I don't think that keeping the cosmology grounded and strict does necessary brings uncreative characters and monotonous stories. You can create an infinity of interesting stories and characters just in Norse kind of mythology, or just in Greek kind of story, etc.
"He is a one-legged black or mulatto youngster with holes in the palms of his hands, who smokes a pipe and wears a magical red cap that enables him to disappear and reappear wherever he wishes (usually in the middle of a dust devil). Considered an annoying prankster in most parts of Brazil, and a potentially dangerous and malicious creature in others, he nevertheless grants wishes to anyone who manages to trap him or steal his magic cap. However, his cap is often depicted as having a bad smell. Most people who claimed to have stolen this cap say they can never wash the smell away."
Sure, Saci is a rich myth of Brazilian folklore, but he really doesn't have anything to do with the Norse Dwarf. And I personally don't think it would suit D&D well... It really doesn't suits me mixing Norse and Tolkien-type of dwarves with Egyptian kind of dwarf, or something like that.
I really like the mythology of my games very tied and grounded. But there isn't such a thing as a "right way to play D&D". I prefere things grounded, but you can have fun in another way.
Sure, it doesn't have to, but ist sadly does so with most dwarves I actually really liked what they did with the dwarves in Dragon Age: Origins, where they live in an egalitarian cast system. Sure, most other tropes still apply, but it was something. I also liked the part with the golems (Shale is the best, hands down).
@Buttercheese Give me enough dragons done right and I'll read anything. Shadowrun, is the truth; beside not all fantasy has coockie cutter elves, I have a liking for the Drow obviously.
Elder Scrolls dwarves are elves (although the original dwarves of Norse mythology were elves too) with a pseudo-Abyssinian flair. Well, were.
That felt really silly and retconned to me in Skyrim. I just wish they had left "dwarves" out of ES completely. Don't get me wrong, I'm for more creative deptictions of dwarves, but taking an elf, which look lika a human, but has the charistarictics of a 'classic' dwarf (mines/metallurgy/golems/tinkering/etc) and then calling it a dwarf? Naah, that's just lazy and unimaginative writing.
@Skatan How much do you know about TES because that wasn't a retcon, the dwemer are one of the older races in the game... They got the name "dwarves" because that's what the giants referred to them as.
Add onto that. Any technological advanced race in the TES or any fantasy scenario could be viewed as copy cat of dwarves when that's literally the main thing people want to connect that archetype type to.
As far as laziness goes, laziness is how most of western fantasies suck the -beep- of Tolkien's elves, and they aren't just sucking it, they are deep throating it! The whole cliche he created with LOTR is so over freaking used, that I almost gave up on fantasy all together... Seeing how mythology and fantasy are two of the main fuels behind my own artwork. That was a dark day for me.
And the biggest hitter is I've seen many people say that thwy are tired of seeing dragons and call them cliche, but love the clitche that elves are 90% of the time. I wish I still had the old work from my time in college for game design. We had to design characters for class and I said I was going to make a elf character. My instructor was against because it was a already over saturated character desigb and he wanted me to expand on more interesting design and I just told him to trust me on this one.
I took everything that seemed to be universally established about elves, and -beep- on it. I gave them these stretched necks, the ugly monkey like faces, digitigrade hind legs like a a dog or a cat, 3 six inch claws which it used for digging through the dirt since burrowing washow they travelled, they bad big bulky bodies covered in head to toe in fur a d they lived in desert wastelands.
Everyone who saw the drawing tried to argue to death with me how that was not a "elf," because you know. Fantasy character that doesn't exist can be portrayed inaccurately. Then again all a -bleeping- elf is a human with pointed ear for some reason with some metaphysical bs supposably attach to them so we can claim that thet are actually different
I personally don't like the idea of female dwarves having a full beard, but that's just me. I much prefer the idea of dwarf women having light hair around their face, perhaps sideburns, but no mustaches and no full beard whatsoever. In my latest IWD EE run I created Tronda of Moradin, daughter of Trimia, a warrior/thief. In my mind, I imagine Tronda having some light sideburns, but I suck at modifying portraits. Here's the portrait anyway: I would like to give the artist credit, but for Moradin's sake, I do not remember where I found it. It might very well be that I found the portrait here on these forums. Reverse image search tells me the oldest occurrence of this portrait is from Jason Chan, might have something in common with dragon age. Another good portrait I sometimes used for female dwarves was included in the original IWD portrait pack, this: Similar results work just fine in my mind. I am a simple man - ahem, dwarf. Ahem, Dungeon Master...
@Skatan How much do you know about TES because that wasn't a retcon, the dwemer are one of the older races in the game... They got the name "dwarves" because that's what the giants referred to them as.
Not much, other than what's told to the player in Skyrim. I didn't say it was retconned, I said it "feels" retconned. I wonder though when that was written. Was the dwemer present in older ES games and was that piece of lore created years and years ago? Why even bother with calling them dwarves? That's my point. It feels more like that the game creators felt they "had" to have dwarves in their lore as well, so they just took a race and named it dwarves and then came up with some semiplausable reason for it (the giants calling them dwarves).
Add onto that. Any technological advanced race in the TES or any fantasy scenario could be viewed as copy cat of dwarves when that's literally the main thing people want to connect that archetype type to.
I disagree. Noone would have thought that of the dwemer if they hadn't added the ridiculous lore of them being "dwarves". They could just as well been inspired by Atlantis (mythological 'humans' with a knack for technology etc, they as well "disappeared", just as the dwemer) or maybe not inspired by any other common lore/race at all.
And the biggest hitter is I've seen many people say that thwy are tired of seeing dragons and call them cliche, but love the clitche that elves are 90% of the time. I wish I still had the old work from my time in college for game design. We had to design characters for class and I said I was going to make a elf character. My instructor was against because it was a already over saturated character desigb and he wanted me to expand on more interesting design and I just told him to trust me on this one.
I took everything that seemed to be universally established about elves, and -beep- on it. I gave them these stretched necks, the ugly monkey like faces, digitigrade hind legs like a a dog or a cat, 3 six inch claws which it used for digging through the dirt since burrowing washow they travelled, they bad big bulky bodies covered in head to toe in fur a d they lived in desert wastelands.
Everyone who saw the drawing tried to argue to death with me how that was not a "elf," because you know. Fantasy character that doesn't exist can be portrayed inaccurately. Then again all a -bleeping- elf is a human with pointed ear for some reason with some metaphysical bs supposably attach to them so we can claim that thet are actually different
Interresting. I don't agree with you, but I respect your opinion. To me, taking away everything that is an elf but still calling it an elf, seem just unnecessary. I'm for creative thinking, but if you create something entirely new, then why even bother calling it an elf? What's your main drive and prupose for this?
There are alot better ways, in my humble opinion, to apply new thinking to the old cliche's. You could create a setting where dwarves are magical creatures and are always born with innate magic and elves are a newer race, the next step in evolution from humans who are very technolically advanced and live in space or whatever. Same with dragons really, some charactiristics should stay, but one can make them talk or not talk, fly or not fly, be humongous and unkillable or small, common and a common critter etc. I actually think there has been alot of failry creative depictions of dragons in many games, DA:O for example who put dragons into a new context with the blight and all.
