# Eladrin vs. Elves



## Banshee16 (Sep 11, 2007)

I'm a little concerned about the comment about elves being creatures of instinct etc. vs the eladrin being more mental.  There appears to be an implication that they *might* be splitting the race into two different races or something.  That bothers me somewhat, as I really don't like the idea of a granular breakdown of a race, such that people have to choose one or the other, depending on what they want to do with their character.

More importantly, it completely blows up like 30 years of tradition, continuity within the settings, etc.

For what benefit?  Because we need someone to tell us that we should use the sylvan "thinker" race for a mage, and the sylvan "doer" race for a fighter or rogue?  How is this superior to having either one elven race, or subraces of the same race?

Admittedly, this is all very preliminary, and we don't have alot of info yet....just that one comment, and the image of the eladrin wizard, which made people all start asking if eladrins were going to be core, or if they're the name of aasimar in 4E, to balance against tieflings in the PHB etc.

I'm really hoping this isn't the direction they're going in.

Banshee


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 11, 2007)

See, I'm in the opposite cap. I dislike the notion of "sub-races" entirely. If the races are different, I think they should be _different_, both flavor-wise and mechanically. Otherwise, I see no point to treating them as different races at all; they're just different cultures within the same race.


----------



## William Ronald (Sep 11, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> See, I'm in the opposite cap. I dislike the notion of "sub-races" entirely. If the races are different, I think they should be _different_, both flavor-wise and mechanically. Otherwise, I see no point to treating them as different races at all; they're just different cultures within the same race.





Also, do realize that what is being said of both races is a BROAD generalization.  There may well be elven cultures that have a strong focus on logic, reason, and mental abilities, and eladrin cultures that rely more on instinct.  Indeed, there is no reason that nonhuman cultures can't be as varied as human cultures.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Sep 11, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I'm a little concerned about the comment about elves being creatures of instinct etc. vs the eladrin being more mental.  There appears to be an implication that they *might* be splitting the race into two different races or something.  That bothers me somewhat, as I really don't like the idea of a granular breakdown of a race, such that people have to choose one or the other, depending on what they want to do with their character.
> 
> More importantly, it completely blows up like 30 years of tradition, continuity within the settings, etc.
> 
> ...




Why are you assuming that they're both sylvan? I seriously doubt that Eladrin will be sylvan in any possible use of the term. I don't think Eladrins are going to have a remotely similar culture to Elves, nor live in the woods with them, or even in different woods. More likely they'll either live in multiracial cities, or their own cities, which I suspect will not be "sylvan" in any way.

As for superior/inferior, I think it's pretty similar, but "kewler". Seriously. My experience is the "blow stuff up"-type players didn't like being anything as wet-sounding as an Elf, and an Eladrin isn't an Elf, even if it's his cousin. Currently, High and Wood Elves both are very similar "sylvan" races, just with different stat mods and one of them lives in huge shining cities in the forest and... wait which one is it that does that? Oh I guess the High Elves and the Wood Elves live in villages in the tree-tops only sometimes it's the High Elves who do that and oh all these stupid pointy-eared bastards living in the bloody trees can get bent!

So I think the invention of Eladrin and full sylvanization of Elves allows them to differentiate the two groups fully.

It's particularly important given that films like LotR have actually popularized the term "Wood Elf" and many games have concepts of Wood Elves and High Elves which clash with what they want to do with them.

TLDR: Eladrin ain't sylvan.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 11, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> See, I'm in the opposite cap. I dislike the notion of "sub-races" entirely. If the races are different, I think they should be _different_, both flavor-wise and mechanically. Otherwise, I see no point to treating them as different races at all; they're just different cultures within the same race.



This is me exactly.

I think the old way is especially noxious when the base race isn't as fleshed-out as it ought to be. (Seriously, who benefits from forest gnomes and rock gnomes being separate, instead of just merging their fluff together and making one more detailed race?)


----------



## Mercule (Sep 11, 2007)

I like the split.  A lot.

I was pretty inspired by an early Dragon article on elves that painted them as extremely reluctant to fight, intellectual, and very alien to most human motivations.  The article even went on to explain that elves had a spirit instead of a soul, which is why they couldn't (1E) be raised from the dead, but could be reincarnated.  Barring magical interference, an elf would naturally be reborn as an elf, anyway, when he died.  This, combined with their long lives gave them a resistance to fear.  Yada, yada.  Grognards will know the article.

