361 réponses à ce sujet

[Anton de Staen]

I like Tolkien's elves. The thousands of clones that has spawned from various fantasy sources? Not so much. The elves of Thedas are refreshing.

[MerinTB]

andorman01 wrote...

You forced yourself to read books you admit to not enjoying, and you also think passing off a wikipedia source is is fact checking?

1 - Yes, forced myself.  Someone had bought me the books years ago and I had never had much interest in them (though I read fantasy and consider myself more a fan of fantasy than sci-fi, but whatever.)  At the time I worked at a market research company testing for the LotR films before they came out and the footage looked excellent.  I decided I wanted to read the books before the movies came out, and as such I tried.  The forcing came because they were very obtuse and I did not appreciate Tolkien's style and were it not for the movies coming out I would never have finished the first book.  I forced myself by taking them on the train and nothing else, so I could either watch people and talk to those begging for money OR I could bury myself in a fantasy novel that while I wasn't enjoying was still a far site better than the reality of the train.
I will grant the books that, by the last book, I cared enough about the characters that finishing that book was not the chore the first two had been.

2 - Yes, I am "passing off" Wikipedia as a source as it is just as accurate as the IMDB and any regular print encyclopedia.  Each of the parts of a wikipedia entry usually has sources annotated - just like any well written article (and BETTER THAN a traditional encyclopedia that just presents its information as fact without anything but the Encyclopedia Brittanica title to back up it's truthfulness.)  If there is a claim without citation it can be considered suspect, but so should any claim made by any one source.  Outside of controversial topics (religion, politics, etc.) you'll find, with a little research, that Wikipedia is remarkably accurate most of the time.
But feel free to attack my source instead of my arguments, or use the fact that I didn't like Tolkien as evidence that somehow I don't understand what was written.  Logical fallacies weaken your arguments, not mine.

My friend, I ((have extensive personal experience with Tolkien's work and find all your views flawed.))

I respect that (sorry for summarizing, I hope you find my paraphrasing fairly accurate.)
I never claimed to be a Tolkien expert.  I am stating why I prefer DAO elves to Tolkien's elves, and my views/interpretations.  Hopefully you can respect my views as my opinions on the literature and the writer.

Tolkien had no "agenda," he simply saw what the industrialization of nations could do to humanity, having been in the trenches of WWI.  Show me a writer who doesn't use his own experiences in his writing.

Sure he had an agenda.  He had created the "perfect language" and wanted to create the "perfect beings" to speak the "perfect language."  He also had worldviews and wanted to share them via his writing.  There is NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS AT ALL, I am NOT CONDEMNING IT.  I'm just pointing out these agendas (all writers more or less do this) and that they turned me off as I found them in his writing.

If elves are perfect super-men, then why ((do they have flaws)).

Even pre-Crisis Superman had kryptonite, magic, other Kryptonians and Daxamites and Red Sun energy and . . . point out flaws, or outlier characters, don't diminish the state of "sparkly vampires" that Tolkiens elves are.

Ok, maybe the sparkly vampire dig was immature, sorry.  Still gonna leave it in!

Tirigon wrote...

Its no wonder you are annoyed by Tolkiens books if you read them as political agenda or travel records or sh*t like that.
You have to read them as fantasy to enjoy them.

My intention was the latter.  After NOT enjoying them, and developing my own literary analysis as I read them (sorry, people with English degrees focused on literature and writing tend to overanalyze what they read even for enjoyment), I fell back to doing research ont he author to see how much of what I was reading into the work was real (and that's what you get from someone with a History degree as well.)
The education is not bragging, just telling you who I am.  I contextually read everything and cannot help but think about what the content means and what the author was trying to say.  I was doing internet research while reading Da Vinci Code, looking up everything brought up to see where the author got his information from, how much was based on something and how much he made up.  This is fun to me, I know others will scratch their heads.

In short (too late, I know) I read them to enjoy them.  I really didn't enjoy them, but I was still interested enough to research the author.  You assume (based on nothing) I did the opposite of what I did.

And
I think Tolkien meant arrogance to be their flaw, at least considering
their actions in the Silmarillion (slaying TWO entire elven towns just
to get some jewels?! If thats no character flaw I really dunno.)