But this thread is about dwarves and not elves and/or dragons, so I'm gonna stop talking now
For elder scrolls they were in Morrowind, which was before Skyrim. There you can piece together what probably happened to them and meet the last dwarf. I actually like the name for them. It was a nod to the lack of Tolkien dwarves, but how ES had someone in the same general sphere of influence.
It was also neat seeing elves and dwarves merged together so well, as the ES dwarves felt unique and engaging.
For the record, TES had dwemer lore ever since Arena. Which was released 1994 if I remember correctly. Back then there were also "nicknamed" dwarves by the Imperials.
Curiously, the dwemer have more in common with the Norse Svartalfar than Tolkien's dwarves. Originally, they had the same height as humans, with grey skin and black hair. The short stature of typical dwarves only came much later, probably while overlapping them with the stories of kobolds, goblins, or the child miners of the Roman Empire.
@Skatan How much do you know about TES because that wasn't a retcon, the dwemer are one of the older races in the game... They got the name "dwarves" because that's what the giants referred to them as.
Not much, other than what's told to the player in Skyrim. I didn't say it was retconned, I said it "feels" retconned. I wonder though when that was written. Was the dwemer present in older ES games and was that piece of lore created years and years ago? Why even bother with calling them dwarves? That's my point. It feels more like that the game creators felt they "had" to have dwarves in their lore as well, so they just took a race and named it dwarves and then came up with some semiplausable reason for it (the giants calling them dwarves).
Add onto that. Any technological advanced race in the TES or any fantasy scenario could be viewed as copy cat of dwarves when that's literally the main thing people want to connect that archetype type to.
I disagree. Noone would have thought that of the dwemer if they hadn't added the ridiculous lore of them being "dwarves". They could just as well been inspired by Atlantis (mythological 'humans' with a knack for technology etc, they as well "disappeared", just as the dwemer) or maybe not inspired by any other common lore/race at all.
And the biggest hitter is I've seen many people say that thwy are tired of seeing dragons and call them cliche, but love the clitche that elves are 90% of the time. I wish I still had the old work from my time in college for game design. We had to design characters for class and I said I was going to make a elf character. My instructor was against because it was a already over saturated character desigb and he wanted me to expand on more interesting design and I just told him to trust me on this one.
I took everything that seemed to be universally established about elves, and -beep- on it. I gave them these stretched necks, the ugly monkey like faces, digitigrade hind legs like a a dog or a cat, 3 six inch claws which it used for digging through the dirt since burrowing washow they travelled, they bad big bulky bodies covered in head to toe in fur a d they lived in desert wastelands.
Everyone who saw the drawing tried to argue to death with me how that was not a "elf," because you know. Fantasy character that doesn't exist can be portrayed inaccurately. Then again all a -bleeping- elf is a human with pointed ear for some reason with some metaphysical bs supposably attach to them so we can claim that thet are actually different
Interresting. I don't agree with you, but I respect your opinion. To me, taking away everything that is an elf but still calling it an elf, seem just unnecessary. I'm for creative thinking, but if you create something entirely new, then why even bother calling it an elf? What's your main drive and prupose for this?
To reinvent what has been overused to the point it's a saturated cliche? To bring new life and design to something that at has been trapped in stasis? I mean lets kick the ballistics here.le s looks at elves from the stand point of a character and creature artist... They are just humans with pointed ears. This is a repeated design and that is just ingrained into people head through constant use Tolkien copy cats. Based on my knowledge, Tolkien wanted to make a mythology and he succeeded and I have nothing but love and respect for the man for doing what I'm trying to do right. Now, create my own uni/multi/omniverse. To my knowledge, his elves were based on t Humans in the bible, what man would be like if they had not eaten the fruit that the serpent had given them. Pure, uncorrupt, and perfect; interesting for what Tolkien was doing.
Now let's look at it from a writers perspective, many western fantasies tend to cliche the in a Tolkien way, they live with nature... They are vegans and vegetarians, they are holier than man. They have bodies that stop aging at their prime for some god damn reason, which people usually call immortal bodies despite the fact that that is not how immortality works. These are some of the most overused cliches that elfs get pigeon holed into.
Then we have groups like blizzard, wizards of the coast, and Bethesda Softworks who art happy with just type of fucking elf, we get the same already seen just copied and pasted... Aquatic Elves, Gray Elves, High Elves, Wood Elves, Drow, Wild Elves, Snow Elves, Night Elves, BLOOD ELVES, THERR IS LITERALLY MORE RACE OF ELVE THEN THERE ARE OTHER HUMAN ETHNICITY IN WESTERN FANTASY! A lot of the bs that gets attached to all these fantasy elves sub species are things that could've been Mesoamerican-isque, African-isque, Asian-isque type of humans instead of grabbing the same cliche race that is just a human with pointed ears by design.
At least with dragons their design changes and people argue what is and isn't a Dragon which makes it more fun;
"You Quetzalcoatl and Aido-Hwedo are the mesoamerican and African versons of dragons."
"What? No they are not, they are serpents, snakes; their names literally translate to feathered and rainbow serpent."
"By that logic, neither are oriental dragons since they are also serpentine in nature, and have absolutely nothing in common with the Eurocentric idea of what a Dragon. What is a Dragon anyways? I mean besides a combination of multiple animals to create a single.creature. The very first sentence of the the definition of the word Dragon is a mythical monster like a giant reptile, and last time I checked; snakes were reptiles. Then look at some of the older Christian depictions of dragons, they looked a lot like snakes with wings and leg than they do moat modern depictions of dragons, so explain to me how Aido-Hwedo and Quetzalcoatl can't be considered dragons? Don't forget about all the modern day depictions of dragons that just go away from what Eurocentric mythologies tells us they are."
There are alot better ways, in my humble opinion, to apply new thinking to the old cliche's. You could create a setting where dwarves are magical creatures and are always born with innate magic and elves are a newer race, the next step in evolution from humans who are very technolically advanced and live in space or whatever. Same with dragons really, some charactiristics should stay, but one can make them talk or not talk, fly or not fly, be humongous and unkillable or small, common and a common critter etc. I actually think there has been alot of failry creative depictions of dragons in many games, DA:O for example who put dragons into a new context with the blight and all.
But this thread is about dwarves and not elves and/or dragons, so I'm gonna stop talking now
Cliche isn't just about how they get written, also how they get designed. Shadowrun did it best for me, there is none of this high/wood elf ish to my knowledge, despite elves ultimately being second in power to only the greater dragons who basically rule the world, the "Goblinization" began. Humans at random started to be transformed into orck and trolls, while children started being born as elves and dwarves. This ish happened in masses, all before the horrified eyes of spectators watching wherever they currently were. It caused fear and discrimination towards metahumans. Oh and after dragons started waking up, and sitings of them started happening, DUNKELZAHN (one of the great dragons) same forward to explain eveverything that was happening in a 12 hour and 16 minute interview. Then went on to become tthe7h President of the UCAS and started making policy to fight against metahumans discrimination and push towards equality.
Omg it was so beautiful! THAT was taking a new spin on old cliches for me.
Anyways, at this point I'm practically rant, so carry on.@skatan. Also @Kamigoroshi just gave a better description than I did.