Meanwhile, many of my players came to the table with an image of elves living in the woods and being good with bows and swords.  The jump was to a fey race that is a bit reclusive and prone to pincushion any trespassers.  They wanted to play elves because elves were deadly archers and very in tune with nature.

The end result was me often saying, "You can do that, but understand that action runs contrary to your culture."  

I eventually added another group of "wood elves" that had been enslaved, etc. and are now pretty touchy about things.  But, they're a different race for all practical purposes.  Any PrC or feat based on blood would have to specify more than "elf" to be appropriate.  Either race probably has more in common, culturally, with humans than with each other.  Also, their favor class, racial abilities, stat modifiers are all different.

I like the split because I could play in a game with my sister-in-law (archer elf fan) and we could both play our own version of elf and the rules would support our choice.  If there is a hint of outsider in the eladrin and a hint of fey in the elf, all the better.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Sep 11, 2007)

Subraces should be purely based on fluff, not crunch.  Wood/high/grey/valley/other elves should be mechanically the same, but flufftastically different.  Drow aren't a subrace; they're another race entirely.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Sep 11, 2007)

IMO, the Eladrin and Elf split is a pretty darn cool one.  I can't wait to see the story behind it.  It sounds to me like the Eladrin are a highly magical race, the "parents" of both Elves and Drow.  Ages ago, a group of Eladrin were somehow separated from the rest of the race (exile? left behind? left on their own?) and as a result of ages of wars with nature, humans, orcs, and so on, the inherently magical nature of the Eladrin was shaped into a woodsy, wild race.

In the mythic past, the Drow could have been Eladrin who made pacts with Lolth or researched dark secrets.  Whatever the case, the magical essense of the Eladrin was somehow corrupted to the form it is now.


----------



## Psion (Sep 11, 2007)

It seems to me to be co-opting an otherwise useful monstrous NPC race of use in order to create the illusion that it's not just a subrace.

A rose by any other name and all that...


----------



## Banshee16 (Sep 12, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> See, I'm in the opposite cap. I dislike the notion of "sub-races" entirely. If the races are different, I think they should be _different_, both flavor-wise and mechanically. Otherwise, I see no point to treating them as different races at all; they're just different cultures within the same race.




I don't entirely object to that.  However, what I don't like is the idea of saying that if I want a sylvan wizard, and need to play a karnoozle, which is a different species than the karnuttzle, which is a sylvan race that is appropriate for use as a woodland fighter/rogue.

Why do I need two sylvan races, differentiated primarily by whether they're going to be used for an arcane vs. martial class?  It creates an arbitrary distinction based on factors which shouldn't be related to race.  In fact, it's a giant step backwards to the days of 2nd Ed., when playing a druid meant that I had to have a half-elf or human, rather than an elf, because you know....elves apparently aren't good as druids, or can't be them for some reason.

So now, you're creating the karnoozle and the karnuttzle, which are very very similar to each other....similar looks, physiology, etc. except that hey, one race is known for their martial abilities, and the other is known for their mystic accomplishments.  It overly simplifies things, making it feel like as a GM or player, I'm not smart enough to make a character properly without being handheld so that I use A if I want to play a fighter, and B if I want to be a sorcerer.

Over-specialization....I think it kind of cartoonizes things, and wrecks my suspension of disbelief.

Why not just have one race who can fill either role?  The whole idea is the same as saying that there are two types of humans.....Americans and British.  If I want to be in the military, I have to be American.  If I want to be a comedian, I have to be British.

I'm really hoping I've misunderstood/misinterpreted what they're going to do.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Sep 12, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> It's particularly important given that films like LotR have actually popularized the term "Wood Elf" and many games have concepts of Wood Elves and High Elves which clash with what they want to do with them.
> 
> TLDR: Eladrin ain't sylvan.




Except that in LotR, they had multiple groups of elves, filling different roles, with minor stat differences between them, if any.....ie. Wood Elves/Sylvan Elves, Grey Elves, Noldor, etc.

As to assuming that they're sylvan, maybe we have different definitions.  All elves, in current editions, *tend* to be depicted as being sylvan.  They live in relative harmony with nature, don't tend to clearcut forests etc.  That holds true whether they're grey elves, high elves, or wood elves....with the exception of drow.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Sep 12, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> It seems to me to be co-opting an otherwise useful monstrous NPC race of use in order to create the illusion that it's not just a subrace.
> 
> A rose by any other name and all that...




