Furyondy was very badly weakened from fighting Iuz, the Shieldlands were lost, the northern part of the country was lost, and the rest of the country was in recovery.
  Veluna had suffered some losses from the assault from Ket.  They had deployed forces to Furyondy to protect it, more forces south to aid Keoland, some of their forces up to the Vesve to help the elves and gnomes there, and their main force was in the west, fronting Ket.
  Zeif was intact, but Zeif was expecting no attack.  Their fleet was strong (and useless, against an underwater assault on the mainland), their army was strong and scattered throughout the country.  They were mostly disinterested, ignoring the warnings of Istus, thinking it had to do with problems from the east - and those problems would have to come through Ekbir and Tusmit and Ket first.

  The main aerial assault commenced.  
  Dragons made up the brunt of this assault, acting somewhat like bombers of today.  Devils acted as special forces.  Liches and subject powerful undead summoned hosts of lesser undead, and acted as shock troops.  Fire, frost, stone, and cloud giants aided them.  Efreet, salamanders, and countless fire elementals acted as terror forces.  The dark wizards and dark clerics of the Solistarim, of high power and levels, coordinated the attacks using their magic and psionics.
  The illithid and dark dwarves and grey gnomes struck from Below.  Beholders were Gated in and rampaged like berserkers through the chaos.
  The lizard kings were waiting in the forests, and closed in.
  And from the sky came the Spelljammers, coodinated assaults from squidships and gith mercenaries and even some neogi.
  Above all, the might and power of the Wizard Host (for the Solistarim boasted an enormous standing army of wizards) was deployed to crush any determined resistance.

  This main assault was directed at military compounds and outposts.  Civilians and civilian targets were generally not struck.  Solistari intelligence had located most of the enemy strongholds, and determined which to strike in order to paralyze the enemy country.

  In Delrune, the military targets were Archendrea (the northeastern military city), Miralea (the center for magical studies in Delrune), Delphea (the capital city), Lirrendrea (a strategic city in the southwest), and Kindlerock (a strategic city in the northwest.)
  The elves of Delrune had a standing army of a few thousand males, out of 325,000.  Most of these were in Archendrea, watching for Iuz.  
  Of these elves, none were above 5th level as warriors, or 9th level as wizards.  There were many clerics, up to around 7th level.  The one great strength Delrune had was in her bards, and these - in great number - ranged up to 10th level.  They were scattered throughout the country.

  The Solistarim destroyed most of their military targets within the first few days of the Solistari War.
  Targets included areas in Zeif, Ekbir, Tusmit, Ket, Ull, the Spirit Empire of Garnak, Istivar, the Valley of the Mage, many targets in the Yatils, Perrenland, Calrune, Delrune, Chautosbergen, Swantmoor, Veluna, Furyondy, Gran March, Keoland, the Principality of Ulek, the Duchy of Ulek, the County of Ulek, many targets in the Lortmils, targets in the Kron Hills, Celene, and Verbobonc.

  Neutrality was immediately offered Greyhawk City, Nyrond, the Duchy of Urnst, and the County of Urnst.
  These nations accepted, for suddenly Aerdi and the Scarlet Brotherhood was on their doorstep and a colossal war behind them.  (And had Ivid taken the initiative, and had Aerdi been united, perhaps it could have dealt with these nations for once and all.)
  Thus, the central and eastern Flanaess were locked out of the war.

  But Turrosh Mak took the initiative and invaded Celene.  Likewise, the drow and giants took the initiative (although the Solistarim indicated the drow were their enemies) and invaded Keoland.

  Then main army of the Solistarim, composed of shock troops of undead, elementals, fiends, dark dwarves, dark gnomes, the non-wizard and non-clerical human forces of the Solistarim, giants, sahuagin, lizard men, lizard kings, and numerous others, swept south from the Godspires through their forward bases in Blackmoor and across the Burneal (or came in from the skies and oceans, or from Below), and assaulted the Empire of Iuz.
  The main strike forces, having accomplished their initial tasks, joined the assault.  In a matter of weeks the western one third of the Empire of Iuz fell, including Doraaka and Molag, and the Solistarim held the Whyestil.  The humanoid armies were massacred (the Solistarim had no use for orcs, goblins, trolls, ogres, and so on ... there would be no place for them in the new world the Solistarim hoped to build.)

  By this time, other nations in the Flanaess had mounted defenses against attack.  Armies were marshalled.  Wizards and clerics and others made ready, in case the Solistarim came their way.

  Then the Skydwellers attacked.
  Striking from on high, in their Flying Citadels, the Skydwellers rained an eager array of destruction down on the cities of the east.  It is a known fact the Lord of the Skydwellers was in league with Soloron, and the timing of this attack was no surprise.
  The Scarlet Brotherhood later reported this fact.  They should have known, since they were in secret league with the Skydwellers (to later destroy the Solistarim) and struck from the ground and sea just as the Skydwellers hit from above.
  The central and eastern parts of the Flanaess descended into anarchy.  

  You would have thought that all the nations would have united against these enemies.  But no:  old feuds held.  Ivid had shed too much blood.
  North Province wanted Ratik.  The humanoids of the Bone March wanted Nyrond.  The Ice Elves of the Adri broke free and massacred half the denizens in the forest.  Ivid lashed out at all comers.  The vampire lord (see the Ivid the Undying supplement) led the forces of his necropolis against Ivid.  Drax the Invulnerable invaded the Grandwood.  Naelax struck north and west.  Ahlissa assaulted Nyrond and Irongate.  Sunndi invaded Naelax.  The Sea Barons were in league with the Skydwellers and gleefully took advantage of the confusion to raid and plunder.

  But in Greyhawk City, a renown figure there called southward for help, and Varnaith - an equatorial nation of tremendous power - answered the call.  So did it's longtime ally, Nippon and it's Dominion.
  The Elvish Imperial Navy of Greyspace came to the aid of Celene, and was drawn into the greater war.  They would defeat the scro in Greyspace, and then bring their big guns to bear on the combat below.

  The Solistarim ground forces roared southwest through Perrenland, then Calrune and western Delrune (the western half), and on into Veluna.  Another great force swept into Furyondy.  The great strike forces, dragons and archmages leading, were in the forefront.
  Veluna and Furyondy both fell in a sea of fire and wreckage.
  In the west, Zeif fell, the sahuagin raged into Ekbir and Tusmit, and more Solistari shock forces came down the coast to join up with them.

  The Spirit Empire of Garnak conjured up an enormous force.  Enormous is the only word.  They called upon their ancestors, and their ancestors came.  So did whole legions of forests (Garnak was heavily forested, unlike the steppes about.)  Istivar had survived the strikes and joined Garnak.
  The combined host roared north to give battle.