@dragonking; it's quite confusing when you sometimes write with and sometimes without quotation marks. I don't know if you're quiting someone else or if you are actually stating your own opinion. Example:
"*snip*... so explain to me how Aido-Hwedo and Quetzalcoatl can't be considered dragons? Don't forget about all the modern day depictions of dragons that just go away from what Eurocentric mythologies tells us they are." "
I have no idea if you mean that I've argued against this in my post or if you're just citing from somewhere.
But to at least try to answer the bits and pieces I (think) I understood from your post:
You seem to have misunderstood me. The very examples you bring forth yourself to counter my post says the same thing that I said: You can change the context around a race to make it very different from the cliché, like the examples you wrote about both elves and dragons yet still keep some classic characteristics (pointy ears for elves, scales and firebreath for dragons etc).
I've still to hear why you want to completely change a classic race into something completely different and new but retain the old classic name of the race. Let me give you an example:
Take bear, remove the arms and replace with wings. Remove the fur and replace with feathers. Remove the mouth and teeth and replace with a beek, etc. You still want to call it a bear because you're thinking outside the box and don't fall for clichés. Me? I'd just call it a bird. That's my point and that's my question about your own interpretation of elves, the one you draw in art class, why sticking to the name "elf" if your obvious talented creative thinking have made something completely new?
@Skatan Ok now I'm confused me, because what you -snip- and didn't snip was all part of one big quote, and was in quotation marks. Which came before to other quotes which all three were in conjunction to each other, and it was an example of how people can argue what is and isn't a Dragon despite the pre installed ideas that we have about dragons.
I'll quote it and make a easier separation, because this wasn't directed at you in the slightest, it was example of what I said before it. This is literally a discussion I had on the smite forums with another member about Kukulkan, who to me is the Mayan form of a Dragon, but to that member it was not.
Person 1: "You know Quetzalcoatl and Aido-Hwedo are the mesoamerican and African versons of dragons."
Person 2: "What? No they are not, they are serpents, snakes; their names literally translate to feathered and rainbow serpent."
Person 1: "By that logic, neither are oriental dragons since they are also serpentine in nature, and have absolutely nothing in common with the Eurocentric idea of what a Dragon. What is a Dragon anyways? I mean besides a combination of multiple animals to create a single.creature. The very first sentence of the the definition of the word Dragon is a mythical monster like a giant reptile, and last time I checked; snakes were reptiles. Then look at some of the older Christian depictions of dragons, they looked a lot like snakes with wings and leg than they do moat modern depictions of dragons, so explain to me how Aido-Hwedo and Quetzalcoatl can't be considered dragons? Don't forget about all the modern day depictions of dragons that just go away from what Eurocentric mythologies tells us they are."
Now how can I change preinstalled concepts ideas and still call it by the base name? Simple, because the example you gave has one significant flaw that mine does not. You're example is using non fictional/fantasy creatures in a world you don't control. Bears in birds are real creatures with specific anatomy that is recognized by science and fact; not faith and fantasy.
My changes happened in a world I control, I'm the artist anf writer of that world, therefore I am god. I am taking a fantasy idea, by even a character and making it what I say it is.you can't argue it because there is no law or rules stating that a elf has to be this or that. You can disprove it scientifically because they don't exist, and the closet we get to clichéd idea of elves are humans, and if you're going to make that a argue, why have elves in the first place? Why not just put another ethnicity of humans and be done with it?
Tolken's elves are Tolken's elves because he said they were, not because their were some kind of proof that they were real. Just like the Keebler Elves are Keebler Elves because the company says they are. There is nothing say other because fantasy, not real.
Halfings, are literally a race that exactly like humans, but half their size. Yet this bull ish is accepted, they are basically small humans, we have a word for those in the real world and its a medical condition called dwarfism, at least they exist. They can be proven, you cannot, while elf ears are arguably a real deformity and a medical condition I will emit, but again it's a fantasy idea created by a man and I'm talking about Tolken's elves, the ones seen 90% of the time I'm western fantasy, and tell me know have to follow his standards to call something he ultimately made up a elf.
Edit Oh, and just to make sure everyone understands. We all have our opinion andbi do respect everyone's opinion. I know my opinion and ideas no more important or real than anyone elses.
Well a name should evoke an image. Language evolves, but if you are building off a current word then it should still evoke something that is immediately recognizable to the listener or viewer.
Those are the three types of elves that the word has evolved to encapsulate. Even Tolkien began by working off of the old tales and his elves evolved into what we see. Much of the strength of his work is because he made a conscious effort to build off of the old to make the new.
For your example, you took elves and changed everything about them. The word is no longer relatable. There is nothing 'elven' left besides the name, which no longer fits because the image no longer matches the image the name evokes.
I would have found it more creative to build and change off of one of the current three elven 'norms' to make something new.
@DragonKing From what I've been able to understand so far, is that you would only accept elves if they have barely any of the things that define them as such. Which would mean they could hardly be counted as elves anymore.
At the top of my head, I can think of several depictions of dwarves that have been around long before Tolkien:
Snowwhite and the seven dwarves The seven dwarves are grumpy, short, stocky, miners but also kind hearted and ugly. Illustration from the 19th century
Snowwhite and Rosered The nameless dwarf here is REALLY grumpy, ungrateful, greedy, ugly, bearded and very protective of said beard. Illustration by Alexander Zick, late 19th century
The Nibelungen legend Alberich is greedy, short, ugly, able to cast magic and a hermit. Here is a depiction of him with the rhine daughters by Arthur Reckham (ca. 1910)
Gardengnomes They are small and stocky, have long white beards, red pointy hats, cheerful, cheeky, cute but not exactly pretty, chubby, hardworking. Illustrations from 1910
As you can see, dwarves have been very defined even before Tolkien has been around. He didn't even change them up much, aside from making them also proud warriors and some minor stuff.
Elves on the other hand ... let's just say that most people here don't think of Legolas, Drizzt or Sylvanas Windrunner or even agelic figures dancing in the moonlight, but rather of Tinkerbell.
The modern depiction of elves is certainly entirely based on Tolkien's works. Before that, elves where basically just "nature ghosts" which could be anything from a pixie, to a really beautiful woman dancing in the moonlight, a little gnome who does your work at night (Heinzelmännchen), christmas elves, strange looking pranksters who live in tree-tops who would steal your baby in the middle of the night and so on and so forth.
Like I mentioned before, my personal defining depiction of elves are the elves from Wendy Pini's ElfQuest.
The High Ones Basically high elves, the original elves who came from outer space and then shapeshifted to look more akin to humans. All of them had magic powers.
The Wolfriders Short wild or wood elves, basically. Their common ancestor was the child of a High One and a wolf.
The Sunfolk Short, dark skinned elves who live in a desert oasis (the image also includes a few wolfriders).
The Gliders They are direct descendants of the High Ones and have the ability to fly.
The Go-Backs Descendands of the Wolfriders from the ice cold north.
Other races:
The Humans These are usually the antagonists in the story aside from the few who are not blinded by prejudice towards the "demons". The ones who live close to the Gliders even worship the elves as gods. Back when the elves reached the planet, they where still just savage stone age people. The High Ones didn't know how to communicate with them and the humans where too frightened, which is where most of the prejudices against elves where born.
The Trolls The trolls are as clicheed as it gets and share a lot of tropes with Tolkien's dwarves. They are descendands of the ape-like servants of the High Ones.
