Elves: a simpler take

[Kell]

I have been reading a lot of the threads here about the Sidhelien; and I've seen some pretty awesome ideas for them...but mine have always been much simpler.

The reason that an immortal elf isn't at LEAST a high level spellcaster: because he doesn't have the potential to be.

Just because something lives a very long time, doesn't mean that it can become the greatest at anything really. Some things just have a limited potential. Take for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_(tree)

It is the oldest tree in the world; but so common it couldn't be pointed out by anyone because, well, it is just common. It isn't the tallest, isn't the strongest, isn't the straightest and so on. It's just a tree.

So it is with elves. Yes, they can live for a VERY long time; but that doesn't mean that they have any special potential just because they live a long time. Perhaps the "average elf" is only as good at swordplay as the average human...because that is their potential.

Why didn't the elves wipe humanity off the face of Cerilia with their magic? Because they don't have that potential. Even the VERY powerful elf known as Rhuobhe is a 15th level spellcaster. He is easily older than Isaelie of the Sielwode who is only a 13th level spellcaster. It isn't because he hasn't TRIED to master more magic likely...but because he just has reached his potential.

So, in my Birthright (which is a mix of 1e/2e AD&D only), elves ARE better than the average human...in fact I make them 2HD individuals (which is why they are so good at archery); but not all of them can even cast spells. They ARE magical; but this shows in their natural abilities and resistances and not in any innate ability to cast spells.

So Elves in Cerilia are long lived, they are magical, they ARE dangerous...but they aren't all on the verge of throwing lightning bolts or even magic-missiles at their foes. Are they better individually than a human or a goblin? Yep. But even an Ogre or an Orog is going to give them a run for their money in a straight up fight because the elf is JUST an elf...even if he is 500 years old.

[Witness3]

I think I agree with you, although I have never read here on the forum or wiki the idea that all elves are spellcasters.
For me, the intimate relationship between elves and magic is useful in allowing elven history to be explained without resorting to gods or divine blood. In my campaign, elven characters are not required to be of blood in order to be true wizards elven rulers can interact with holding sources as if they were normal holdings (contest, bidding war, etc.).

They ARE magical; but this shows in their natural abilities and resistances and not in any innate ability to cast spells.
I don't mind the idea that elves are able to cast one or two cantrips just like drows in the forgotten realms, where they can cast faerie fire and darkness if I remember correctly. This doesn't make them wizards. The idea that elves can automatically cast wizard spells is very reminiscent of old editions, when the elf was a class and not a species.

Why didn't the elves wipe humanity off the face of Cerilia with their magic? Because they don't have that potential.
Also, let's not forget that according to the Lore arcane magic was defeated by the divine magic of humans, the gods were the weapon that allowed the elves to defeat. Why weren't elves cleansed off Aebrynis? probably for the same reason -- being a man of faith doesn't automatically make you cast like a level 30 cleric.

[AndrewTall]

[QUOTE=Witness3;92795Also, let's not forget that according to the Lore arcane magic was defeated by the divine magic of humans, the gods were the weapon that allowed the elves to defeat. Why weren't elves cleansed off Aebrynis? probably for the same reason -- being a man of faith doesn't automatically make you cast like a level 30 cleric.[/QUOTE]

I note that:
Anuirean history is very likely written by priests/monks of Haelyn - and canon may well reflect the 'recorded history', and thus be very favourable to the church;

Humans at their best combine near goblin-speed breeding and numbers with near karamhul discipline & fortifications and near sidhe skill at magic and arguably have the best priestly magic of all these races making them very good at war.

Over the generations a war in which 100 humans die for each sidhe who falls is a certain human victory due to the relative breeding rate and numbers but in a defensive battle humans (particularly nobles in fortifications) would be unlikely to lose numbers at anything like that ratio, so I wouldn't expect that the sidhe could exterminate humanity - drive them back for a time, yes, keep them from expanding into some areas, sure, but drive exterminate a highly populated area? No.

But... humans invading sidhe woods is also a near sure loss. A high level sidhe wizard can just ward a sidhe realm indefinitely and stop almost all attack, and unlike a human realm the sidhe wouldn't particularly complain about the impact on trade routes, etc. Then there is the military side where sidhe troops are tough, the terrain favours them hugely, and no sidhe realm has a non sidhe arcane caster or leyline as far as I know giving the sidhe a huge spell advantage over humans over time.