  Now the battle lines stretched from Verbobonc (besieged) in the east across Bissel (the Kettish occupiers fled for it, leaving hapless Bissel undefended), to the Valley of the Mage (the Mage went into hiding.)
  The Solistarim extended their gains.  Soon, the battlelines extended from Sterich through northern Keoland across the Lortmils to the Wild Coast.  (Turrosh Mak tried to join the Solistarim, but his messengers were simply shot on sight.)
  However, Keoland and the dwarves and elves of the Lortmils were suddenly and dramatically reinforced, as the hosts of Varnaith and Nippon arrived via magic.  And Varnaith also had fine commanders, a vast army, and enough magical might to equal a quarter of that of the Solistarim.
  The elvish navy of Greyspace joined Varnaith in defending Keoland.  Some good dragons joined the war, mainly at the behest of the elves of Varnaith.  The Pearl elves marched up out of the sea to join on Nippon's side.  And in the west, the titanic army of Garnak crashed through the Solistari lines in the Plains of the Paynims.

  The war went on for months from that point, with assaults and battles and slaughter all the way from Hyperboria in the polar regions to Varnaith at the equator.  All sides suffered severely.
  The Solistarim had spent centuries fortifying their cities, both surface and underground, in the Godspires.  These could not be taken.  The sahuagin did not fare as well, or Blackmoor, or the dwellings of the lizard men and kings, but the main Solistari citadels repelled the assaults.
  But the Solistari were stretched as far as they could go, against multiple enemies.  With the Pearl Empire, Nippon Dominion, Varnaith, the Spirit Empire of Garnak all against them, and the Elven Imperial Navy of Greyspace against them, and Keoland and the Lortmils fighting like mad, they found they could not push further south.
  The battle lines stalled, then flexed north and south as either side made gains, laying waste to successive region after region as the armies fought back and forth.  The corpses of hundreds of thousands littered the Oerth, then those of several million, and still the fighting continued.

  The Solistarim suffered one setback.  They slew the drow wherever they found them, so the drow declared war on the Solistarim.  An irony, drow and elf in alliance.  But the drow and their giant allies then struck out of Geoff and Sterich, in the Yatils, and against the Godspires themselves.
  The Solistarim had to readjust their battle strategy, to deal with this new and powerful (and, unfortunately, disorganized - despite the efforts of a certain drow priestess) foe.

  In a stroke of luck, said mysterious figure from Greyhawk, was able to strike down Soloron in the midst of battle.

  Without their leader, fearful of collapse of the behavioral-modifying magics that welded them - incompatible races - together, all the Solistarim elected retreat.
  Their foes magically pursued them to the Godspires, and launched an all out assault.
  The assault failed, the attackers were massacred, the Solistarim held together - although greatly weakened - and the exhausted attackers fell back.
  The Solistarim then assailed the encampments of their enemies.  Those attacks, partially succeeded.

  The alliance against the Solistarim fortified a line from Geoff to Keoland to the central Lortmils.  (Turrosh Mak retrenched in the Pomarj.)  They did not attempt to advance north, but fortified or rebuilt cities and bases as they could south of that line.
  Having retaken all the Baklunish lands, Garnak and Istivar fortified and readied against any future war.  They did not waste effort assaulting the Godspires, but did not discount any new assaults.

  In the east:  Beaten, the Skydwellers withdrew.  The Alliance of Oerth had formed.  Nations yet further east halted their fighting.  The Scarlet Brotherhood, consolidated gains.

  The Solistari War ended.

  (In all that, the Vesve Forest and Clatspurs were virtually untouched, and Chauntosbergen took only minor damage.  Somehow they were passed by ... along with the eastern half of Delrune.)

  What decided the Solistari War?

  1:  Leadership.
  2:  Luck.
  3:  Sheer firepower.
  4:  Perseverence (or lack of it)
  5:  Sheer numbers.


----------



## Bloosquig (Jun 16, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> ...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.
> ...




    I really like the idea of an entire campaign played running through extradimensional spaces like that.  Kinda like plane hopping but instead of switching planes your switching between various bags of holding and mansions.  Reminds me of the War of the Bag from Knights of the Dinner Table.    

Oh and to keep it on topic a solution I had in one campaign was to give them a gestation period just like a human but they are only fertile if their surrounding environment can support the baby.  So if the forest can't feed another elf the elves bodies just don't make any more till the situation changes.  Also the elves didn't last much longer then humans but there was technically no upper limit to their age so the handful of elves that avoided premature death were OLD.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 16, 2007)

Bloosquig said:
			
		

> I really like the idea of an entire campaign played running through extradimensional spaces like that.  Kinda like plane hopping but instead of switching planes your switching between various bags of holding and mansions.  Reminds me of the War of the Bag from Knights of the Dinner Table.
> 
> Oh and to keep it on topic a solution I had in one campaign was to give them a gestation period just like a human but they are only fertile if their surrounding environment can support the baby.  So if the forest can't feed another elf the elves bodies just don't make any more till the situation changes.  Also the elves didn't last much longer then humans but there was technically no upper limit to their age so the handful of elves that avoided premature death were OLD.




  I tried to keep the elves - even the Elves of Haldendreeva - distinct from the Faerie in this respect by defining as follows:
  - A group of elves could live in a Mordenkainen's Mansion cast on a tree.
  - A dryad lives in a tree, and the *entire tree* is considered a Mordenkainen's Mansion (and then some, by about a factor of 10 to 100) for her and those she has charmed or invited in, only.  Adventurers trying to 'force' their way into a dryad's personal retreat, will find only the mundane interior of a tree, not an extradimensional space.
  In that way, I tried to distinguish elves from Faerie.

  In old Delrune, the elves did not have access to Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion.
  The elves built cities of crystal, somehow growing it magically right out of the earth and into towering buildings, open in many places to the surrounding trees and open air.
  The elves also exported a large number of finished crystal items:  crystalware (trenchers, spoons, knives, forks), crystalline plates, crystalline furniture (not fragile), crystalline lighting pieces, usually with lights of multcolored hues included, crystalline plows with metal parts (the elves could not make the crystalline rock sharp enough to use as a knife or cutting tool), other crystalline items, and they would contract out to build (or grow) crystalline structures or large items elsewhere.
  Of course, the elves exported other items, but crystalline stone was one of the big exports, and what Delrune was most famous for.
  The love of architecture, of building, of creating fantastic pieces of art and craftsmanship, of statues and monuments, was never lost.  It remains in the Elves of Haldendreeva today.

  The elves of Delrune were able to create magical stepping stone roads with their crystals.
  They placed them at long intervals, cast dimension door on them, and then cast a secret second spell on them (it happened to be blink), and the result was permanent.
  One walked normally, stepping from crystalline stone to crystalline stone.  Each 'step' whisked you 50 feet through the forest.  Once you grew accustomed to the disorientating effects, you found you could walk vast distances in a hurry, typically from one Delrunian city to another.
  Horses and wagons had to take more mundane paths, which the elves very reluctantly built through the forests.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 16, 2007)

Bloosquig said:
			
		

> Oh and to keep it on topic a solution I had in one campaign was to give them a gestation period just like a human but they are only fertile if their surrounding environment can support the baby.  So if the forest can't feed another elf the elves bodies just don't make any more till the situation changes.  Also the elves didn't last much longer then humans but there was technically no upper limit to their age so the handful of elves that avoided premature death were OLD.