See my Superman response above.  Flaws in the perfect character exist just to exemplify how good they really are.

[borelocin]

I read this book once that had Tolkien style elves in it ... if only I could remember the author's name

[Ashlag]

Tirigon wrote...

The question is, are Dalish, Drow or whatever elves in the tolkienesque meaning of elf, or are they beings called elf only for convenience, because the storywriter was (just like Tolkien, for that matter) too lazy to invent his own name?

actually, Tolkien only uses elves (and I guess he is using the name, but reinventing it) because it is a word that is in the English language already and conveys some of what he wants.

An excerpt from Appendix F of LOTR:
"Elves has been used to translate both Quendi, 'the speakers', the High-elven name of all their kind, and Eldar, the name of the Three Kindreds that sought for the Undying Realm and came there at the beginning of Days (save the Sindar only). This old word was indeed the only one available, and was once fitted to apply to such memories of this people as Men preserved, or to the making of Men's minds not wholly dissimilar. But it has diminished, and to many it may now suggest fancies either pretty or silly, as unlike to the Quendi of old as are butterflies to the falcon - not tha any of the Quendi ever possessed wings of the body, as unnatural to them as to Men. They were a race high and beautiful, the older Children of the world, and among them the Eldar were as kings, who now are gone: the People of the Great Journey, the People of the Stars. They were tall, fair of skin and grey-eyed, though their locks were dark, save in the golden house of Finarfin; and their voices had more melodies than any mortal voice that now is heard. They were valiant, but the history of those that returned to Middle-earth in exile was grievous; and though it was in far-off days crossed by the fate of the Fathers, their fate is not that of Men. Their dominion passed long ago, and they dwell now beyond the circles of the world, and do not return."

This is obviously pretending that such lore as Tolkien created is fact and actual history, but reading between the lines there is both a succinct description of elves, as well as the origin of their name as such.

[andorman01]

MerinTB wrote...

2 - Yes, I am "passing off" Wikipedia as a source as it is just as accurate as the IMDB ...

Wikipedia has been proven to be wrong so many times on so many occasions that my friends who are teachers refuse to acknowledge it as a credible source.  But that was not my point, my point was that if you are having to go to Wiki instead of the actual literary source material then any argument you would present is flawed.

I respect that (sorry for summarizing, I hope you find my paraphrasing fairly accurate.)
I never claimed to be a Tolkien expert.  I am stating why I prefer DAO elves to Tolkien's elves, and my views/interpretations.  Hopefully you can respect my views as my opinions on the literature and the writer.

But you ARE passing yourself off as expert, or do you not read your own posts?  The overall tone, the citing of resources, the assertion of Tolkien's "agenda,"  which he personally said he never had (which you would have known if you actually did study anything about Tolkien the man, he fervently denied any allegory in his books his entire life.)

Sure he had an agenda.  He had created the "perfect language" and wanted to create the "perfect beings" to speak the "perfect language."  He also had worldviews and wanted to share them via his writing.  There is NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS AT ALL, I am NOT CONDEMNING IT.  I'm just pointing out these agendas (all writers more or less do this) and that they turned me off as I found them in his writing.

Tolkien's only agenda was creating a mythology for his homeland, as often stated by himself.  His language was a derivative of old norse dialects, far from perfect.  His elves were far from perfect, as discussed by those who are actually knowledgeable on such matters.  You say he has world views to share, yet you fail to present those views.  Having world views to share DOES NOT = an agenda, an agenda would indicate he has a specific goal to accomplish by presenting those world views, beyond the obvious narrative influence.

Even pre-Crisis Superman had kryptonite, magic, other Kryptonians and Daxamites and Red Sun energy and . . . point out flaws, or outlier characters, don't diminish the state of "sparkly vampires" that Tolkiens elves are.

Ok, maybe the sparkly vampire dig was immature, sorry.  Still gonna leave it in!

And
I think Tolkien meant arrogance to be their flaw, at least considering
their actions in the Silmarillion (slaying TWO entire elven towns just
to get some jewels?! If thats no character flaw I really dunno.)

See my Superman response above.  Flaws in the perfect character exist just to exemplify how good they really are.

and yet you wrote ...