Bingo....sorry, don't have time to write more...but yeah....they're taking the name of the eladrins, to create an arbitrary split in a race which worked fine already.  And now, what do we do with the "real" eladrins?  The ones we had with Planescape and 3E?  Are they gone?  I happened to like them, myself.

You could easily have one race, and simply differentiate its role through selection of racial feats, sort of like what they did with Dawnforge, from what I remember.

So now, instead of High Elf and Wood Elf we're going to have...uh.....Eladrin and Elf.  And they look very similar to each other, but have different names, and different powers and stuff, because you know, it's cool to have them be a different race.  And then, we can create a new, similar race that makes a good cleric, and sell it in a splatbook two years from now, and then another one who makes good barbarians, etc.  But they're not the same race, nor are they subraces of the same race.  Because we need to have clearly differentiated races for every role in the game, since players can't be trusted to figure it out on their own.

Still don't like what I'm seeing..

Banshee


----------



## William Ronald (Sep 12, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Bingo....sorry, don't have time to write more...but yeah....they're taking the name of the eladrins, to create an arbitrary split in a race which worked fine already.  And now, what do we do with the "real" eladrins?  The ones we had with Planescape and 3E?  Are they gone?  I happened to like them, myself.
> 
> You could easily have one race, and simply differentiate its role through selection of racial feats, sort of like what they did with Dawnforge, from what I remember.
> 
> ...





Someone at WotC said in response to Ari's guess that on some distant worlds with names like Arvandor or Arcadia, powerful and even more alien eladrin with strange names like gaele and braelani dwell: You're a smart man, Ari.

So, expect the powerful eladrin to be around.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Sep 12, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I'm really hoping I've misunderstood/misinterpreted what they're going to do.



I think you have.  For starters, you're instantly assuming that the Eladrin will be a sylvan race but we have nothing yet to suggest that this is the case.  Furthermore, nothing suggests that an Elf can't be an accomplished wizard, so if you want a sylvan wizard it should be possible.  I suspect that an Elf wizard will be better at dodging, evading hazards, or spotting enemies, while an Eladrin wizard will be able to augment his spells and be a better orator.

We also have no firm idea what the features of Eladrin will be like, but I bet the difference between an Elf and an Eladrin appearance will be similar to the difference between an Elf and a Drow.  While I can tell that Elves and Drow are related, because of their appearance and cultures these two races are very distinct in my mind (it's much like the difference between Dwarf and Gnome, IMO).


----------



## Klaus (Sep 12, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> It seems to me to be co-opting an otherwise useful monstrous NPC race of use in order to create the illusion that it's not just a subrace.
> 
> A rose by any other name and all that...



 Maybe, just maybe, they're making the Elves the weakest (and mortal) type of Eladrin.


----------



## Intrope (Sep 12, 2007)

Jonathan Moyer said:
			
		

> IMO, the Eladrin and Elf split is a pretty darn cool one.  I can't wait to see the story behind it.  It sounds to me like the Eladrin are a highly magical race, the "parents" of both Elves and Drow.  Ages ago, a group of Eladrin were somehow separated from the rest of the race (exile? left behind? left on their own?) and as a result of ages of wars with nature, humans, orcs, and so on, the inherently magical nature of the Eladrin was shaped into a woodsy, wild race.
> 
> In the mythic past, the Drow could have been Eladrin who made pacts with Lolth or researched dark secrets.  Whatever the case, the magical essense of the Eladrin was somehow corrupted to the form it is now.



 Nifty theory! I like the Elf/Eladrin split; it's a nice homage to Tolkien. Besides, it captures something that's become very common in how D&D tends to be run: that most elves are Forest/Nature centric, rather than a lofty, mystical people. 

Now, given that Eladrin seem to be quasi-planar entities (this was alluded to on EN world by one of the designers) it seems likely that they will still fill the Knight-Errants of the Planes role too. Which could mean that Drow are essentially Eladrins who have turned to darker powers for their mystical side--making them Knave-Errants of the Planes? Hmmmm...


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 12, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Why do I need two sylvan races, differentiated primarily by whether they're going to be used for an arcane vs. martial class?  It creates an arbitrary distinction based on factors which shouldn't be related to race.  In fact, it's a giant step backwards to the days of 2nd Ed., when playing a druid meant that I had to have a half-elf or human, rather than an elf, because you know....elves apparently aren't good as druids, or can't be them for some reason.



Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but 3E has the same issue, with its 45 subspecies of elves, each of which has different stats and, typically, different favored classes. I suspect you could come very close to having an elf subrace for every class in the PHB, except the monk.