  The elves of old Delrune spent 2 years as infants, 3 years as toddlers, 15 more years as children, 80 years as adolescents, 900 years as young adults, 500 years as mature (30 to 40 human equivalent), 250 years in 'middle age', and 250 years as old, before the Call of Arvandor set in around 2,000 years of age.  The oldest elves lived to about 2,500, the youngest 1,800.
  The elves married for life, typically.  If one's mate was lost, the other elf very often faded away to Arvandor, or remained in sad shape.  Extremely rarely, a second mate was found.  Divorce simply did not occur.
  Average children per couple was 2 in an entire lifetime.  More than 3 was almost unheard of.  Gestation time was 2 years.

  The elves of old Delrune had the need to eat like humans.  But magic (there was a lot of low level magic in Delrune, just not any high level magic) supplied their staple foods, making Delrune heavily self sufficient foodwise.
  Specialty foods based on grain crops, sugar, spices, and other exotic food and drink were obtained through trade, especially through Calrune.
  Few elves ate any sort of meat.  Those few generally ate fish.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 16, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> mmadsen is right, you don't seem to see that the PHB gives the basic stats for a member of that race, not a setting or situational basis..
> 
> I think though, that this is different than the original post.  In the original post you make it seem as if all elves are destined to die because they lack the knowledge and the resources to survive in the world.  What you failed to mention is that you are referring to a home-brew world, or your version of the Greyhawk setting.
> 
> snip





  Ok, time to reply to this post, piece by piece.

  You are quite right.  The 3rd Edition Player's Handbook gives the basic stats of the race, not any setting or situational modifiers.

  If you look at what I've been writing, and consider the historical posts by others, you'll see something very fundamental:

  The elves can get caught up in *larger events.*
  And these larger events can whelm the elves, fundamentally altering them or even destroying them.  (In this case, the larger event first altered, then destroyed old Delrune, and saw the rise of Haldendreeva.)

  *Larger events* are a commonplace occurance in our real world, and examples are numerous and some are given in posts by others in this thread.
  Larger events are also commonplace in the official settings and their histories, and in home campaigns, including most I played in.

  This does not mean ALL home settings are swept by larger events.  It does not mean the elves are doomed.
  It could mean that an elven nation like Delrune, might be in trouble if larger events involving war came sweeping their way.

  I would argue that any ECL 0 race, including the human race, has the same problem, especially if the campaign is truly High Fantasy, such as Dragonlance.
  In Dragonlance, we see the world devastated by the Cataclysm.  Then it is actually sterilized by Raistlin, but Tasslehoff alters time so this does not happen.  Then Father Chaos returns and Krynn is nearly destroyed by him.  Then Takhisis whisks the planet away and it nearly becomes her private playground for the rest of eternity.
  In this kind of situation, ECL 0 races are going to have a hard time.  Ansalon was depopulated, humans and elves and all, by the repeated disasters and wars.

  If you go with many 'classic' conceptions of elves, unfortunately (you know what I mean ...) the elves are unable to cope with the larger events and are destroyed by them, whereas humanity is better able to cope and adapt and survives.
  You do not have to go with any concept of elves but your own.  So I cannot argue elves are doomed, in your home campaign!
  But they sure are having a hard time of it in the official settings.  Take a good long look at the mess they are in, on Aebrinis, Athas, Krynn, Oerth, Toril, in Ravenloft, and in Wildspace. And it is mostly because they cannot adapt, cannot cope, or have lousy leadership, few numbers, and a lack of determination and persistence ... or all of the above.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 16, 2007)

(long article, bunch of nonsense   )



			
				DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> snip
> 
> Of course, if the lands have been ravaged by war, the soil salted, the water poisoned, etc. then yes, things will be harsh if not down right impossible for the remaining elves to eek out a living.  However, such a large scale war has problems in and of itself.  The numbers of troops that you would require to inflict such devastation would be beyond almost all counting.  Such a force of arms would take tons of food from the human lands, more then could be grown in a year since some of the farmers would have been conscripted into service.  That is, unless it was the armies of the dead, who don't need to eat.  The point is,  for tat.  Now your humans can't eek out a good living either and stop all wars because they too have poisoned water, salted farm land, etc.




  It is notable that Greyhawk has some exceptions to the above.
  For example, Aerdi had the force necessary to totally obliterate Medegia while still fighting Nyrond and the Duchy and County of Urnst.  Then again, Aerdi was a vast nation.
  This business of the total destruction of enemy nations and the complete massacre of their people is not unique to Greyhawk.  It is all too common in our own real world history.
  In the case of Medegia, it was worse than merely land salted, water poisoned, etc.  The ghosts and spirits of the dead haunted the land, magical madness afflicted travellers going in, and other things of this sort occurred.
  Yes, Aerdi could not sustain the war for long.  No nation involved could.  Compliments of Ivid, Aerdi couldn't even stay together, but fragmented.

  The Solistarim compensated for the food problem in several ways:

  - They spent centuries building up food stocks.
  - They hid their food stocks in places throughout many worlds and planes.
  - They relied on magic for further food.
  - They relied on captured prisoners for food, for large numbers of their troops (illithid and beholders, for example.)

  The Solistarim burned forests and fields and leveled settlements, but they did *not* poison the land.
  They wanted that land, unspoiled, for themselves.



> I don't know the whole history of Greyhawk, but it sounds as if you have invented much of this history yourself for your world or based on your past campaigns.
> 
> Starting just after the Greyhawk Wars, which are canon, it changed from canon to a house setting as I altered history.  For example, Greater Ahlissa never became the successor nation to Aerdi, which is the canon.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 16, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> The professor I worked with on the issue was Dr. Paige Raibmon. It has been several years since I worked with her so I'm not remembering the sources on this stuff that do comparitive work. The most recent stuff I read on Northwest Coast populations is actually literature about the continent-wide smallpox epidemic of the 1750s reaching the area; so that might be a good place to start.Indeed, it's Diamond's zoonotic assertions that medical doctors, historians and geneticists have been challenging for the past 10 years.
> 
> Diamond's theory that any long term packing of people with domestic animals at close quarters will ultimately produce new diseases is problematic in two ways:
> (a) this does not seem to be how the original zoonotic processes giving rise to TB, smallpox, etc. seems to have arisen; the transfer of these diseases from animals to humans appears to have preceded domestication
> ...




  The elves of Delrune lived in high densities, but were not subject to disease.
  A lot of little clerical magic protected them.

  The elves who survived the Greyhawk Wars, were quite subject to disease.  Despite using the dark powers of Lolth and others, they found disease flourishing amongst them, and in the ruined lands around Delrune (where plagues now roamed.)