They are the "Superman"''s of Middle-Earth.  Their only real "flaw" is they leave the world in its time of need (basically, they are above the problems of men and dwarves and hobbits, the way I read it.)"

So which is it?  This was the main point which I was attacking, but now you contradict yourself, and to what end?

Modifié par andorman01, 07 décembre 2009 - 08:53 .

[Tirigon]

Lol Merin, thats a funny way to look at.

The elves kill their own people to show their perfectness.......



However, I agree with you that looking up things in books can be fun, as well as analyzing them to get a closer understanding - I even read some of Tolkiens poems in english though im German, just to understand his world better.

I do see how you could interprete LOTR politically, and maybe Tolkien even had such intentions and im doing him wrong with regarding him "only" as the best fantasy writer i know, but I cant see a point in transferring his message on industrialisation or whatever. For me that would spoil the fun. If I want politics, what is usually NOT the case, I prefer to read "plain" political stuff that doesnt hide behind fantasy, or just the newspaper. For me, Fantasy is a way to go to a better - or at least more interesting - world, not to criticize ours.

[RunCDFirst]

I'm more for Dragon Age elves. Tolkien's 'elves' are too... well... boring. Chalk it up to the man setting the groundwork for modern fantasy, but it's nice having a change of pace from the Ancient Race that's Slowly Disappearing but is Immortal and Otherworldly.



Course, I also ran a D&D campaign a few years ago that basically has elves portrayed as they are in Dragon Age, so I might be a little biased to their re-interpretation of the fantasy trope.

[Tekbear]

[quote]andorman01 wrote...

I am under the impression that those people describing Tolien's elves as high and mighty perfect beings are only taking their impression from the movies instead of the books. In Tolkien's mythology the elves are the most tragic and ill-fated of the races of middle-earth, and are far from perfect.[/quote

i really am a big fan of the books - actually it was the first real book i ever read. sure the elves are tragic and stuff, but mostly i find them as spoiled annoying brats who first mess it all up and then are all depressed about their situation. it kindof seems like all that wisdom comes from trial and error rather than thinking things through properly. i mean... if you have eternity at your hands you should be using all that a bit more intelligently.

and it's not only the movies that make them look snobby. the whole nogrod situation totally showed how they feel about the rest of the world. but hey i have always liked dwares so i am really biased :)

[andorman01]

[quote]Tekbear wrote...

[quote]andorman01 wrote...

I am under the impression that those people describing Tolien's elves as high and mighty perfect beings are only taking their impression from the movies instead of the books. In Tolkien's mythology the elves are the most tragic and ill-fated of the races of middle-earth, and are far from perfect.[/quote

i really am a big fan of the books - actually it was the first real book i ever read. sure the elves are tragic and stuff, but mostly i find them as spoiled annoying brats who first mess it all up and then are all depressed about their situation. it kindof seems like all that wisdom comes from trial and error rather than thinking things through properly. i mean... if you have eternity at your hands you should be using all that a bit more intelligently.

and it's not only the movies that make them look snobby. the whole nogrod situation totally showed how they feel about the rest of the world. but hey i have always liked dwares so i am really biased :)



[/quote]

Yes, well, if that is your view, that is fine, but it reinforces my point about them not being super beings or flawless entities

[P_k_r]

Saying that Tolkien has an "agenda" like it's a bad thing just cracks me up. To write a book, you need something to base it around, an idea or, as some might say, an agenda. People that write just for the sake of writing...you can't really call them authors. For Tolkien the base was creating a language, he built it up from there. What he wanted to say doesn't matter really, because each individual will understand it in their own way. That's the great thing about works of art, it's down to the person, it's subjective.



When it comes to Tolkien's elves, I see them as three kinds:

1) The Hobbit elves. The whole book is aimed at younger readers, told like a fairy tale. That is why the elves there are less serious and are more akin to the ones we have in folk stories.



2) The Lord of the Rings elves. This is where the "arrogant bastards" stereotype comes from, in my opinion. They are an old race, with the wisdom of the ages at their back. Their time is at an end and they pretty much exiled themselves from the rest of the world. That is why many think them to be haughty.