The Preservers Basically Pixies. They are small and annoying but they can produce silk that can preserve anything for a literal eternity. They are aliens, like the elves and the trolls.
At the beginning of the story, the different elf tribes are in most cases not aware of each other's existance, aside from the lost High Ones, who get worshipped by all of them. As the story progresses further, the tribes more and more mix, the Sunfolk and the Wolfriders become basically one big tribe, some Go-Backs return to the Wolfriders and the different tribes have offsprings with each other.
Here are the traits they all have in common: They don't age beyond a certain point (there even is a story where they literally go back in time by living so long that the universe's lifecicle just repeads itself and everything is repeated. The fact that they can't die of natural causes also lead to them leaving their planet because the planet suffered from overpopulization), they are curious, have no body hair and only very rarely facial hair, four fingers on each hand, sometimes they possess magic powers (healing, shapeshifting, flight, being able to shape wood or stone out of will, etc.), they can communicate telepathically (called "sending"), they are naturally skinny and they tend to be rather spiritual and passionate.
And that's as far as it goes. All the characters are vastly different in personality and the main villain of the story aren't the humans or the trolls, it's another elf. The elf in question is also the mother of the only half-elf in that story, the father being a troll. She was only able to conceive the child thanks to her very powerful magic though.
One of my favourite stories is the one where one of the Wolfriders finds an abandoned human child and raises it as her own. It's so great because it show cases very greatly just how different humans and elves *actually* are.
Gah, I have been writing on this post way too long and forgot where I was going with it, so I am just gonna leave it at that for now ^^'
@Grum The thing about words is that they aren't obsolutes. Words just like language is a man made construct, not a universal construct as unless you ou can show me where in history words existed before man.man attached words to things, so the meaning and ideas that words can create changes as man see fit.
I created a world where an elf doesn't fall under any traditional idea of the word elf, but in that world, it is the traditional idea of a elf because it exist in that world, because I choose to not make that world follow the same formula as our own. It's you the viewer who chooses to acknowledge and accept that worlds rules or law. It's no different than how, if I created panels of a single person releasing several object from his hand and it goes into the sky. The laws of that world, unless stated by the artist or elsewhere in the comic, things go up instead of down in that world created. People perceive everything to follow the ideas and concept that we accept as the normal, and to work in our own realm of thought.l, even though that seperate realm does not.
@DragonKing From what I've been able to understand so far, is that you would only accept elves if they have barely any of the things that define them as such. Which would mean they could hardly be counted as elves anymore. ^^'
@Buttercheese How did you peircive that? The fact that I like the Drow of the FR, and the elves of shadowrun shows that I'm more than willing and capable of accepting elves. Just like I'm quite willing to accept an elf if the world that it exist in, changes it to something completely different from the idea of an elf that people conform to it, I'm perfectly fine with someone trying to reinvent a word and its idea, it doesn't change anything outside that world.
If I didn't accept elves as they were, I couldn't get tired of the saturated cliche.
I understand that you can do that. But strangers are unlikely to accept that because only you know the backstory to your world. For just showing art, using a name that is associated with something else will confuse people.
Mithril is commonly thought of as being incredibly light and hard metal used by dwarves and elves to make armor and weapons of great potency. Mithril is so rare that people can mistake it for being magical.
I draw a picture of a tree and call it "mithril" because in my setting mithril is a kind of tree. It is very common and can be found anywhere. It is usually used for cheap products and firewood because it breaks easily.
I'm the only one who knows the backstory of my world. If I took that picture to class, people would say "that's not mithril." Because for everyone else but myself mithril has a set image of what it looks like. It wouldn't be fair of me to expect others to accept my version of mithril. It would also be far easier for me to name the tree something that doesn't carry strong connotations.
However! If the mithril tree was (a) very rare (b) as hard as steel (c) the knowledge of how to shape it was a guarded secret and (d) it's properties were often mistaken for being magical...then naming it Mithril would make sense. Upon seeing the metallic tree, people would go 'oh, he is using the name to evoke the Tolkien imagery while giving a new spin on an old trope"
The same goes for elves. If these...tunneling horrors that you created were small fey tricksters that acted like traditional elves in a different geographical location (i.e.: move the faerie doc out of the forest and into the desert) then people might get it more. But even that needs explanation, so the picture would have to show the tunneling horrors doing elven things to get across the concept. Otherwise, how can you expect anyone to accept your naming?
If you divorce the name from everything elven, why not draw a can of soup and title it "elf"?
Well, yes, but aside from maybe the looks (pretty, slim and pointy ears) they have barely anything in common with what is perceived as elf in modern pop-culture. I am not too familiar with Shadowrun, but from what I've gotten all the other races there are literally human mutants. Are there any personality traits, behaviours or something associated with them? Or are they just literally humans with pointy ears?
IMO a good fantasy race is achieved when you can explain what made them the way they are, where do the stereotypes come from in-universe and not simply by explaining how they look. Why are Elves usually portrait as so condescending towards other races? For the same reasons any older person can appear condescending towards a younger person. With age comes wisdom.
Same goes for their love for nature. Unlike for example humans, they are gonna be still around after everything is destroyed. Most humans don't care for the long-term consequences, because they are not effected by them. Elves are.
One could make the argument that other long-lived races, such as the dwarves, would feel the same, but here is where the crucial distinction comes in place:
Dwarves live underground for a reason. Rocks don't change unless you make them. Even after a cave-in a rock will still be a rock or at worst several smaller rocks. They like the steady and predictable. Living underground means having no weather, no rain, no storms. Riches give a sense of safety because it means you can buy food and whatever else you need to live and thick stone walls keep outsiders and external threats away. They are grumpy when they have to deal with outsiders because outsiders are unpredictable ergo a threat. Since they don't see the above world change, they are not concerned with it. (Maybe that's also why all dwarves are the same. Because it reflects their sense for tradition.)
Since neither FR's Drow nor the Shadowrun elves share the above mentioned motivations, they can hardly be counted as elves in that context. There is more than just a low BMI and pointy ears to this package.
Wow, you guys were productive after I left this convo yesterday!
I'm not sure if I should reply here or in the other thread, but since that thread seem to be more about art, I'll stick to this one. If any mod want to move my reply to the other thread, it's fine by me.
@Skatan Ok now I'm confused me, because what you -snip- and didn't snip was all part of one big quote, and was in quotation marks. Which came before to other quotes which all three were in conjunction to each other, and it was an example of how people can argue what is and isn't a Dragon despite the pre installed ideas that we have about dragons.
I'll quote it and make a easier separation, because this wasn't directed at you in the slightest, it was example of what I said before it. This is literally a discussion I had on the smite forums with another member about Kukulkan, who to me is the Mayan form of a Dragon, but to that member it was not.
Ok sorry. I didn't get that you quoted so much from the same place. It was kinda confusing, but considering you're typing on a phone, it's understandable. Take this as _constructive_ critiscism, if you want the reader to understand, try to use subject lines, proper qoutes and/or spoiler segments. It makes it easier to create 'blocks' in your post so the reader can understand.
Now how can I change preinstalled concepts ideas and still call it by the base name? Simple, because the example you gave has one significant flaw that mine does not. You're example is using non fictional/fantasy creatures in a world you don't control. Bears in birds are real creatures with specific anatomy that is recognized by science and fact; not faith and fantasy.
