bEVEsthda wrote...
esper wrote...
Tolkien, Bg and Da:O does not make even a big part of accumulated lore
Oh, but it does. It is you who live in an esoteric world where maybe the accumulated beliefs have a different density.
Besides, I have other lore in my baggage. Old nordic folklore about creatures that could be seen at dawn and dusk, on meadows and in woods, and even on misty days. You're right, in that my great grandmothers, grandmothers never specified pointed ears, not what I remember. But they did specify beautiful.
No, I actually read those myths. Those elves are described as enspelling, both nothing about how they look, more often it was song and dance they used to 'charm' people.
Their look is never mentioned, When I was little I always took elves for being airy or misty since they were often associated with the later and often (read often not always) dissolved with the coming of the morning. I read Lord of the Rings rather late so the misty elf with the hollow back will always be my 'default' elf and not Tolkien's superior human thing with pointy ears.
Also remember that 3 times out of 4 they were actually evil creatures...
Lord of the Ring does have an impact, I granted you that. He universe is still not mandatory, escpially not for those of us who has read a lot of fantasy. But he is properly default for a lot of persons who doesn't read that genre and thus have only being presented only with what is popular. (All though, sadly I think Harry Potter might take that role for the next years).
Bg and da:o. means nothing in regard to folklore as the gaming universe is simply not that big. Now if you want to say that the change in art style between da:o and da2 disturbs you, I can understand that, and you are also entilted to not like da2 and anything associated with it. But saying that da2 elves are not elves is simply not true, because elves are properly the mythogly creature that has undergone most varieties in fantasy and other kinds of fairy tales and thus there is simply no established elf look.