  The elves who survived the Coming of Vecna, did not live with disease:  disease, infestation, and starvation *were* life.  Until they developed agnakok abilities out of the inner strength, derived from their quintennsial elvishness, after which disease and infestation once more - this time forever - faded out of their lives.
  Not many were left by then.

  Disease was common in Calrune, and a problem.  In Calrose, the capital city, epidemics broke out constantly, and clerics had to battle them down.
  In Swantmoor, gnomish clerics held disease at bay, until the food shortage hit, and then the whole disease/hunger situation in general worsened.
  In Chautosbergen, the dwarves were afflicted with strange illnesses from Below, but the numerous clerics held these from becoming epidemics.  As the dwarves strengthened and the number of their clerics grew during the Greyhawk Wars, disease lessened.

  Of course, modern medicine did not exist.  Indeed, the proliferation of clerics saw a lack of research into mundane cures in Delrune and Swantmoor.  In Chauntosbergen, more of an effort to produce common mundane cures was made.  In Calrune, an intensive effort was made and paid off.

  Of course, after the Solistari War, neither Calrune nor Swantmoor existed anymore, so it became irrelevant.  In Chautosbergen, which suffered heavily from the first (and only) strike from the Solistarim, disease was contained.  After thousands killed were buried in solemn ceremony, the clergy held off the epidemics and grim personal illnesses afflicting all their neighbors.

  After the Solistari War, being away from a city didn't help very much, against disease.
  Millions of corpses lay rotting everywhere.  Rivers were poisoned by these bodies, and by soot from fires.  Marauders pursued refugees, and disease stalked both.  Monsters freely roamed everywhere, some eating the dead and carrying disease.  Forests were burned and cities laid waste, so no safe food was to come by.
  As the lands changed, became poisoned by the sheer amount of blood shed and began to react in protest, so the vegetation that grew back turned sickly, waters fouled, and even the rainwater was laced with grit and soot from volcanic eruptions.  Disease became more prevalent than ever before.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 16, 2007)

The cliche goes:  be careful what you ask for.  You might just get it.
  The leadership and some of the peoples of the nations of the Flanaess asked for war.  They got it:  the land itself made war on them, retching from the blood spilled upon it, tearing itself apart in convulsions.
  Then Vecna came and spilled more blood, much more, and the lands all reeled, collapsing, heaving, spewing forth roaring heat and fire in protest, so that the modern Flanaess little resembles the old setting.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jun 16, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> (muses)
> 
> Looking at the detailed history given above, I see a pattern:
> 
> ...




  6: The DM decided to trash his setting by allowing The "empire" to gate in to throne rooms and inner sanctums and slay leaders of the world. (DO you really not see an inherintly large problem with this in a fantasy setting?)
So perhaps instad of the problem with elves the thread should be the problem with my whole setting?
I'm sorry perhaps I just need to stop reading this thread Edena your posts about what you did to your setting make me want to scratch my eyes out yet I keep coming back to read more lol.


----------



## fusangite (Jun 16, 2007)

Edena,

It's kind of odd -- I made some more suggestions about your campaign and you did not respond to them







			
				me said:
			
		

> What I was suggesting was that not everybody in Delrune would act the same way. Depending on one's social position there, one might choose different survival strategies. For instance, elvish widows might try to marry into nearby human aristocracies. Elvish warriors might creat mercenary legion that work for the highest bidder. And the nobles and notables of Delrune might offer to become a vassal state to a more powerful state, perhaps sweetening the deal with some territory, widows, gold or luxury goods. Itinerant crafter/tinker guilds could emerge, working seasonally outside Delrun and returning during planting and harvest.
> 
> Anyway, just some random thoughts. Feel free to utilize or discard as you like.



but you did respond to my critique of Jared Diamond's book _Guns, Germs and Steel_. 

I'm not sure what to make of your long treatise on disease in your campaign except to say: it is clear that, like most D&D worlds, your game world handles disease differently than the real world does. And that's good, as it should be. So, the question then becomes: if how disease works in your campaign is your decision, why come up with a theory of disease that turns around and screws the elves again? Why not come up with a theory of disease that doesn't hurt the elves?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 18, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> 6: The DM decided to trash his setting by allowing The "empire" to gate in to throne rooms and inner sanctums and slay leaders of the world. (DO you really not see an inherintly large problem with this in a fantasy setting?)
> So perhaps instad of the problem with elves the thread should be the problem with my whole setting?
> I'm sorry perhaps I just need to stop reading this thread Edena your posts about what you did to your setting make me want to scratch my eyes out yet I keep coming back to read more lol.




  Of course powerful nations going into Total War pull this stunt (Gating or Teleporting Without Error or Teleporting or Teleporting Spells/Monsters into enemy thronerooms and bedchambers, etc., etc., etc.)
  King Belvor of Furyondy, Archcleric Hazen of Veluna, and King Arlon of Calrune, among others, *expected* such things to happen.  There were defenses readied.

  But then the Greyhawk Wars occurred, and their attention went to Iuz, Ket, and the Giant Incursions.  They concentrated their magics and efforts on those threats.

  They were beaten and killed by four factors:

  - The Solistarim achieved total surprise.
  - The Solistarim had extremely fine Intelligence gathering, and knew exactly where to strike.
  - The Solistarim brought their most powerful magic to bear, magic capable of crushing the defenses and protections around enemy leaders and bases.
  - The Solistarim launched a very coordinated attack, hitting everywhere at once, so those under attack could not come to each other's aid.

  If King Belvor, Archcleric Hazen, and King Arlon had set up an equally planned out defense, had an equally coordinated defense ready, had their strongest magics and wizards in place, and if they had *known* the attack was coming and nature of the attackers, the result might have been far different.

  Once the governments of Furyondy, Veluna, and Calrune were destroyed, the two largest western nations opposing the Solistarim were effectively out of the fight, their armies leaderless and in total confusion.
  Strikes on Perrenland easily neutralized that country's government, since Perrenland was far less well equipped to deal with such a threat.  The strike on Chautosbergen actually failed (to kill the ruling family and councillors) and killed many thousands of dwarves instead.
  The strike on Delphea, capital of Delrune, was all too easy.  King Callanne Narisae was a man of peace, his guard was small, his secret service nil, his magic weak, his preparations non-existent.  The Delrunian government was obliterated in the first strike.

  It was only after the Solistarim had done all they could to neutralize the enemy leadership, kill all the known generals and other military leaders, and thus leave the western nations in chaos, and after their friends the Skydwellers were on the way to war against the eastern and central nations (a nice diversion, and that is exactly what the Solistarim allied with the Skydwellers to achieve), the Solistarim launched their swift Ground Assault.

  -

  I made a mistake in quoting my timeline, and wish to rectify it.

  The Greyhawk Wars went as per Canon, taking about 3 or 4 years.
  The subsequent exhausted peace lasted around 15 years.  Then the Solistari War commenced.