My changes happened in a world I control, I'm the artist anf writer of that world, therefore I am god. I am taking a fantasy idea, by even a character and making it what I say it is.you can't argue it because there is no law or rules stating that a elf has to be this or that. You can disprove it scientifically because they don't exist, and the closet we get to clichéd idea of elves are humans, and if you're going to make that a argue, why have elves in the first place? Why not just put another ethnicity of humans and be done with it?
Tolken's elves are Tolken's elves because he said they were, not because their were some kind of proof that they were real. Just like the Keebler Elves are Keebler Elves because the company says they are. There is nothing say other because fantasy, not real.
Halfings, are literally a race that exactly like humans, but half their size. Yet this bull ish is accepted, they are basically small humans, we have a word for those in the real world and its a medical condition called dwarfism, at least they exist. They can be proven, you cannot, while elf ears are arguably a real deformity and a medical condition I will emit, but again it's a fantasy idea created by a man and I'm talking about Tolken's elves, the ones seen 90% of the time I'm western fantasy, and tell me know have to follow his standards to call something he ultimately made up a elf.
Edit Oh, and just to make sure everyone understands. We all have our opinion andbi do respect everyone's opinion. I know my opinion and ideas no more important or real than anyone elses.
I understand your POV, and won't spend to much time explaning something which @grum already explained (his example with the mithril). You could take my example and exchange it for anything really, take the bear and exchange it with a Klingon, a Vampire or Donald Duck. None of them are real, all of them convey a very specific image in the viewers/readers mind.
With this said, I hate to nag on you, but you still haven't answered the question WHY you want to keep the name "elf" on something which is obviously so different from the classical view of elfs. It almost feels like you're doing it in spite, just to play with peoples prejudice/preconvieved images. Is it the whole "a pipe is not a pipe"-thing that drives you?
FYI though, I'm not arguing for arguings sake here. I don't want to "win" this discussion, I am geniuenly interrested in understanding the reasons behind your thoughts in this issue since they are so diametrically different from my own.
I really like the way they are handled in www.guildedage.net
There they are called the Savasi. They used to live in the Solates mountains, where their ancestor worship was led by a priesthood (called the Mystics) whose goal was to ensure that souls passed peacefully to the afterlife. Then the humans backstabbed the Savasi, drove them out of the mountains and into the desert. In the ongoing story, the Savasi have allied with trolls, goblins, avians, gnolls and landsharks (yes, landsharks) to fight against the human (and gnomish and elven) alliance to retake their land. To muddy the waters, the dwarven warlord has murdered the old priesthood and the Savasi have started worshiping the troll God of destruction and fire.
They are still very much Tolkienesque dwarves. But the desert environment (with their tents painted to look like mountains), the value placed upon ore from their homelands, their berserker tendencies and their 'savage' allies is a refreshing spin upon the old cliches.
I also like how the last mystic is working for the humans in the doomed hope of trying to get them to return his people's land...not knowing that the one person who could and would do so has been murdered for daring to place peace over profit.
Felt compelled to actually post something (long-time lurker) because I saw a mention of TES dwarves here, and I have spent a lot of time delving into that lore. A lot of good info has already been written on them here, so I won't repeat that stuff.
What I find interesting is that in a lot of lore, dwarves are generally good-natured-if-gruff, booze-consuming warriors who probably want nothing more than to die with honor so they can go drink more booze with their gods. In TES, however, they were a race that was coldly calculating, amoral in several ways (not the last of which was their treatment of the Falmer - snow elves), and irreverent to most/all the gods (preferring reason and logic).
Like other fantasy dwarves, they had a knack for creating technology... but instead of using simple physics/science, they actually called upon some powerful, magic-like forces: The Heart of Lorkhan (a dead god's heart), and tonal architecture - which basically involved telling the universe how things worked, rather than being confined by what currently is. This is why a lot of their creations are still in working condition thousands of years after their disappearance - they told the universe that's how their creations function. (I say magic-like because it differs from normal spell casting you see in the games/lore)
Perhaps my favorite aspect of them is that they actually felt so confined by existence that they opted out by, effectively, shouting "WE DON'T EXIST" loud enough that the universe shrugged and went "Well, I guess you don't!" And their single greatest creation, a Brass God of their own making, exists for the sole purpose of telling other things that they also don't exist. Which is why time breaks any time it is used.
So, if you think they're just retconned in or that it seems lame they were given the name "dwarves" when, really, they're elves, I strongly urge you to delve into some of the more obscure lore. It can be kind of overwhelming at first, but it's so fascinating and really does a great job of shaking up some common cliches, in my opinion.
I didn't know about that, and indeed, that is interresting. However, considering this I still believe the "dwemer" is a better name for that race than calling them "dwarves". And to further clarify, I never said that "dwemers" as a race felt retconned in, I said that calling them "dwarves" felt retconned. Your description above just solidifies that opinion even more since apparently they have pretty much nothing at all in common with the cliché depiction of dwarves in fantasy settings.
But as said, very interresting lore. Thanks for registering and sharing this @ralamil.
They are a race of mountain dwelling, fortress building, bearded engineers known for their heavy armor and crafts which never rust/fall apart, even when they are long gone.
My mistake, I phrased that poorly. I meant to specify if you felt the name was retconned in!
And I just double checked when, precisely, dwemer = dwarf was established in TES lore. I knew it was at least since Morrowind (which is the earliest game in the series I've actually played), so not something recently added. I see references to dwarven weapons in both Arena and Daggerfall, so it sounds like @Kamigoroshi was quite correct.
Comments
@Kamigoroshi, do you know Sasci, from Brazil?
"He is a one-legged black or mulatto youngster with holes in the palms of his hands, who smokes a pipe and wears a magical red cap that enables him to disappear and reappear wherever he wishes (usually in the middle of a dust devil). Considered an annoying prankster in most parts of Brazil, and a potentially dangerous and malicious creature in others, he nevertheless grants wishes to anyone who manages to trap him or steal his magic cap. However, his cap is often depicted as having a bad smell. Most people who claimed to have stolen this cap say they can never wash the smell away."
Sure, Saci is a rich myth of Brazilian folklore, but he really doesn't have anything to do with the Norse Dwarf. And I personally don't think it would suit D&D well... It really doesn't suits me mixing Norse and Tolkien-type of dwarves with Egyptian kind of dwarf, or something like that.
I really like the mythology of my games very tied and grounded. But there isn't such a thing as a "right way to play D&D". I prefere things grounded, but you can have fun in another way.
I actually really liked what they did with the dwarves in Dragon Age: Origins, where they live in an egalitarian cast system. Sure, most other tropes still apply, but it was something. I also liked the part with the golems (Shale is the best, hands down).
Give me enough dragons done right and I'll read anything. Shadowrun, is the truth; beside not all fantasy has coockie cutter elves, I have a liking for the Drow obviously.
How much do you know about TES because that wasn't a retcon, the dwemer are one of the older races in the game... They got the name "dwarves" because that's what the giants referred to them as.
Add onto that. Any technological advanced race in the TES or any fantasy scenario could be viewed as copy cat of dwarves when that's literally the main thing people want to connect that archetype type to.
As far as laziness goes, laziness is how most of western fantasies suck the -beep- of Tolkien's elves, and they aren't just sucking it, they are deep throating it! The whole cliche he created with LOTR is so over freaking used, that I almost gave up on fantasy all together... Seeing how mythology and fantasy are two of the main fuels behind my own artwork. That was a dark day for me.