3) The Silmarillion elves. The most interesting, if you ask me. They are less black and white than the traditional elves, the whole story is in shades of grey. It also shows that they are not above human mistakes, despite their "supremanness". Kinslaying, betrayal, bitterness, they are not above that as the book clearly shows. When people say Tolkien elves, this is the type that comes to my mind. And thankfully, it has nothing to do with their commercial cousins.



My 2 eurocents, anyway.

[andorman01]

I think that's an excellent breakdown PKR

[ExGym]

F-C wrote...

Endurium wrote...

Yeah the whole 'quickening' story is a bit far-fetched. You are either immortal or not, you don't 'forget' how to be such as if it was a skill or spell, and association with short-lived species doesn't change your core nature. I mean, I've had lots of dogs for pets and I didn't 'quicken' to their lifespan. This game also misuses the term 'immune' when referring to the taint, so I don't put much stock in the lore and what NPCs say. Just shake my head and move on.

The DA:O elves are okay and can be interesting when they aren't bellyaching about water under the bridge. (A certain annoying Dalish NPC comes to mind.)

if you play the dalish elf origin and read all the notes, books, and whatnot around the camp its because through prolonged contact with humans the elves started getting diseases and dying from them which basically did change their core nature.

its not just 'zomg humans and we forgot how to live forever!'

its more like 'humans gave us diseases and now we die'

their immunity systems were compromised, or however you want to look at it. they were changed.




on topic though, im rather sick of the standard elves and i generally wont play them, so no i dont like the standard tolkein elves better.

Well yea.I dont know how much ago was story about a tribe in amazon that was discowerd and after some time they all died from the modern days bacteries. They died from expouser to us comon things coz their imune syistem could not handel with that.Point is that if someone is imune to something, maybe someone else will die from that thing.

[MerinTB]

andorman01 wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
2 - Yes, I am "passing off" Wikipedia as a source as it is just as accurate as the IMDB ...

Wikipedia has been proven to be wrong so many times on so many occasions that my friends who are teachers refuse to acknowledge it as a credible source.  But that was not my point, my point was that if you are having to go to Wiki instead of the actual literary source material then any argument you would present is flawed.

Ah, anecdotal evidence.  Let me try -
I have a college professor friend and know several teachers who tell their kids that they can neither use encyclopedias nor wikipedia as a source for papers -
but that they can use it to start their research and find other sources by search the citations of wikipedia.

Does that make a difference to you?  No?  Your anecdotal evidence has the same lack of effect on me.
How about some actual scientific research instead of heresay?

http://news.cnet.com..._3-5997332.html
http://www.associate...tent.html?cat=9
http://chronicle.com...dia-High/13741/
http://royvandewater...lete-wikipedia/

I respect that (sorry for summarizing, I hope you find my paraphrasing fairly accurate.)
I never claimed to be a Tolkien expert.  I am stating why I prefer DAO elves to Tolkien's elves, and my views/interpretations.  Hopefully you can respect my views as my opinions on the literature and the writer.

But you ARE passing yourself off as expert, or do you not read your own posts?  The overall tone, the citing of resources, the assertion of Tolkien's "agenda,"  which he personally said he never had (which you would have known if you actually did study anything about Tolkien the man, he fervently denied any allegory in his books his entire life.)

I believe that stating opinions and quoting references does not pass one off as an expert, it merely is stating an opinion and backing that opinion up with sources.  That's utilizing good communication and debating skills.

What would be "passing oneself off as an expert" would be saying "I am an expert on this."  I specifically say "I never claimed to be a Tolkien expert."

You can strawman, poison the well, and ad hominem all you like - but trying to destroy my character doesn't destroy my argument.

Point of fact - even IF I had said "I am a Tolkien expert" that would only mark me for arrogance and NOT MATTER ONE WHIT about what I said subsequently.

He also had worldviews and wanted to share them via his writing.  There is NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS AT ALL, I am NOT CONDEMNING IT.  I'm just pointing out these agendas (all writers more or less do this) and that they turned me off as I found them in his writing.