  The Solistari First Strike occurred over a period of a few days.  
  The Solistari Second and subsequent Strikes occurred over a period of a few weeks.
  The Ground Onslaught took several months, before the battle lines stablized in Keoland.
  The war, after that, went on for several years.
  After the death of Soloron, the Solistari retreat took a few weeks.
  The Great Assault of the Allies on the Godspires went on for months.
  The Counterassault of the Solistarim lasted for several months.
  Then the war ended, around 5 years after it started.

  Delrune spent 20 years in limbo after that, turning to evil.

  The Onslaught of Vecna took about a month to reach Delrune.
  The Onslaught of Vecna took several days to destroy Delrune excluding Haldendrea only.

  It took 20 years before Vecna recognized the threat of Haldendreeva, and thus the elves there had respite from Vecna for that time.

  The Haldendreevan-Vecna War went on for 100 years.

  -

  There is nothing wrong with the setting.
  The people of the Flanaess are led heavily warmongers, just as the people of many other fantasy worlds are, and as some peoples in real life are.
  Also, there are a large number of evil races who are inherently warmongers, not only led by warmongers but warmongers down to the last being in the community.  The illithid are such a people (in the Flanaess at least.)

  Warmongers fight.  Nations shatter and fall.  Civilian populations are massacred (or retained for food.)  The Oerth itself reacts to the bloodshed and reels, with volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, lands rising and fall, the bedrock rotting and crumbling under blood.
  The survivors build new civilizations and new nations.  They regain their strength.  Nations that survived the wars further strengthen themselves.  And then - unfortunately - they fight again.  For theirs is a world of neverending war.

  Paradoxically, Vecna brought a kind of peace.  It wasn't a pleasant peace, but it *did* allow many peoples and nations driven to the edge of extinction to come back and at least partially recover.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 18, 2007)

It was through *leadership, fine generalmanship, and perseverence* that the Solistarim were able to:

  - Gather superb intelligence on the enemy.
  - Plan a well organized, coordinated strike on enemy leaders.
  - Ready, over a long period of time, a colossal arsenal of magic.
  - Ready, over a long period of time, a colossal army of monstrous beings.
  - Obtain the understandings necessary to use their armies and magic to their fullest effect.
  - Undergo the ordeal necessary to restrain so many incompatible evil races, uniting them by force into one people, setting in place Mythal-like structures to control behavior and ensure cooperation (otherwise, just try to get a beholder to cooperate.  LOL.)

  Leadership, fine military commanders, and perseverence paid off.
  Had it not been for the intervention of a cunning enemy leader (the mysterious man from Greyhawk City), who convinced Varnaith and other nations to become involved, and who finally located Soloron and assassinated him in the midst of the great battle, the Solistarim would easily have conquered and completely depopulated the entire western Flanaess and lands west of there, all the way to the borders of the Celestial Imperium off the map westward.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 18, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Edena,
> 
> It's kind of odd -- I made some more suggestions about your campaign and you did not respond to thembut you did respond to my critique of Jared Diamond's book _Guns, Germs and Steel_.
> 
> I'm not sure what to make of your long treatise on disease in your campaign except to say: it is clear that, like most D&D worlds, your game world handles disease differently than the real world does. And that's good, as it should be. So, the question then becomes: if how disease works in your campaign is your decision, why come up with a theory of disease that turns around and screws the elves again? Why not come up with a theory of disease that doesn't hurt the elves?




  Disease didn't pick out the elves in particular.
  Disease was a party for everyone.  Disease swept across all of Oerik and Hyberborian continents following the Solistari War, and affected the other continents also.

  The *important* point is not the disease, but how the elves reacted to it.
  While humans and others turned to natural remedies and clerics to stop it, the elves had access to *neither.* 
  Starvation, disease, infestation, and exposure wracked the surviving elves of Delrune after the Onslaught of Vecna.
  *Their* answer was, over a period of 3 years, to become Agnakoks, to become immune to hunger, disease, infestation, and exposure, by eating leaves and bugs and living foes, by supernatural changes in digestion, in supernatural changes to their bodies.
  They *achieved this transcendence by embracing the core of what they were, their quintessential elvishness.*  In choosing to call upon their primordial elvishness, they found the strength to survive.

  Humans could not have done this.  Humans, in the place of the surviving elves in the lone remaining city of Haldendrea (flooded 5 feet deep) would have all perished.

  The descendants of the Elves of Haldendreeva, the canon elves of my home setting, retain these agnakok abilities and strange tendencies (such as eating leaves, bugs, and lliving foes, not to mention chewing on wood and fresh bones) today.  But they are immune to hunger if leaves, bugs, or living foes are available, immune to thirst if any water (no matter how fouled) is present, immune to all normal disease and infestations, and immune to exposure to cold, heat, sunlight, and the like.
  Natural insects and animals will not attack the Elves of Haldendreeva (their aura of lifefire drives insects back and awes animals.)  Trees and shrubs recognize their power and do not afflict them (they cannot be slapped by a tree branch, or stumble through brambles, or otherwise be hindered by plants.)  They cannot stumble or fall or be hampered in any normal terrain or water ... their elvish inner selves brought forth in might have granted them Faerie-like immunities to such natural obstacles or problems.
  Detect Life will cause an Elf of Haldendreeva to shine with sunlike force to the caster, as will Detect Magic to a lesser extent.  Detect Evil will show strong evil, regardless of the elf's actual alignment, due to the taint of Haldendreeva.
  Would a paladin, then, become upset and take issue with that elven girl he detected strong evil on?  He had better be well prepared then, if he wishes to start a fight.  Because if the taint of Haldendreeva influences the girl, and she wins the battle, she is likely to slowly torture him (for fun, and as a matter of normal procedure), then devour him alive, keeping him alive as long as possible through this process.  And be merry and cavalier about it, gently chiding the paladin for trying to kill her, during the whole thing.

  Elves of Haldendreeva.  They are very gentle, pleasant, loving, good people.
  But for the sake of Istus, do not try to kill one, unless you are truly ready for war and battle, in all their awful red glory and gory horror.  If you can't handle that, go to the local inn and have a drink instead!


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 18, 2007)

*To Fusangite*

Fusangite, could you restate your questions?
  I will answer them.

  I simply had to write out the Big Picture, as it were, first to answer other's questions.
  Now that the Big Picture is out, I can reference it properly to frame responses to your questions.

  Ask away!  

  Yours Sincerely
  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 18, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> mmadsen is right, you don't seem to see that the PHB gives the basic stats for a member of that race, not a setting or situational basis..
> 
> (snip)
> 
> You are not looking for a justification that elves are destined to die in a regular setting as first believed, you are asking, how can these elves in my home-brew world survive because they got screwed by war?




  If you look at the *large picture* of what I have painted for my home setting, you will see that 'normal' elves of ECL 0 out of the 3rd Edition Player's Handbook are really not suited to that setting.
  They tend to get swept up in the great events and cataclysmic wars that sweep the world, and end up exterminated.