And the biggest hitter is I've seen many people say that thwy are tired of seeing dragons and call them cliche, but love the clitche that elves are 90% of the time. I wish I still had the old work from my time in college for game design. We had to design characters for class and I said I was going to make a elf character. My instructor was against because it was a already over saturated character desigb and he wanted me to expand on more interesting design and I just told him to trust me on this one.
I took everything that seemed to be universally established about elves, and -beep- on it. I gave them these stretched necks, the ugly monkey like faces, digitigrade hind legs like a a dog or a cat, 3 six inch claws which it used for digging through the dirt since burrowing washow they travelled, they bad big bulky bodies covered in head to toe in fur a d they lived in desert wastelands.
Everyone who saw the drawing tried to argue to death with me how that was not a "elf," because you know. Fantasy character that doesn't exist can be portrayed inaccurately. Then again all a -bleeping- elf is a human with pointed ear for some reason with some metaphysical bs supposably attach to them so we can claim that thet are actually different
Here's the portrait anyway:
I would like to give the artist credit, but for Moradin's sake, I do not remember where I found it. It might very well be that I found the portrait here on these forums. Reverse image search tells me the oldest occurrence of this portrait is from Jason Chan, might have something in common with dragon age.
Another good portrait I sometimes used for female dwarves was included in the original IWD portrait pack, this:
Similar results work just fine in my mind. I am a simple man - ahem, dwarf. Ahem, Dungeon Master...
The first one is a picture of the dwarf commoner from e.a for Dragon age origins. So its official artwork.
http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Saga-First-King-Book-ebook/dp/B000V78UVS
I think she's actually human. She's described as a barbarian shaman in the descriptions I've found.
There are alot better ways, in my humble opinion, to apply new thinking to the old cliche's. You could create a setting where dwarves are magical creatures and are always born with innate magic and elves are a newer race, the next step in evolution from humans who are very technolically advanced and live in space or whatever. Same with dragons really, some charactiristics should stay, but one can make them talk or not talk, fly or not fly, be humongous and unkillable or small, common and a common critter etc. I actually think there has been alot of failry creative depictions of dragons in many games, DA:O for example who put dragons into a new context with the blight and all.
But this thread is about dwarves and not elves and/or dragons, so I'm gonna stop talking now
It was also neat seeing elves and dwarves merged together so well, as the ES dwarves felt unique and engaging.
Curiously, the dwemer have more in common with the Norse Svartalfar than Tolkien's dwarves. Originally, they had the same height as humans, with grey skin and black hair. The short stature of typical dwarves only came much later, probably while overlapping them with the stories of kobolds, goblins, or the child miners of the Roman Empire.
Humans in the bible, what man would be like if they had not eaten the fruit that the serpent had given them. Pure, uncorrupt, and perfect; interesting for what Tolkien was doing.
Now let's look at it from a writers perspective, many western fantasies tend to cliche the in a Tolkien way, they live with nature... They are vegans and vegetarians, they are holier than man. They have bodies that stop aging at their prime for some god damn reason, which people usually call immortal bodies despite the fact that that is not how immortality works. These are some of the most overused cliches that elfs get pigeon holed into.
Then we have groups like blizzard, wizards of the coast, and Bethesda Softworks who art happy with just type of fucking elf, we get the same already seen just copied and pasted...
Aquatic Elves, Gray Elves, High Elves, Wood Elves, Drow, Wild Elves, Snow Elves, Night Elves, BLOOD ELVES, THERR IS LITERALLY MORE RACE OF ELVE THEN THERE ARE OTHER HUMAN ETHNICITY IN WESTERN FANTASY! A lot of the bs that gets attached to all these fantasy elves sub species are things that could've been Mesoamerican-isque, African-isque, Asian-isque type of humans instead of grabbing the same cliche race that is just a human with pointed ears by design.
At least with dragons their design changes and people argue what is and isn't a Dragon which makes it more fun;
"You Quetzalcoatl and Aido-Hwedo are the mesoamerican and African versons of dragons."
"What? No they are not, they are serpents, snakes; their names literally translate to feathered and rainbow serpent."
"By that logic, neither are oriental dragons since they are also serpentine in nature, and have absolutely nothing in common with the Eurocentric idea of what a Dragon. What is a Dragon anyways? I mean besides a combination of multiple animals to create a single.creature. The very first sentence of the the definition of the word Dragon is a mythical monster like a giant reptile, and last time I checked; snakes were reptiles. Then look at some of the older Christian depictions of dragons, they looked a lot like snakes with wings and leg than they do moat modern depictions of dragons, so explain to me how Aido-Hwedo and Quetzalcoatl can't be considered dragons? Don't forget about all the modern day depictions of dragons that just go away from what Eurocentric mythologies tells us they are." Cliche isn't just about how they get written, also how they get designed. Shadowrun did it best for me, there is none of this high/wood elf ish to my knowledge, despite elves ultimately being second in power to only the greater dragons who basically rule the world, the "Goblinization" began. Humans at random started to be transformed into orck and trolls, while children started being born as elves and dwarves. This ish happened in masses, all before the horrified eyes of spectators watching wherever they currently were. It caused fear and discrimination towards metahumans. Oh and after dragons started waking up, and sitings of them started happening, DUNKELZAHN (one of the great dragons) same forward to explain eveverything that was happening in a 12 hour and 16 minute interview. Then went on to become tthe7h President of the UCAS and started making policy to fight against metahumans discrimination and push towards equality.
Omg it was so beautiful! THAT was taking a new spin on old cliches for me.
Anyways, at this point I'm practically rant, so carry on.@skatan. Also @Kamigoroshi just gave a better description than I did.
"*snip*... so explain to me how Aido-Hwedo and Quetzalcoatl can't be considered dragons? Don't forget about all the modern day depictions of dragons that just go away from what Eurocentric mythologies tells us they are." "
I have no idea if you mean that I've argued against this in my post or if you're just citing from somewhere.
But to at least try to answer the bits and pieces I (think) I understood from your post:
You seem to have misunderstood me. The very examples you bring forth yourself to counter my post says the same thing that I said: You can change the context around a race to make it very different from the cliché, like the examples you wrote about both elves and dragons yet still keep some classic characteristics (pointy ears for elves, scales and firebreath for dragons etc).
I've still to hear why you want to completely change a classic race into something completely different and new but retain the old classic name of the race. Let me give you an example:
Take bear, remove the arms and replace with wings. Remove the fur and replace with feathers. Remove the mouth and teeth and replace with a beek, etc. You still want to call it a bear because you're thinking outside the box and don't fall for clichés. Me? I'd just call it a bird. That's my point and that's my question about your own interpretation of elves, the one you draw in art class, why sticking to the name "elf" if your obvious talented creative thinking have made something completely new?
Ok now I'm confused me, because what you -snip- and didn't snip was all part of one big quote, and was in quotation marks. Which came before to other quotes which all three were in conjunction to each other, and it was an example of how people can argue what is and isn't a Dragon despite the pre installed ideas that we have about dragons.