And yes, Eladrin are still a step in that (bad) direction. So that is bad, I agree.

But, on the other hand, elves are just ... elves. No subraces.

If that's the deal I have to take -- no more subraces of anyone, in return for this one final subrace split -- it beats the alternative.


----------



## Skyman (Sep 12, 2007)

Also keep in mind that one of the playtests has an eladrin ranger. If it was just that elves were the 'ranger race' and eladrin the 'wizard race', I doubt we'd see that.

The bits we've seen about eladrin (their focus on reason and intellect, for instance) sound a bit Vulcan-like, and although Vulcans and Tolkien's Elves look quite similar and have some commonalities, they are very different races.


----------



## Fobok (Sep 12, 2007)

Personally, I like the whole thing for the default book. I just hope that they keep the subraces for Forgotten Realms. (Or, at least a historical reference to them, if they get wiped during the spellplague.) Forgotten Realms needs it's sun and moon elves, even if just historically speaking. (I don't mind changes to the setting, as long as they don't try to retcon the past.)


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Sep 12, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Maybe, just maybe, they're making the Elves the weakest (and mortal) type of Eladrin.




Eladrin = ub3r-l337 elf PC race?

I hope not.  It took an entire edition to get over that last time.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 12, 2007)

I like it.

Elves are Angels who have "gone native". Not quite fallen, but neither exalted.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## coyote6 (Sep 12, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> More importantly, it completely blows up like 30 years of tradition, continuity within the settings, etc.




Have any WotC folk said or hinted that the eladrin/elf thing will be implemented in the Realms or Eberron? That eladrins or elves will replace, for example, replace sun & moon elves, or the like?

It may be that eladrins and elves are core, and then FR says something like, "use eladrin stats for sun elves, with possible changes X, Y, and/or Z; use elf stats for moon elves". 

I imagine those hints will come later.


----------



## hong (Sep 12, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> More importantly, it completely blows up like 30 years of tradition, continuity within the settings, etc.




See, there was this monster called the erinyes....


----------



## Banshee16 (Sep 12, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> See, there was this monster called the erinyes....




......which is now gone, and combined with the Lesser Tanar'ri known as the Succubus, to make one temptress type fiend, which is called a Succubus, but is now a Baatezu....erm...Devil.

Yes, I'm familiar   That doesn't mean I have to like it.

Another example of a "simplification" of an aspect of the game, when I'm really unsure if that simplification is even needed.

Banshee


----------



## DandD (Sep 12, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> ......which is now gone, and combined with the Lesser Tanar'ri known as the Succubus, to make one temptress type fiend, which is called a Succubus, but is now a Baatezu....erm...Devil.
> 
> Yes, I'm familiar   That doesn't mean I have to like it.
> 
> ...



 Seeing as the mythological Erinyes never was a whore-demon to start with, I see no problem in changing this thing and to make it more accurate.


----------



## Banshee16 (Sep 12, 2007)

DandD said:
			
		

> Seeing as the mythological Erinyes never was a whore-demon to start with, I see no problem in changing this thing and to make it more accurate.




The mythological Erinyes wasn't a demon or devil at all.  Wasn't it a Greek monster?

But the Erinyes of D&D has been a devil, a temptress since what....1979?  That's almost 30 years?  My Monster Manual 1E had the Erinyes in it, as well as the succubus.

Banshee


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Sep 12, 2007)

From what I've gathered, it appears that the sylvan elves (wood/wild) are the hillbilly-hippy cousins of the more lofty and fae-like Eladrin (gray/high elf). Eladrin appear to be more closely related to their otherworldy fae/celestial kin (the original MM Eladrin).

It's my assumption that they are effectively two related, but very distinct races... like the avari and eldar of Tolkien lore.

It seems a bit in style of the backgroud to say that elves are "better" at the ranger/druid classes and the eladrin are "better" at wizard classes, but to assume that they were designed to be the same as the twinky subraces is a bit overly cynical.

They've removed the 3e min/max familiar traditions: wood elves are rangers, high elves are fighters or rogues, gray elves are wizards, etc. So this seems a clear move in a more organic fit for the archetypes elves are generally seen as. The D&D traditionalists have their arcaney eladrin, and the the Tolkien traditionalist have their ranger/druid elves.