Tolkien's only agenda was creating a mythology for his homeland, as often stated by himself.  His language was a derivative of old norse dialects, far from perfect.  His elves were far from perfect, as discussed by those who are actually knowledgeable on such matters.  You say he has world views to share, yet you fail to present those views.  Having world views to share DOES NOT = an agenda, an agenda would indicate he has a specific goal to accomplish by presenting those world views, beyond the obvious narrative influence.

I did say what his world views were.  You have to scroll back to earlier posts of mine, but here's a relevant quote in this thread from me -

He was a philologist and an anti-industrialization zealot.  He loved language and tried a few times to create the "perfect" language, and then he gave his "perfect" language to the "most perfect" beings in his self-constructed fantasy world.  His "perfect" beings, the ones who hated industry and loved the land, were dying out and being pushed out by industry.

This is no my lone interpretation on reading it - an interpretation that came from solely reading it and forming it on my own before finding others who had similar takes on the writing - as can be shown:
http://www.thetolkie...read.php?t=2525
http://www.slideshar...spread-conlangs
http://www.sffworld....php/t-7164.html
http://www.mail-arch...m/msg09084.html
http://findarticles...._99848429/pg_6/

Correct or incorrect, MANY people have interpreted and biographied Tolkien as being a linguist who wanted to create the perfect language and when not taken seriously he created a fantasy world in which his perfect language would be spoken by the perfect people.  Right or wrong, MANY people read Tolkien as strongly anti-industrial and pro-nature.  You can disagree, and point to other interpreations - but that's all that it is, other interpretations.
I read Tolkien, I see the part with the (stoner hippie) Tom Bombadil, how the Elves are revered by all but the (seemingly jealous) dwarves, and I draw conclusions.  Your conclusions may be different.

Notice how I'm not telling you that you are wrong, yet you are constantly telling me that I'm "failing" and that I'm not someone who is "actually knowledgable on such matters."

One of us is stating his views and opinions without telling the other that their views and opinions are wrong.  The other is telling first that the first is wrong and stating the other's opinions and views as facts.  Take that for what you will (or will not.)

Even pre-Crisis Superman had kryptonite, magic, other Kryptonians and Daxamites and Red Sun energy and . . .
point out flaws, or outlier characters, don't diminish the state of "sparkly vampires" that Tolkiens elves are.
...
See my Superman response above.  Flaws in the perfect character exist just to exemplify how good they really are.

and yet you wrote ...

They are the "Superman"''s of Middle-Earth.  Their only real "flaw" is they leave the world in its time of need (basically, they are above the problems of men and dwarves and hobbits, the way I read it.)"

So which is it?  This was the main point which I was attacking, but now you contradict yourself, and to what end?

Both.  Superman is, by most estimations, the "perfect" hero.  His name is Super-man.  But he still makes mistakes, and has weaknesses and flaws.  Despite having weaknesses, flaws, and making mistakes, he is STILL considered by many to be too perfect.
The analogy seems sound to me.
The only flaw I saw out of the Lord of the Rings for the elves was that they left the world when it needed them (again, I don't think Tolkien intended for them to be read as overly arrogant - my interpretation).  Others have brought up that an elf killed someone or a group of elves did this evil dead or that an elf leader once did a horrible thing - and I call them outliers, as in they are not even close to the norm for how Tolkien has created the elves of his fantasy.
You can try and nitpick inconsistency, but let me help you on what I mean - Superman, as I used him, is a symbol of a fictional being written as having way too many good qualities that are not at all balanced by their few bad qualities.
It's not contradictory - your understanding of my meaning is off is all.

---

To try to wrangle this back to the topic on hand in some way, shape, or form -

Tolkien's elves, to me, as I interpreted them from the LotR books (not movies, books) are boring and too perfect and too arrogant.

DAO's elves, while still largely based on the tradition that is attributed to Tolkien, are refreshing to me.  Their plight and the Dalish elves superstitious traditions (that's how I interpret them believing they had once been immortal but human cooties caused them to become mortal) make them interesting in ways that elves have NEVER BEFORE BEEN for me.  I played my first CRPG elf, city elf, as my first character on DAO.
In fact this is my first Elf, first Rogue, and first time I played a CRPG with a female MC first.  DAO is so good on so many fronts I tried something I'd never normally do.
And I loved the City Elf origin and through story.