I'll quote it and make a easier separation, because this wasn't directed at you in the slightest, it was example of what I said before it. This is literally a discussion I had on the smite forums with another member about Kukulkan, who to me is the Mayan form of a Dragon, but to that member it was not. Now how can I change preinstalled concepts ideas and still call it by the base name? Simple, because the example you gave has one significant flaw that mine does not. You're example is using non fictional/fantasy creatures in a world you don't control. Bears in birds are real creatures with specific anatomy that is recognized by science and fact; not faith and fantasy.
My changes happened in a world I control, I'm the artist anf writer of that world, therefore I am god. I am taking a fantasy idea, by even a character and making it what I say it is.you can't argue it because there is no law or rules stating that a elf has to be this or that. You can disprove it scientifically because they don't exist, and the closet we get to clichéd idea of elves are humans, and if you're going to make that a argue, why have elves in the first place? Why not just put another ethnicity of humans and be done with it?
Tolken's elves are Tolken's elves because he said they were, not because their were some kind of proof that they were real. Just like the Keebler Elves are Keebler Elves because the company says they are. There is nothing say other because fantasy, not real.
Halfings, are literally a race that exactly like humans, but half their size. Yet this bull ish is accepted, they are basically small humans, we have a word for those in the real world and its a medical condition called dwarfism, at least they exist. They can be proven, you cannot, while elf ears are arguably a real deformity and a medical condition I will emit, but again it's a fantasy idea created by a man and I'm talking about Tolken's elves, the ones seen 90% of the time I'm western fantasy, and tell me know have to follow his standards to call something he ultimately made up a elf.
Edit
Oh, and just to make sure everyone understands. We all have our opinion andbi do respect everyone's opinion. I know my opinion and ideas no more important or real than anyone elses.
Elves:
(1) Tolkien elves
(2) Santa elves
(3) Faerie elves (traditional tricksters)
Those are the three types of elves that the word has evolved to encapsulate. Even Tolkien began by working off of the old tales and his elves evolved into what we see. Much of the strength of his work is because he made a conscious effort to build off of the old to make the new.
For your example, you took elves and changed everything about them. The word is no longer relatable. There is nothing 'elven' left besides the name, which no longer fits because the image no longer matches the image the name evokes.
I would have found it more creative to build and change off of one of the current three elven 'norms' to make something new.
From what I've been able to understand so far, is that you would only accept elves if they have barely any of the things that define them as such. Which would mean they could hardly be counted as elves anymore.
At the top of my head, I can think of several depictions of dwarves that have been around long before Tolkien:
The seven dwarves are grumpy, short, stocky, miners but also kind hearted and ugly.
Illustration from the 19th century
Snowwhite and Rosered
The nameless dwarf here is REALLY grumpy, ungrateful, greedy, ugly, bearded and very protective of said beard.
Illustration by Alexander Zick, late 19th century
The Nibelungen legend
Alberich is greedy, short, ugly, able to cast magic and a hermit.
Here is a depiction of him with the rhine daughters by Arthur Reckham (ca. 1910)
Gardengnomes
They are small and stocky, have long white beards, red pointy hats, cheerful, cheeky, cute but not exactly pretty, chubby, hardworking.
Illustrations from 1910
As you can see, dwarves have been very defined even before Tolkien has been around. He didn't even change them up much, aside from making them also proud warriors and some minor stuff.
Elves on the other hand ... let's just say that most people here don't think of Legolas, Drizzt or Sylvanas Windrunner or even agelic figures dancing in the moonlight, but rather of Tinkerbell.
The modern depiction of elves is certainly entirely based on Tolkien's works.
Before that, elves where basically just "nature ghosts" which could be anything from a pixie, to a really beautiful woman dancing in the moonlight, a little gnome who does your work at night (Heinzelmännchen), christmas elves, strange looking pranksters who live in tree-tops who would steal your baby in the middle of the night and so on and so forth.
Like I mentioned before, my personal defining depiction of elves are the elves from Wendy Pini's ElfQuest.
Basically high elves, the original elves who came from outer space and then shapeshifted to look more akin to humans. All of them had magic powers.
The Wolfriders
Short wild or wood elves, basically. Their common ancestor was the child of a High One and a wolf.
The Sunfolk
Short, dark skinned elves who live in a desert oasis (the image also includes a few wolfriders).
The Gliders
They are direct descendants of the High Ones and have the ability to fly.
The Go-Backs
Descendands of the Wolfriders from the ice cold north.
Other races:
The Humans
These are usually the antagonists in the story aside from the few who are not blinded by prejudice towards the "demons". The ones who live close to the Gliders even worship the elves as gods. Back when the elves reached the planet, they where still just savage stone age people. The High Ones didn't know how to communicate with them and the humans where too frightened, which is where most of the prejudices against elves where born.
The Trolls
The trolls are as clicheed as it gets and share a lot of tropes with Tolkien's dwarves. They are descendands of the ape-like servants of the High Ones.
The Preservers
Basically Pixies. They are small and annoying but they can produce silk that can preserve anything for a literal eternity. They are aliens, like the elves and the trolls.
At the beginning of the story, the different elf tribes are in most cases not aware of each other's existance, aside from the lost High Ones, who get worshipped by all of them. As the story progresses further, the tribes more and more mix, the Sunfolk and the Wolfriders become basically one big tribe, some Go-Backs return to the Wolfriders and the different tribes have offsprings with each other.
Here are the traits they all have in common: They don't age beyond a certain point (there even is a story where they literally go back in time by living so long that the universe's lifecicle just repeads itself and everything is repeated. The fact that they can't die of natural causes also lead to them leaving their planet because the planet suffered from overpopulization), they are curious, have no body hair and only very rarely facial hair, four fingers on each hand, sometimes they possess magic powers (healing, shapeshifting, flight, being able to shape wood or stone out of will, etc.), they can communicate telepathically (called "sending"), they are naturally skinny and they tend to be rather spiritual and passionate.
And that's as far as it goes. All the characters are vastly different in personality and the main villain of the story aren't the humans or the trolls, it's another elf. The elf in question is also the mother of the only half-elf in that story, the father being a troll. She was only able to conceive the child thanks to her very powerful magic though.
One of my favourite stories is the one where one of the Wolfriders finds an abandoned human child and raises it as her own. It's so great because it show cases very greatly just how different humans and elves *actually* are.
Gah, I have been writing on this post way too long and forgot where I was going with it, so I am just gonna leave it at that for now ^^'
The thing about words is that they aren't obsolutes. Words just like language is a man made construct, not a universal construct as unless you ou can show me where in history words existed before man.man attached words to things, so the meaning and ideas that words can create changes as man see fit.
I created a world where an elf doesn't fall under any traditional idea of the word elf, but in that world, it is the traditional idea of a elf because it exist in that world, because I choose to not make that world follow the same formula as our own. It's you the viewer who chooses to acknowledge and accept that worlds rules or law. It's no different than how, if I created panels of a single person releasing several object from his hand and it goes into the sky. The laws of that world, unless stated by the artist or elsewhere in the comic, things go up instead of down in that world created. People perceive everything to follow the ideas and concept that we accept as the normal, and to work in our own realm of thought.l, even though that seperate realm does not. @Buttercheese
How did you peircive that? The fact that I like the Drow of the FR, and the elves of shadowrun shows that I'm more than willing and capable of accepting elves. Just like I'm quite willing to accept an elf if the world that it exist in, changes it to something completely different from the idea of an elf that people conform to it, I'm perfectly fine with someone trying to reinvent a word and its idea, it doesn't change anything outside that world.