----------



## Banshee16 (Sep 12, 2007)

coyote6 said:
			
		

> Have any WotC folk said or hinted that the eladrin/elf thing will be implemented in the Realms or Eberron? That eladrins or elves will replace, for example, replace sun & moon elves, or the like?
> 
> It may be that eladrins and elves are core, and then FR says something like, "use eladrin stats for sun elves, with possible changes X, Y, and/or Z; use elf stats for moon elves".
> 
> I imagine those hints will come later.




They haven't said anything about that yet.  All they've done is give us hints.  We know that they've given a description of what the 4E elves might be like....ruled by instinct, living in the wild, etc. etc.  And they specifically mention that they're also known as wood elves.

That same article mentions their cousins the Eladrin, being more ruled by thought etc.

Someone on the boards, weeks ago, posted the image of the Eladrin wizard, leading to talk about whether they would be a PC race.

This discussion makes a connection between the disparate statements, to ask whether we're on the right track of understanding what they're planning to do.....and express some disapproval (in my opinion) of that planned direction *if* the underlying guess is correct......while we still don't know if it is.

You could be very right....maybe FR will just apply minor cosmetic changes to one or the other race, to make them fit their historical roles/culture.  We don't really know enough to say for sure.

But if the underlying assumption is correct (ie. that they're splitting elves into two races), I have to ask why that's better than having one race, with a few subraces with minor differences in ability scores.  The last time I checked, whether one's looking at Grey Elves, Wood Elves, High Elves, Moon Elves, Sun Elves, Qualinesti, Silvanesti, etc.......most of them have the same abilities....those of the core elf, with the only differences between them being differences in the ability score modifiers, and cosmetic differences (ie. colour of skin, hair, etc.).

There are really only a few subraces of elves that I can remember in 3E which have actual, significant, differences in their abilities....ie. Drow, Avariel, and Sea Elves.  That's about all of them that I know.  Two of them are necessary.  For Avariels, they need to have wings, or the abillity to cast fly at will, or whatever, if you want a race of flying elves.  For Sea Elves, if you want a race that lives under the ocean, well, they need the ability to breath water.

I think the argument against subraces is somewhat overdone.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Sep 12, 2007)

RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> They've removed the 3e min/max familiar traditions: wood elves are rangers, high elves are fighters or rogues, gray elves are wizards, etc. So this seems a clear move in a more organic fit for the archetypes elves are generally seen as. The D&D traditionalists have their arcaney eladrin, and the the Tolkien traditionalist have their ranger/druid elves.




And, admittedly, the name "Eladrin" muddies waters enough, with its reference to a race of immortal, celestial beings from Arborea, that we might be getting entirely the wrong idea of what the new Eladrin actually *are*.....simply by virtue of the use of their name.

Banshee


----------



## hong (Sep 12, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> The mythological Erinyes wasn't a demon or devil at all.  Wasn't it a Greek monster?




Has been, for ~3,000 years.



> But the Erinyes of D&D has been a devil, a temptress since what....1979?  That's almost 30 years?




You say this like it's a long time.


----------



## The Human Target (Sep 12, 2007)

I've never ever seen anyone talk about how "important" eladrins are in DnD until this whole argument started.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 12, 2007)

The Human Target said:
			
		

> I've never ever seen anyone talk about how "important" eladrins are in DnD until this whole argument started.



 I've never seen an Eladrin in D&D, period. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Sep 12, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> And, admittedly, the name "Eladrin" muddies waters enough, with its reference to a race of immortal, celestial beings from Arborea, that we might be getting entirely the wrong idea of what the new Eladrin actually *are*.....simply by virtue of the use of their name.
> 
> Banshee




Too true. All of my postings regarding the role of eladrin are pure conjecture.


----------



## The Human Target (Sep 12, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> I've never seen an Eladrin in D&D, period.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




If WotC had removed Eladrins from the 4E MM, and didn't announce the move, I doubt anyone would have noticed for months.


----------



## fuindordm (Sep 12, 2007)

I really like the idea of Eladrin, given that I know almost nothing about them.

Faerie is an enormously powerful archetype, and entirely appropriate for the "pseudo-Medival Europe" milieu. 

And yet, the fey have gotten little support or development in any edition of the game. We have a random assortment of monsters, but no hint as to their organization or society.  Shouldn't the Monster Manual, for example, have a "Fey" section with Brownies, Dryads, Nixies, etc. all grouped together and related to one another through the flavor text?

I can only hope that if WotC is giving us a fey or near-fey PC race, it means that they're expanding on the role that Faerie plays in the campaign.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 12, 2007)

The Human Target said:
			
		

> If WotC had removed Eladrins from the 4E MM, and didn't announce the move, I doubt anyone would have noticed for months.