Whereas I watch LotR (the movies) and I keep wanting Ghimli to win the contest, Legolas to have the Oliphaunt land on him, and every elf death is a victory in my mind.

[Tirigon]

At least, It will please you to hear that according to the book, Legolas must either be a lousy archer or a crappy meelee fighter. Why? Well, on the walls he doesnt have any arrows anymore and has to use orc arrows. That means he has shot at least 30 or more arrows then. Still, he has only 42 kills in the end. ==> Either he missed most arrows or he got no more than 12, rather less kills with his blade.

Gimli, however, has 4 kills on the wall, and ends up with 43. So whos better then?

Besides of that, Legolas looks like an idiot anyways.

[Rostas7]

Elves. A pretty complex subject . The thing is ,being truly original is hard nowadays,trying to accomodate new ideas,when the first,main existing idea just imprints in your brain and you cannot accustome to the various varietes of the real deal.It's the impact that matters,since you can't pass off something as being the source of all the varietes because ,if it is claimed to be so ,some transfigured yet more or less original types of that THING are more likeable and cand really leave the finishing mark on your view of the ORIGINAL thing.

Dalish elves are realistic,living in a world where they are persecuted daily ,suffering and still trying to recover or cope in various ways with their daily lives.It is not because they are simply seen as being a lowly race by humans or any other kind of race,but their nature inflicts this impression.

Because they are a proud people,defiant ,who value tradition,nature folk .Their pride cost them their freedom,that's because even if...even if they would have thinked they we're superior to other races when they had their true powers,their immortality,their lore,such ill-begotten arrogance was that made them so.Humans just hate them so much because they probably knew the elfs looked down upon them,considering them just simple and a barbaric race. This was their lesson ,and the reality of the thing is that now they are looked down upon and they have to choke on their pride.But nevertheless,such a refreshing variety on the elfs of DA:O is very intricate.Considering all the games I've played with the elves being all high and mighty and being superior.Well,sometimes this kind of formula works on the populace,and it works for me too,if integrated well.

Coming back to the main subject,Tolkien elves are the true mark that has been cast upon our very impression on how an elf should be and how it shouldn't .People  who see elves nowadays that aren't necessarily connected to the Tolkien lore succumb them and mark them off as being an rip-off or associate them with latter various versions of the same thing.Such exaggeration isn't really necessary ,I mean ,If you try to mince every single attempt or assert it to the true meaning of an elf or any other thing,not only races ,it's just your true vision on the subject.Tolkien elves are badass sure,and Elrond is made of pure win ,but casting this aside ,DA:O elves are original ,in a realistic way,depriving them of that mirific fantasy,and putting them to the test. (TEST YOUR MIGHT!).Excellent job DA:O and keep shoving us great content.

Another thing I would like to talk about are the dwarves.No-scottish accent *check* Not all are over-excessive drunks *check* (Except for Oghren) and the really weird plot-holes that delve around the They don't dream and stuff.My favorite race are the dwarves ,that's because I loved that scottish accent and their still-to-be-drunk jokes.The dwarves in DA:O look more "civilized" to me,It's just like they got domesticated or something like that.Dwarves are pretty hard to discuss when It's about considering the possibilites of making new ideas around them.The stereotype inflicted too much brainwash in me lol xD. Well,I don't know If I like the DA:O dwarves,or I don't like the DA:O dwarves. Maybe I'll get used to the idea.Just a thought.

Anyways...hope I didn't strand too far away from the main subject. It was too enticing to talk about xD.

Oh,and swooping is bad xD (That phrase was just so .....Alistaired).

Modifié par Rostas7, 07 décembre 2009 - 11:56 .