  Any and all of the ECL 0 races, including humans, have the same problems.  And the task of finding a way to survive in spite of their weakness, is their problem and their problem alone:  Nobody else is going to help out.
  For that matter, races with higher ECLs must find their own answers also.  The drow did *not* do so, and Vecna obliterated them.  Completely.  Finally.  Absolutely.  Extinct Greyspace wide!

  This is not The Land.  Thomas Covenant, Ur-Lord and White Gold Wielder, is not going to come along with The Wild Magic That Destroys Peace, and save everyone.  (I happen to like Stephen Donaldson's works.)

  -

  Tolkien created the Institution of Elven Failure, and it haunts books and settings alike today, and the elves just do not seem to be able to escape it.

  ANY people who choose to stand as a rock, will ultimately fall.
  Mount Everest, will eventually be at the bottom of the ocean.
  And elves, in their 'classic' portrayal, from the Noldor to Evermeet to Silvanesti, are extremely bad about trying to stand as rocks.
  Even the infamous Melniboneans insist on standing defiant and steady, like a rock, in a tumultuous world.

  Seasons come, and seasons go.  Nations rise and nations fall.  Cultures flourish and cultures fail.  The years pass by, and history sweeps along.
  In our real world, *no* nation or people or culture that stood like a rock has *ever* survived (except modern cultures that haven't had time to be destroyed or fall yet.)
  Examples of fallen cultures, lost through time or war, abound:  Sumeria, the Ancient Egyptians, the People of the Indus Valley, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Ancient Persians, the Etrucians, the Gauls, the Druids, the Celts, the Roman Empire itself, the Parthians, the Vikings (after their victories, came their decline and absorption), countless peoples swept away in the Mongol Invasion - and then the Mongols themselves faded and were absorbed, and so on.

  The elves - the 'classic' elves - seek to defy the reality of history, and remain as stawart, unchanging, rocklike, holding out their own form of light to illuminate the world around them.
  And they fail and fall.  For history is greater than the elves, and it's mandates are stronger than they.
  Even Netheril could not avoid the dictates of history.  Eventually, even the greatest nations and highest pinnacles fall.  (As I said, one day Mount Everest will be at the bottom of the ocean.  It was at the bottom of the ocean not too long ago.)

  My Elves of Haldendreeva are *aware* of this reality, of the reality of the changing world, the sweep of history, the inevitability of change, the unrelenting threat of war, and the necessity of adaptation.
  That is why they have their supernatural mental will, supernatural spiritual strength, and truly supernatural desire to continue living.  (In modern Haldendreevan elves, this love of life applies to other life, as the elven nature asserts itself over the Haldendreevan taint.)

  They developed this strength out of horrific hardship, when they discovered no other way existed to survive, and turning to their primordial *elven* selves was the answer.
  Had they continued to pursue *this* course, and not turn to magical spells as humans would (and thus start the madness of the Haldendreevan Wars) perhaps they might have evolved into another race, or even back into the Faerie from which elves are descended.  They might have transcended reality in an elvish way, and defied Vecna in that manner, instead of twisting reality with human spells and human means.
  But after the Ritual, cast in good faith, things went wrong, and the elves took the wrong answer to the threat from Vecna.

  The Elves of Haldendreeva today, mostly free of the taint, strive to find that better answer.

  -

  So are ECL 0 3rd Edition elves doomed?

  In my home setting, yes.
  In the canon settings, no but they are having a lousy time of it.
  In the books?  Sometimes, sometimes they merely have a lousy time of it, and in a few cases they triumph.  Tolkien's legacy remains, but authors write as they choose.
  In your home campaign?  Your elves can survive if you want them to.  That's a truism.

  And yet ... the logic of history, the inexorability of it's sweeping power, do seem to doom all elves.  It's in the Big Picture I drew.  It's implied in real world history.  It's implied in countless fantasy histories, which are derived from real history.  It's implied in the canon settings.  It's implied in countless home settings, regardless of the DM's conceptions (!)

  Elves must be truly *special* people, to transcend history and fate and change and all adversary, and remain for truly long periods of time (tens of thousands of years or longer) within the weave of fate.

  (muses)


----------



## fusangite (Jun 18, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Fusangite, could you restate your questions?



I didn't have any. I just wanted to remind you that I had attempted to make some constructive suggestions because I'm hoping we can stop arguing with one another.

You seemed to want to hear from people about how elves could respond to a demographic disaster so I threw out a few ideas. If they aren't useful, I won't be offended.


----------



## Jim Hague (Jun 18, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> So are ECL 0 3rd Edition elves doomed?
> 
> In my home setting, yes.




And pretty much confined to that, since you've stacked the deck against them...



> In the canon settings, no but they are having a lousy time of it.




Nope.  Once again, despite multiple posts to the contrary, you're viewing it through your own fractured logic and not the actual rules or settings.  Elves seem to be doing quite well in the majority of settings, canon and not.  Of course, since you keep cherry picking your facts, you claim the contrary...even if it isn't true at all.



> In the books?  Sometimes, sometimes they merely have a lousy time of it, and in a few cases they triumph.  Tolkien's legacy remains, but authors write as they choose.




Heaven forfend that writers write elves in some way other than Tolkien did.  And here you're contradicting yourself..._again_.  First they're doomed, then they're having a 'lousy time', then you admit that it's just your own interpretation that flies in the face of contradicting and frankly more persuasive facts.



> In your home campaign?  Your elves can survive if you want them to.  That's a truism.




But wait, this is just a set up for...



> And yet ... the logic of history, the inexorability of it's sweeping power, do seem to doom all elves.  It's in the Big Picture I drew.  It's implied in real world history.  It's implied in countless fantasy histories, which are derived from real history.  It's implied in the canon settings.  It's implied in countless home settings, regardless of the DM's conceptions (!)




This is a load of hooey.  Dozens of posters have repeatedly provided contraevidence to your claims, but you stick to your thesis despite that.  And implied in real world history?  Really?  Now you're claiming that there were elves on Earth?  And I'm sorry, but fantasy histories are not necessarily some outgrowth of real history.  And, of course, as with most of your posts, you contradict yourself again - DMs have elves that survive...but you, with your self-professed insight into the minds of said DMs, claim that elves are doomed.   Again.

You need to face a bit of reality here - you've built up their bizarre and unsupported (outside of your campaign) idea that elves are doomed.  You started multiple threads, posted long, rambling and often incoherent claims to 'support' that, but in the end the weight of evidence is well stacked against the house of cards you've built.  Elves are doomed in your setting, and I'm sure that's very dramatic, tragic and sad...but your campaign isn't any others'.  Stop claiming it is.



> Elves must be truly *special* people, to transcend history and fate and change and all adversary, and remain for truly long periods of time (tens of thousands of years or longer) within the weave of fate.




Not in all campaigns, sorry.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 18, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I didn't have any. I just wanted to remind you that I had attempted to make some constructive suggestions because I'm hoping we can stop arguing with one another.
> 
> You seemed to want to hear from people about how elves could respond to a demographic disaster so I threw out a few ideas. If they aren't useful, I won't be offended.