"Hey, what happened to those guys? You know the guys that I mean."

"Yugoloths?"

"No, but I thought there used to be more of them. No, I meant the guys from the upper planes."

"Solars?"

"No, no, not them."

"Guardinals?"

"No, they had, like, the pointy ears and they were always about the singing and the dancing and the prancing."

"Celestial elves?"

"I want to say no, but I'm not quite sure ..."


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 12, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> See, I'm in the opposite cap. I dislike the notion of "sub-races" entirely. If the races are different, I think they should be _different_, both flavor-wise and mechanically. Otherwise, I see no point to treating them as different races at all; they're just different cultures within the same race.




I'm with the undead nocturnal mouse.

And I love the idea that there could be a conceptual thread running from Elves to Eladrin to certain celestials. Not least because it matches very closely to the 'elves' in my last campaign who were renamed aasimar and renamed half-celestials


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Sep 12, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> It seems to me to be co-opting an otherwise useful monstrous NPC race of use in order to create the illusion that it's not just a subrace.



In my experience, the eladrin were the least-used celestials by far. Even guardinals showed up more often!


----------



## jasin (Sep 12, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> In my experience, the eladrin were the least-used celestials by far. Even guardinals showed up more often!



In our AoW campaign, eladrin are the most-used celestials! A ghaele can be incorporeal, invisible for scouting, she has CLW at will (so out-of-combat healing is free), she has SR to match that of a balor, DR 10/evil and cold iron (very rare for opponents to have cold iron weapons)... I love using eladrin! 

BTW, has anyone noticed how the 3.5 SRD uses the two eladrins from the MM, but doesn't actually use the word "eladrin"?


----------



## Nifft (Sep 12, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> BTW, has anyone noticed how the 3.5 SRD uses the two eladrins from the MM, but doesn't actually use the word "eladrin"?



 Yeah. I figured it was product identity. Seemed silly, but now they're using it for something cool.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Sep 12, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> In my experience, the eladrin were the least-used celestials by far. Even guardinals showed up more often!



In my experience Guardinals were the least used.  

Simply because they were too obvious and the Eladrin weren't.  2e had this whole thing in their fluff called the "veil" were that since most Eladrin could use Alter Self at will, they had to use it to disguise themselves on the material plane, due to some contract.  Thus they were always the hidden celestials, while the others appeared in hosts.

In fact I noticed that the more recent 3.5e published adventures use Eladrin in them, such as Expedition to Castle Greyhawk and the Savage Tide AP in Dungeon.


----------



## Blind Azathoth (Sep 12, 2007)

DandD said:
			
		

> Seeing as the mythological Erinyes never was a whore-demon to start with, I see no problem in changing this thing and to make it more accurate.




Well, if we're doing this in one case, why not do it in all? From now on, all elves will be called alfar and be fertility demigods. And the dwarves are now called dvergar; they are all magical craftsmen who were created from maggots that grew in the body of a giant. Gnomes? Tiny earth elementals. Kobolds? Household sprites. Oh, and dragons can't breathe anything but fire now...


----------



## jasin (Sep 12, 2007)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> 2e had this whole thing in their fluff called the "veil" were that since most Eladrin could use Alter Self at will, they had to use it to disguise themselves on the material plane, due to some contract.  Thus they were always the hidden celestials, while the others appeared in hosts.



More details? Why did the eladrins have to stay disguised? What happened if they didn't?



> In fact I noticed that the more recent 3.5e published adventures use Eladrin in them, such as Expedition to Castle Greyhawk and the Savage Tide AP in Dungeon.



Is it 



Spoiler



Celeste


 again in Expedition to Castle Greyhawk?

She's in Shackled City, Age of Worms and Savage Tide, and she only shows her true form at the end of Savage Tide.

I find the benevolent trickster-meddler schtick quite compelling, so I though that was pretty cool.


----------



## DandD (Sep 12, 2007)

Blind Azathoth said:
			
		

> Well, if we're doing this in one case, why not do it in all? From now on, all elves will be called alfar and be fertility demigods. And the dwarves are now called dvergar; they are all magical craftsmen who were created from maggots that grew in the body of a giant. Gnomes? Tiny earth elementals. Kobolds? Household sprites. Oh, and dragons can't breathe anything but fire now...



I have no problem with this in some cases more accurate depiction of the various races... Do you?