If I didn't accept elves as they were, I couldn't get tired of the saturated cliche.
Mithril is commonly thought of as being incredibly light and hard metal used by dwarves and elves to make armor and weapons of great potency. Mithril is so rare that people can mistake it for being magical.
I draw a picture of a tree and call it "mithril" because in my setting mithril is a kind of tree. It is very common and can be found anywhere. It is usually used for cheap products and firewood because it breaks easily.
I'm the only one who knows the backstory of my world. If I took that picture to class, people would say "that's not mithril." Because for everyone else but myself mithril has a set image of what it looks like. It wouldn't be fair of me to expect others to accept my version of mithril. It would also be far easier for me to name the tree something that doesn't carry strong connotations.
However! If the mithril tree was (a) very rare (b) as hard as steel (c) the knowledge of how to shape it was a guarded secret and (d) it's properties were often mistaken for being magical...then naming it Mithril would make sense. Upon seeing the metallic tree, people would go 'oh, he is using the name to evoke the Tolkien imagery while giving a new spin on an old trope"
The same goes for elves. If these...tunneling horrors that you created were small fey tricksters that acted like traditional elves in a different geographical location (i.e.: move the faerie doc out of the forest and into the desert) then people might get it more. But even that needs explanation, so the picture would have to show the tunneling horrors doing elven things to get across the concept. Otherwise, how can you expect anyone to accept your naming?
If you divorce the name from everything elven, why not draw a can of soup and title it "elf"?
Well, yes, but aside from maybe the looks (pretty, slim and pointy ears) they have barely anything in common with what is perceived as elf in modern pop-culture. I am not too familiar with Shadowrun, but from what I've gotten all the other races there are literally human mutants. Are there any personality traits, behaviours or something associated with them? Or are they just literally humans with pointy ears?
IMO a good fantasy race is achieved when you can explain what made them the way they are, where do the stereotypes come from in-universe and not simply by explaining how they look. Why are Elves usually portrait as so condescending towards other races? For the same reasons any older person can appear condescending towards a younger person. With age comes wisdom.
Same goes for their love for nature. Unlike for example humans, they are gonna be still around after everything is destroyed. Most humans don't care for the long-term consequences, because they are not effected by them. Elves are.
One could make the argument that other long-lived races, such as the dwarves, would feel the same, but here is where the crucial distinction comes in place:
Dwarves live underground for a reason. Rocks don't change unless you make them. Even after a cave-in a rock will still be a rock or at worst several smaller rocks. They like the steady and predictable. Living underground means having no weather, no rain, no storms. Riches give a sense of safety because it means you can buy food and whatever else you need to live and thick stone walls keep outsiders and external threats away. They are grumpy when they have to deal with outsiders because outsiders are unpredictable ergo a threat. Since they don't see the above world change, they are not concerned with it. (Maybe that's also why all dwarves are the same. Because it reflects their sense for tradition.)
Since neither FR's Drow nor the Shadowrun elves share the above mentioned motivations, they can hardly be counted as elves in that context. There is more than just a low BMI and pointy ears to this package.
I'm not sure if I should reply here or in the other thread, but since that thread seem to be more about art, I'll stick to this one. If any mod want to move my reply to the other thread, it's fine by me. Ok sorry. I didn't get that you quoted so much from the same place. It was kinda confusing, but considering you're typing on a phone, it's understandable. Take this as _constructive_ critiscism, if you want the reader to understand, try to use subject lines, proper qoutes and/or spoiler segments. It makes it easier to create 'blocks' in your post so the reader can understand.
I understand your POV, and won't spend to much time explaning something which @grum already explained (his example with the mithril). You could take my example and exchange it for anything really, take the bear and exchange it with a Klingon, a Vampire or Donald Duck. None of them are real, all of them convey a very specific image in the viewers/readers mind.
With this said, I hate to nag on you, but you still haven't answered the question WHY you want to keep the name "elf" on something which is obviously so different from the classical view of elfs. It almost feels like you're doing it in spite, just to play with peoples prejudice/preconvieved images. Is it the whole "a pipe is not a pipe"-thing that drives you?
FYI though, I'm not arguing for arguings sake here. I don't want to "win" this discussion, I am geniuenly interrested in understanding the reasons behind your thoughts in this issue since they are so diametrically different from my own.
I really like the way they are handled in www.guildedage.net
There they are called the Savasi. They used to live in the Solates mountains, where their ancestor worship was led by a priesthood (called the Mystics) whose goal was to ensure that souls passed peacefully to the afterlife. Then the humans backstabbed the Savasi, drove them out of the mountains and into the desert. In the ongoing story, the Savasi have allied with trolls, goblins, avians, gnolls and landsharks (yes, landsharks) to fight against the human (and gnomish and elven) alliance to retake their land. To muddy the waters, the dwarven warlord has murdered the old priesthood and the Savasi have started worshiping the troll God of destruction and fire.
They are still very much Tolkienesque dwarves. But the desert environment (with their tents painted to look like mountains), the value placed upon ore from their homelands, their berserker tendencies and their 'savage' allies is a refreshing spin upon the old cliches.
I also like how the last mystic is working for the humans in the doomed hope of trying to get them to return his people's land...not knowing that the one person who could and would do so has been murdered for daring to place peace over profit.
A highly recommended webcomic
What I find interesting is that in a lot of lore, dwarves are generally good-natured-if-gruff, booze-consuming warriors who probably want nothing more than to die with honor so they can go drink more booze with their gods. In TES, however, they were a race that was coldly calculating, amoral in several ways (not the last of which was their treatment of the Falmer - snow elves), and irreverent to most/all the gods (preferring reason and logic).
Like other fantasy dwarves, they had a knack for creating technology... but instead of using simple physics/science, they actually called upon some powerful, magic-like forces: The Heart of Lorkhan (a dead god's heart), and tonal architecture - which basically involved telling the universe how things worked, rather than being confined by what currently is. This is why a lot of their creations are still in working condition thousands of years after their disappearance - they told the universe that's how their creations function. (I say magic-like because it differs from normal spell casting you see in the games/lore)
Perhaps my favorite aspect of them is that they actually felt so confined by existence that they opted out by, effectively, shouting "WE DON'T EXIST" loud enough that the universe shrugged and went "Well, I guess you don't!" And their single greatest creation, a Brass God of their own making, exists for the sole purpose of telling other things that they also don't exist. Which is why time breaks any time it is used.
So, if you think they're just retconned in or that it seems lame they were given the name "dwarves" when, really, they're elves, I strongly urge you to delve into some of the more obscure lore. It can be kind of overwhelming at first, but it's so fascinating and really does a great job of shaking up some common cliches, in my opinion.
But as said, very interresting lore. Thanks for registering and sharing this @ralamil.
Sounds like dwarves to me!
My mistake, I phrased that poorly. I meant to specify if you felt the name was retconned in!
And I just double checked when, precisely, dwemer = dwarf was established in TES lore. I knew it was at least since Morrowind (which is the earliest game in the series I've actually played), so not something recently added. I see references to dwarven weapons in both Arena and Daggerfall, so it sounds like @Kamigoroshi was quite correct.
@Grum: How very succinct!