  I am attempting discussion (and doing a lot of musing ...)
  Where we differ, I am trying to engage in debate.   I'm not trying to argue (except when someone else is arguing, obviously.)

  Tell me some of your ideas you came up with again, if you would.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 18, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> And pretty much confined to that, since you've stacked the deck against them...




  Yep.  Life is not fair in my setting.
  The 'classic' elves of the canon setting had their chance to obtain power to protect themselves.  I ruled that they didn't use the time granted them for that purpose, because of the historical canon and because of the portrayal of the 'classic' elf.
  The events I decreed happened afterwards, were thus inevitable.  Poor elves.  Feel sorry for them?




> Nope.  Once again, despite multiple posts to the contrary, you're viewing it through your own fractured logic and not the actual rules or settings.  Elves seem to be doing quite well in the majority of settings, canon and not.  Of course, since you keep cherry picking your facts, you claim the contrary...even if it isn't true at all.




  This post will, definitely, count as a Debate Rebuttal of your statement above.

  *You are incorrect, and I am correct.  Here is the proof I cite: *

  Birthright Setting:  The elves have been driven from the majority of their lands on the northern continent (the continent the setting is on.)
  Dark Sun Setting:  Elven civilization was wiped out, along with most of the elves, by Rajaat and his armies in the Clensing Wars.  The remnant are reduced to nomadic tribes, eeking out a living in the desert waste.  Almost all their culture and lore has been lost, and they are now little higher than animals.
  Dragonlance Setting:  Southern Ergoth, home of the Kagonesti, is now frozen and the Kagonesti driven away or killed.  Qualinesti and it's high elven civilization are destroyed, the remnant of it's people homeless.  Silvanesti is under enemy occupation and it's people enslaved.  (No other major surface elven enclaves exist on Ansalon.  On Taladas, the humans have taken the best parts of that continent for themselves.)
  Greyhawk Setting:  The elves rule in the tiny Duchy of Ulek, tiny Celene, the city of Highfolk, the Lendore Isles, and in tribal fashion in the Vesve Forest.  Some are scattered around elsewhere, especially in Veluna.  Of these places, Highfolk is directly threatened by Ket, Veluna by Ket, Celene and the Duchy of Ulek by Turrosh Mak and his orcish empire, and the Lendore Isles by the Sea Barons, the Thillronian barbarians, North Province, and especially Greater Ahlissa.  Humans dominate in most of the large areas, including the Baklunish lands, Furyondy/Veluna/Keoland, Perrenland, Nyrond, the County and Duchy of Urnst, North Kingdom, Greater Ahlissa, Sunndi, the Thillronian Peninsula, and the Tilvanot Peninsula, not to mention the Sea Baron and Sea Princes islands and the Hold of the Sea Princes.  Humans also dominate in Hempmonaland, as far as is known.  The Greyhawk Wars not only killed a large number of humans, but also a lot of elves, and there were far fewer elves to start out with.
  Forgotten Realms:  The elves hold Evermeet, Evereska, and Cormanthor (and some secret hideouts elsewhere.)  All of these places have been invaded, and Evereska and Cormanthor are devastated by war.  Other races hold pretty much everywhere else.  If it wasn't for humans intervening to save their sorry hides, the elves of Evereska would have fallen to the phaerimm.
  Mystara:  The elves hold Alfheim.  The shadow elves hold an underground realm.  Other races, mostly human, hold the rest.  If these other nations wanted the elves of Alfheim gone, they would be gone tomorrow (hopefully, spirited away by the immortals to the Hollow World, but who says they wouldn't be attacked there?)
  Planescape:  Elves seem to dominate in Arvandor.  Heh.  But let's see what happens if you throw their spirits into the middle of the Blood War.  Yes, that should be nice and messily interesting ...
  Ravenloft:  Elves are killed or attacked on sight here, in most realms.  Like everyone else, the elves of Ravenloft are doomed to a harsh existence, and perhaps a harsher unlife.
  Spelljammer:  The snotty elves of the Elven Imperial Navy are being whelmed by the scro in the Second Inhuman War.
  Eberron:  It sounds like the elves hold one major realm in this setting, and other races hold the rest.  Guess what happens then, if the other races decide to get rid of said elves ...

  The elves are suffering greviously in all these settings, and all but wiped out on Krynn and Athas (Dragonlance and Dark Sun.)
  So the elves are *not* doing well, in the majority of settings.



> Heaven forfend that writers write elves in some way other than Tolkien did.  And here you're contradicting yourself..._again_.  First they're doomed, then they're having a 'lousy time', then you admit that it's just your own interpretation that flies in the face of contradicting and frankly more persuasive facts.




  Writers, of course, have the right to write as they choose, and what they choose (except when their editor gets involved, and the publisher, and ... my pardons, writers are *not* free to write as they choose and what they choose ...)
  If writers want to write that elves are prospering, that is their right.
  What is relevant to this debate (about the viability of elves, really) is how what has been written in countless books adds to the greater picture.  And in my opinion, having read many books myself, I would say they paint a general bleak picture for the elven race, in general, and reinforce the bleak larger picture for the elves.  (Yes, some writings portray it otherwise ... I only note the general trend in the books I've read.)



> But wait, this is just a set up for...
> 
> This is a load of hooey.  Dozens of posters have repeatedly provided contraevidence to your claims, but you stick to your thesis despite that.  And implied in real world history?  Really?  Now you're claiming that there were elves on Earth?  And I'm sorry, but fantasy histories are not necessarily some outgrowth of real history.  And, of course, as with most of your posts, you contradict yourself again - DMs have elves that survive...but you, with your self-professed insight into the minds of said DMs, claim that elves are doomed.   Again.




  To the point:  Are you telling me that the power and sweep of history, the epic catalog of events, the set of almost incalcuably complex patterns that shaped events, wars, migrations, nations, and peoples, is somehow not extremely relevant to the elven situation?
  Is that what you are saying?  That the elves, are above and beyond *history*?

  -

  I am not claiming elves existed on real world Earth.  Just where did you get that?

  Real world history is a major part of what writers and game designers use as inspiration and source material for extrapolation to fantasy histories.  Ask them, and they will tell you this is so.
  If the fantasy world does not have a 'history', then what does it have in place of that?   Answer that one.
  It is unreasonable to assert that the concept of history is irrelevant in a fantasy setting in which - of course - history and historical events play huge roles.  Every official setting has a history.  Most home settings have a history (DMs do try ...)

  Also, yes, I've had DMs who created situations where their elves could not possibly have survived (one million elves live here, and one million there, but have no food source and ... uh ... they do it by magic, but ... uh ... they are limited to ... uh ... they can't be PC clerics, but they can be NPCs, so yes, their clerics feed them ... 5th level clerics can Create Food and Water, for all those elves ... uh ... nevermind.)  They are the DMs:  if they say the moon is made of green cheese, the moon is made of green cheese!  