----------



## Blind Azathoth (Sep 12, 2007)

I really wouldn't mind versions of D&D monsters that hewed more closely to their mythological roots, but I think most people _would_ mind if D&D tradition were to be discarded for more "accurate" monsters, and even I'd be sad to see the D&D kobold go.

In any case, since you agree that monsters ought to be more like their folkloric and mythological interpretations, and since _if_ they ever do reintroduce the erinyes in 4e, I'm sure it will continue to differ greatly from the Greek erinyes, I suppose my point--that it's silly to apply this "making monsters more like real mythology" rule in favor of long-established D&D lore only in one case but not in others--is moot.


----------



## The_Gneech (Sep 12, 2007)

Don't worry, they'll just change 'em all back again in 5E, claiming to get back to their roots.

-The Gneech


----------



## GreatLemur (Sep 12, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Over-specialization....I think it kind of cartoonizes things, and wrecks my suspension of disbelief.
> 
> Why not just have one race who can fill either role?  The whole idea is the same as saying that there are two types of humans.....Americans and British.  If I want to be in the military, I have to be American.  If I want to be a comedian, I have to be British.



I really think it's far too early to say that the whole elf/eladrin thing really means what you're thinking it means, but I definitely agree with your point, here.  The absurdity of whole intelligent species expressing very narrow bands of personality and lifestyle stereotype is extremely absurd and annoying.  And, let's be honest, not exactly something that D&D hasn't been guilty of for a long time.  (Although, of course, the classic offender is Star Trek.  A whole race in those shows will have the collective personality depth of a single shallow pulp character.)


----------



## Banshee16 (Sep 12, 2007)

The Human Target said:
			
		

> If WotC had removed Eladrins from the 4E MM, and didn't announce the move, I doubt anyone would have noticed for months.




Maybe those who weren't longtime Planescape gamers wouldn't have.  I ran Planescape for 9 years, so probably made more use of them than many.

Banshee


----------



## DandD (Sep 12, 2007)

Blind Azathoth said:
			
		

> I really wouldn't mind versions of D&D monsters that hewed more closely to their mythological roots, but I think most people _would_ mind if D&D tradition were to be discarded for more "accurate" monsters, and even I'd be sad to see the D&D kobold go.
> 
> In any case, since you agree that monsters ought to be more like their folkloric and mythological interpretations, and since _if_ they ever do reintroduce the erinyes in 4e, I'm sure it will continue to differ greatly from the Greek erinyes, I suppose my point--that it's silly to apply this "making monsters more like real mythology" rule in favor of long-established D&D lore only in one case but not in others--is moot.



It depends on how greatly they differ from the real mythological source. 
The Erinyes being nothing more than a simple whore-demon with a LE-alignment and birdwings as it has been depicted in D&D all the time is a really big deviance from the source. 
At least (some) Elves do sometimes spend their time in forest and care for it, and Dwarves do live under the mountain and forge new mighty weapons. The deviancy from the original mythological source is smaller in some cases. 
Of course, D&D never was that good with staying true to the mythological source, as proven by the idiocy of having thousands of elven subraces to fit every and any base- and prestige classes. That's why it's enjoyable to see that sometimes, they do make some things right regarding the roles of the monsters, as how they should be, according to the mythological source.


----------



## Banshee16 (Sep 12, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> More details? Why did the eladrins have to stay disguised? What happened if they didn't?
> 
> 
> Is it
> ...




The Eladrin were a chaotic good celestial race, and did not believe in organized interference in mortal affairs.  It would be too tempting to get involved in every cause on the Prime, if mortals knew who and what an Eladrin was, so in 2nd Ed. the Eladrin were a celestial race that tended to work from the shadows.  They were more like manipulators and catalysts of events, rather than applying brute celestial force.

As such, they used the Veil to hide themselves from mortals.  *All* Eladrins had Alter Self as a default ability, and were *required* by the Eladrin courts to use it when visiting the Prime.  An Eladrin that was caught violating the Veil would be punished by Queen Morwel, their leader, and banished from the Prime for 1,001 years.

That whole veil, and the idea of banishment was the plotline behind a character I once played...a half-eladrin (was an aasimar in 2nd Ed.) whose father was a human in Taladas, and mother was a ghaele eladrin, who fell in love, became pregnant, and then, faced with an invasion of the land in which they lived, dropped her Veil to save her husband's life, and was subsequently banished, once she'd saved the village.  The character spent much of her career trying to find a working portal back to Taladas to find her father, when, timeline-wise, it was the 5th Age, before the War of Souls, and planar access points to Krynn had either disappeared, or become *very* unreliable.