[Curlain]

Really the Silimarlion was Tolkien's prime interest, the LOTR was intially merely a sequel to teh Hobbit that the publishers of that book wished him to write, but then he saw how he could bring elements of his wider mythological works into the story. Before you call the examples that others posters have used from the central work (for Tolkien) and thus the true example of his illistration of the elven race and story outliers I'd advise you read that work MerlinTB. For Tolkien the Silimarlion is the central work of his fantasy world (even tough for the most part he never intended to publish it, he created it for himself), it is the key story. The Elves in LOTR are largly side characters and location areas appart from Legolas, only by reading the stories of the Elder Days of Arda (Middle-Earth) can you really understand how Tolkien established both Elves and Men in his fantasy world, and it's only there that elves are gone into in any real detial. So yes, these examples arn't outliers, they repressent the examples of the main protray of elves in Tolkien's world, for the main saga of that world's period and history (and the one most relevent to judging and understanding Tolkien's elven race) despite LOTR's greater fame

Modifié par Curlain, 08 décembre 2009 - 12:02 .

[Massieve_Slang]

I rather like the elves in this game. I haven't played a dalish elf yet but I did played a city elf. I just found it a shame that during the game I had so little chances to act on what she endured while living in the alienage.



And tbh are they really so different from the elves from LOTR? What I understand they were once much like them. However they were defeated by the humans and lost most of their culture and their immortality.

[Kaosgirl]

Tirigon wrote...

The question is, are Dalish, Drow or whatever elves in the tolkienesque meaning of elf, or are they beings called elf only for convenience, because the storywriter was (just like Tolkien, for that matter) too lazy to invent his own name?

And well, the issue with elves just having more experience...  Yes I agree. Sure Kaosgirl MIGHT be right about the elves being lazy, but thats personal, nothing specific to all elves,

Actually, it kind of is - though laziness is perhaps not the right term.  It's presented as something intrinsic to the longer lifespan, though I think it started more as a post-hoc rationalization for a few oddities.  For example...

Tirigon wrote...
and at least in case of the Doriath / Mirkwood elf warriors and Maedros´ Riders its definitely false, because all the lazy ones get eaten by orcs really soon. And I guess fighting for 2000 years gives you just that little more experience than the average human has    ;-)

Elves fare no better against orcs than humans do, and relative numbers alone don't account for all of it.  So it seems that the edge given by 2000 years or so of experience is not nearly as great as one would expect.

[ejikvkaske]

In this thread it has already been pointed out that there were different kinds of Tolkien elves. I find Mirkwood elves (Legolas and his kin) to be boring. I mean they've lived in the same forest for thousands of years in relative seclusion, without ever achieving anything notable.

Now, the Noldor (Feanor, Galladriel, Elrond and others) are not boring at all. Anyone who's read Silmarillion would agree. In LotR they did not play a major part, because Tolkien made it clear that the time of the elves was over in Middle Earth, their magic was either fading or vulnerable to the Ring, hence they stepped aside and let the mortal races take care of business. Having old powerful elves do all the dirty work for Frodo and the others would go against pretty much every major theme in LotR.

The problem with the Noldor is that compared to humans, dwarves, orcs and other usual fantasy races they'd be overpowered. They are better at everything, except multiplying. The other Valinor elven races are as overpowered as the Noldor, and at the same time at least as boring as the Mirkwood elves.

Thus I do not think Tolkien's elves belong in RPGs, unless all the protagonists are elves.

Having said that, I don't really like DA:O elves either. They are pretty much inferior to humans in every category. Hell, they're not even good looking. There is nothing special about them, no spark of any kind. I really gain nothing by picking an elf over a human, other then some bigoted treatment by the other humans in the game.

So both elf models don't work for me, on the other hand something in between would.

[MerinTB]

Curlain wrote...

Really the Silimarlion was Tolkien's prime interest, the LOTR was intially merely a sequel to teh Hobbit that the publishers of that book wished him to write, but then he saw how he could bring elements of his wider mythological works into the story. Before you call the examples that others posters have used from the central work (for Tolkien) and thus the true example of his illistration of the elven race and story outliers I'd advise you read that work MerlinTB. For Tolkien the Silimarlion is the central work of his fantasy world (even tough for the most part he never intended to publish it, he created it for himself), it is the key story. The Elves in LOTR are largly side characters and location areas appart from Legolas, only by reading the stories of the Elder Days of Arda (Middle-Earth) can you really understand how Tolkien established both Elves and Men in his fantasy world, and it's only there that elves are gone into in any real detial. So yes, these examples arn't outliers, they repressent the examples of the main protray of elves in Tolkien's world, for the main saga of that world's period and history (and the one most relevent to judging and understanding Tolkien's elven race) despite LOTR's greater fame

That may all well be, and I truly mean no disrespect for people who enjoy Tolkien.  I know how upset I was when some guy I barely knew called the fantasy I read "trash fantasy" and told me I should read the "real stuff" - the Jordan and Tolkien and such.