  More seriously, do you expect every DM to be a Historian?  They are not, nor should they have to be.
  So DMs will create situations where elves exist, and others exist, where they couldn't or shouldn't exist, but this will be obvious to neither the DM or his players.  That is no discompliment to anyone, just common sense and the way things are.
  So that's right, many home settings have history's gloomy shadow cast over the elves and their survival chances, but this is not apparent to the players or DM.

  It is not reasonable to expect perfection from the Game Designers either.  It isn't reasonable to expect perfection from Writers.  It isn't reasonable to expect perfection from the Historians, even the greatest Historians!
  I do think most Historians would tell you that the Large Picture is bleak for elves, as they are portrayed in the 'classic' sense, within the context of the official settings and (if they could somehow do it) home settings as presented, pointing out numerous reasons why this is so ... including some of those I have given.



> You need to face a bit of reality here - you've built up their bizarre and unsupported (outside of your campaign) idea that elves are doomed.  You started multiple threads, posted long, rambling and often incoherent claims to 'support' that, but in the end the weight of evidence is well stacked against the house of cards you've built.  Elves are doomed in your setting, and I'm sure that's very dramatic, tragic and sad...but your campaign isn't any others'.  Stop claiming it is.




  If you believe that elves are not doomed, that is fine.
  If you wish to make a credible point to me that elves are not doomed, the weight of evidence lays on you.

  I have presented evidence to support the general notion that 'classic' elves are doomed.

  I have shown it from a rules standpoint for 1E and 2E.
  I have shown how it exists within most official settings.
  I have shown it in graphic example, within the context of my own setting - this is relevant because the elements that exist in my setting, exist in many other settings and affect elves there in a like manner. 
  I have shown (or at least attempted to show) the 'classic' elven situation as portrayed through the lens of history.  It should be obvious that even extrapolated fantasy histories for settings - official and home - reflect real world history in some ways, and in these ways paint a dark picture for the 'classic' elves.
  We see that 3E elves face many of the problems I have focused on, they must bear the crushing weight of history, and they must face all the daunting implications of history.




> Not in all campaigns, sorry.




  I would dearly like to see you show me how 'classic' elves are winners, survivors, can flourish and grow and triumph.
  Give me a 'classic' elven race, describe your setting, and let us see if your elves are going to survive, or are doomed.

  Do not fall back on the old DM excuse:  'They survive because I say they do.'

  Actually *show* me how elves are winners and survivors.

  If you think elves are survivors, *prove it.*

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 18, 2007)

I have presented my evidence, in vast amounts.  

  It is your turn to present yours.
  If you think elves are winners and survivors, please give your evidence for this.

  I have spent much time showing why 3rd edition elves, 1E/2E elves, and elves within the general 'classic' definitions are doomed.  It is now your turn to show why they are not doomed.

  But can you show any such thing?
  Can you prove that elves are survivors and winners?

  Can you?


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Jun 18, 2007)

For some reason I can’t fathom, I’m always drawn back to this thread. Here’s the first of two points I’d like to make. I’ll be brief, because there are too many posts here with a lot of content, but very little substance.



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> They were beaten and killed by four factors:
> 
> - The Solistarim achieved total surprise.
> - The Solistarim had extremely fine Intelligence gathering, and knew exactly where to strike.
> ...




No, as you’ve been repeatedly told, they were beaten by the decisions you made in YOUR game world. I don’t even know who, or what the Solistarim are, but YOU allowed them to do those things. The Solistarim ‘had extremely fine Intelligence gathering,’ Replace the word ‘Solstarim with ‘elves’ or any of the nations allied with the elves and the outcome, as you admit would have been different.



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> If King Belvor, Archcleric Hazen, and King Arlon had set up an equally planned out defense, had an equally coordinated defense ready, had their strongest magics and wizards in place, and if they had *known* the attack was coming and nature of the attackers, the result might have been far different.




Your problem is your own, and of your own making (as you have been repeatedly told). It is not a problem inherit in the write up of elves. Nor is it a problem of peoples perception of elves (except, possibly your own).


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Jun 18, 2007)

If you have a Pyramid Subscription, I can recommend my article:

Elves: A Case Study of Transhumanism in Fantasy Worlds

In it, I attempt to explain just _why_ the elves seem to thrive in their forest domains - they, and all the other "sylvan creatures" are the result of ancient magical genetic engineering!


----------



## fusangite (Jun 18, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Tell me some of your ideas you came up with again, if you would.



Alright. This will be the third time I am posting the identical paragraph:







			
				me in two separate posts on page 9 said:
			
		

> What I was suggesting was that not everybody in Delrune would act the same way. Depending on one's social position there, one might choose different survival strategies. For instance, elvish widows might try to marry into nearby human aristocracies. Elvish warriors might creat mercenary legion that work for the highest bidder. And the nobles and notables of Delrune might offer to become a vassal state to a more powerful state, perhaps sweetening the deal with some territory, widows, gold or luxury goods. Itinerant crafter/tinker guilds could emerge, working seasonally outside Delrun and returning during planting and harvest.
> 
> Anyway, just some random thoughts. Feel free to utilize or discard as you like.



Anyway, Edena, I'm retiring from this thread now. I'm glad you are still finding it useful and rewarding but, sadly, I don't think that there is anything more that I can personally contribute.

We have twice persuaded you that elves are not doomed and you have conceded this. Unfortunately, such is the dynamic of ENW that people who didn't read the posts in which you conceded and kept responding to your original posts. This seems to have caused you to also ignore the posts in which you have conceded the debate and go back to your original position. I can't keep dealing with a belligerent, amnesiac thread. (I'm characterizing the thread overall, not its individual participants.)


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 18, 2007)

Ah shucks.  Enough.
  You'all win.  Elves, shall live long and prosper.  

  Yours Sincerely
  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## shilsen (Jun 19, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Ah shucks.  Enough.
> You'all win.  Elves, shall live long and prosper.
> 
> Yours Sincerely
> Edena_of_Neith



 Finally!

*prances around hugging trees*


----------



## CryHavoc (Jun 21, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Ah shucks.  Enough.
> You'all win.  Elves, shall live long and prosper.
> 
> Yours Sincerely
> Edena_of_Neith




Heh, you had my vote...people just rely on magic too much, and not common sense in D&D.  Luckily, that's how the rules encourage you to think.

Elves 0
Humanity 10

Game over.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 21, 2007)

The point of this thread was not that elves were doomed, although that is how things appeared.
  The point was that elves could be improved upon, in the core rules.
  Or, so say I.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jun 21, 2007)

without reading the whole thread i agree with that. Elves could be improved by taking them closer to fey roots.


----------



## Forrester (Sep 2, 2007)

*I agree.*

Elves suck. 

And you just KNOW that goblins are going to get shafted in 4E.

I may have to try to do something about that . . .


----------