Unfortunately 3E changed things.  In the attempt to make monsters more focused on their roles as encounters, the Alter Self ability was removed from most Eladrin, IIRC, which kind of meant that the whole idea of the Veil didn't work anymore, and that changed the nature of the Eladrin race.  It was an issue I had with monster creation in 3E, because I felt that everything was too dungeon/combat focused, and by the comments in Mike Mearls workshops on monster design, I'm concerned that the problem (as I see it) will be even more exaggerated in 4E.

Banshee


----------



## Irda Ranger (Sep 12, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> See, I'm in the opposite cap. I dislike the notion of "sub-races" entirely. If the races are different, I think they should be _different_, both flavor-wise and mechanically. Otherwise, I see no point to treating them as different races at all; they're just different cultures within the same race.



Ditto.

And as others have mentioned, there's no evidence that Eladrin will be "sylvan", as the OP contends.

I like that we now have a tight "expectation" of what a "standard" elf will act like. We can still have characters that deviate from the norm, but not we've just a "normal" elf to compare him too.

We've had the same problem with gnomes for a long time, starting with the 'great divide' instigated by the Tinker Gnomes in DL.  AD&D 2e and 3e was never clear on whether gnomes were 'fey naturalists' or 'mad alchemists.'  I guess rather than clear that up, they were removed from the PHB entirely, which is fine with me.

If I were doing some campaign conversions:
Dragonlance: Qualinesti, Sylvanesti = Eladrin; Kagonesti = Elf
Forgotten Realms: Grey/Gold Elf = Eladrin; Moon/Wood Elf = Elf

I am neutral at this point on whether I like that Elves and Eladrin are related, however distantly. I would prefer that Eladrin were "sort of outsiders" while Elves (and Drow) are "sort of fey."


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Sep 12, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Forgotten Realms: Grey/Gold Elf = Eladrin; Moon/Wood Elf = Elf
> 
> I am neutral at this point on whether I like that Elves and Eladrin are related, however distantly. I would prefer that Eladrin were "sort of outsiders" while Elves (and Drow) are "sort of fey."




This kind of raises an interesting point related to the issues here.

What the hell are they going to do with elves in existing settings? For new settings, the Elf/Eladrin divide ain't no thang, but for something like the FR, where the whole Grey/Gold Elf and Moon/Wood Elf deals are pretty well-established, well, that's a bit trickier?

Perhaps they'll just provide stats for the individual races in the FR main book, and ignore the Elf/Eladrin deal, or perhaps they have some giant retcon that Grey/Gold Elves were Eladrins all along, or that by 145X realms-time, they've renamed themselves to that. A bit wierd either way, really.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Sep 12, 2007)

Is there any reason why the specific settings should not simply override the defaults. In FR I think it should be left alone. They are all elves and Eladrin do not feature. Why fix what is not broken. 

      Now, they have also said that race effects occur through out the characters career but if that is racially split in the default (Eladrin/Elves) there is no reason in FR that it could not be Sun/Moon Elves. The mechanics may be the same but the justification is fluff.

      Ebberon is a bit trickier since the Elves are nor are they sylvian nor are they high arcanists, they are horse calvary with a tendency to take ancestor worship to necromantic levels but without the nasty side effects that usually entails. That said the fey on Ebberon exist on a seperate plane that interacts with the prime, I could see more changes to Ebberon from this. A New type of Elf different from the elves of Arenal and the Eladrin both linked to the fey but by different routes.


----------



## Banshee16 (Sep 13, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Has been, for ~3,000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> You say this like it's a long time.




Given I had just learned to talk (I think) when it was first made a tempter devil in the MM, it's a long time to me 

Maybe not to my grandfather, but...

It's all a matter of perspective.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Sep 13, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I like that we now have a tight "expectation" of what a "standard" elf will act like. We can still have characters that deviate from the norm, but not we've just a "normal" elf to compare him too.
> 
> We've had the same problem with gnomes for a long time, starting with the 'great divide' instigated by the Tinker Gnomes in DL.  AD&D 2e and 3e was never clear on whether gnomes were 'fey naturalists' or 'mad alchemists.'  I guess rather than clear that up, they were removed from the PHB entirely, which is fine with me.
> 
> ...




Why do we have to have a tight definition of how they'll act though.  How do humans act?  Probably in 6 billion different ways.  Why should any other intelligent, humanoid race be any different, in terms of being suggested or built to conform to a stereotype?

Banshee


----------