What you enjoy to read, please, enjoy to read!

Myself, as I've mentioned more than once, I cannot stand Tolkien's writing style.  He could be writing his version of elves, an episode of Gilmore Girls or the next Fantastic Four comic and if he wrote it the same way I'd not like it regardless of the subject matter.  Reading more of his work is just right out.

Now if David writes more Dragon Age books, I'm preordering! 

[Warrcry13]

I prefer Warhammer Elves.

[Drunkencelt]

th3warr1or wrote...

I enjoy, to an extent the lore and history BioWare has created for Dragon Age. 
Dwarves using swords, and speaking without scottish accents, Elves are shorter than humans, not immortal and overall are the second class citizens while Humans are the masters.

But after awhile, the novelty of the idea wears thin, and I prefer the LoTR style elves(generic high fantasy) ala Legolas and Elrond. I'm fine with the Humans(they didn't change much about it, it's still pretty much the generic fantasy human).

Basically, does anyone else prefer the LoTR elves? Naturally skilled archers, immortal, and tall and graceful creatures.

'

I don't really enjoy Tolkien anything. I understand that it deserves its place in history, because it was one of the first of its kind. I find the whole story long, over written, incredibly slow moving through most parts. I think its an average read at best compared to someo f todays sagas.

Tolkien set the orginal standard, but the bar has long since surpassed it. I don't think anything should be locked in for fantasy and races. I for one am refreshed at a change.

[cainx10a]

Sooner or later, the elves of Tolkien would perish, as Man was to be the next inheritor of the land.

My perspective on the matter is how we humans tend to treat subgroups that constitute a minority through slavery, ethnic cleansing and all those vile things that only Man can accomplish without much remorse.

Sooner or later, the remaining Elves in Tolkien's world, the few and proud would have been the victims to the Majority rule.

In DA:O, it's obvious that Religion plays a key role as well. Most racial tension are often based from religion, Christian-Jewish, Islam-Hinduism etc .. etc ... And as we all learned from the Crusades, it doesn't matter how noble Man's intentions are, we will gladly slaughter 'them' to protect or serve 'us'. The chantry and their crusade against the Dale second homeland is proof enough that the Elves, even despite their superiority would fall against an enemy that not only compensate in greater numbers, but a hideous and unfaltering ideology.

I LOVED 'The Witcher', and DA:O storyline feels rather similar in how elves are portrayed, although 'The Witcher' has the whole 'Us vs them', as in humans against those vile non-human minorities.

I don't mind Tolkien or Warhammer's version of the elves, but BioWare nailed it with theirs.

Modifié par cainx10a, 08 décembre 2009 - 01:56 .

[Grell74]

I was pleasantly suprised to see that most poster's idea of "Tolkien Elves" is not marred by the awful depiction by Peter Jackson.

Personally I could not stand the absurd dwarf tossing in Helm’s Deep (and the trivializing of the whole Gimil character), but that was a minor quibble compared to the travesty of the broad faced swarthy Orlando Bloom in a blonde wig shield-boarding off an Oliphant’s tusk. Perhaps only topped by the ridiculous girl-power PC idiocy of ninja Arwen replacing Glorfindel. I much prefer the artistic realisation of Elves in the paintings of Angus McBride and even Warhammer lore depicts elves better than the movies.

Having said that I think the DA:O twist on elves was well concieved and portrayed in the game, although personally I dont like that they clung to the D&D midget scrawny Gygax added.

Modifié par Grell74, 08 décembre 2009 - 04:39 .

[TheRealIncarnal]

Anton de Staen wrote...

I like Tolkien's elves. The thousands of clones that has spawned from various fantasy sources? Not so much. The elves of Thedas are refreshing.

This is exactly how I feel on the matter.

If I want Tolkien Elves then I have no shortage of other games I can go to.