Factor in the politics, the normal driver for war is gaining wealth or land, the sidhe lands would yield little loot, sidhe land is deep forest which is hard to clear or settle. So the main reason left for humans to invade is pride - and that is a hard motive to sustain in the face of heavy losses and repeated delays caused by stacked warding spells.

[Rowan]

I agree mostly with each post.

On an individual level, I've often felt that the Sidhe would be well represented with Bard and Druid classes. So when I've statted any individual Sidhe, I haven't shied from using those classes, even multiclassing freely, and allowing common Sidhe to have a few levels. But still rarely up to 10.

On the macro scale, I agree with much of AndrewTall's assessment. I think also that the Sidhe have a hard time organizing mass armies and resistance; they're too individualistic.

I don't think either the Sidhe or their realms are well-represented in game mechanics, however. I do think the forests are nigh impenetrable. I see no reason why the magic thrown at invaders wouldn't be ridiculous, and the elven ability to hit and run with superior stealth and archery really would make it a proposition of ridiculous ratios of death (like 100 to 1 or more). To represent that in game mechanics needs work. At least consider the forests fortifications (similar with dwarves, btw, but perhaps to an even greater degree), and delegated realm sorcery allowing spells to be cast every turn in every province. Similarly, battle magic on the field, and also differences in how the militaries are mustered and maintained (Sidhelien realms are rather starved for resources, typically).

[Kell]

I don't see Sidhelien realms being starved for resources at all...that is an odd concept to me.

Without magic they would have at their disposal vast resources to call on and stores of material that they collect.

Just using the Sielwode as a reference:

It states plainly there are a vast number of bogs and such all around...iron in plenty would come from there.

Even without using our human concept of forestry, there would be an abundant supply of wood material on hand for bows, arrows and even construction.

Sidhe hunters would be the perfect examples of animal stewardship, likely only culling the aged and wounded in their hunts. This places vast amounts of leather, bone, glue and obviously food on the table. Vast amounts of plant matter would be available to them, from medicines to simple food stocks.

Even if they didn't mine, then stone is to be had in plenty by simply picking it up off the ground. Mortar is easily acquired as well...and no true mining needs to take place. Granted, most of their true stone buildings are probably made by magic...

Basket weaving, pottery making from clay and more...

I guess my view on the Sidhelien is that they have AT LEAST a local economy of barter if not a realm-wide economy of guilds.

Want a sword, travel to that elf that really enjoys making swords nearby. Need armor, I hear the sword-maker's brother really enjoys fashioning chain links for days that result in chainmail. Need a necklace for a gift, there is a neighbor not too far away that has been trading food with visiting travelers for silver and smelting it to make jewelry.

Etc.

[Rowan]

I don't see Sidhelien realms being starved for resources at all...that is an odd concept to me.

My point was that standard Birthright rules make Sidhelien realms relatively resource-starved in the currency of the game rules.

They don't have temples, typically don't have guilds or trade routes, don't have many high level provinces, and I'm not sure elven mentality is such to make high taxation normally make sense, unless significantly reimagined. Further, elven units are at least as costly, and are only marginally better than other units.

Now, you could reimagine all of those holding types, as well as province levels, to better represent the Sidhelien and to put them on better footing according to the rules, but that's my point: the rules put them at a disadvantage until corrected.

If you use the alternate rules suggesting income for high level Sources, as well as the rule that elves don't diminish Sources in their provinces, and set the max Source levels (mostly filled) at 9 in old elven forests, that can do much to address the issue without forcing elves to turn their sources into Alchemical factories.

If you apply the alternate rules for tribal/nomadic peoples (allowing musters for unclaimed province levels, and setting elven max province level in forests at 9, or 10 with rivers) you can address a lot more. Even can make the Gheallie Sidhe make more sense.

I think it's also quite fair to improve Sidhelien levies/militia, at least as Irregulars as some human realms have, if not better; and have them spontaneously muster if the forest is attacked, and treat forests as having levels of fortification for them.

And that they can be mustered with RP instead of GB, on a 1-1 ratio.

I did like the BRCS 3.5e version giving all elven units the Scout property, as well, which also envisions their units as being comprised of significantly fewer individuals.

And as I mentioned before, I'd see elven "vassal" wizards as custodians of each Source and an interconnected ley network in place, meaning that even though sources may be "held" by the primary Sidhe regent, elven spellcasters in each province could pull off a major realm spell each turn if necessary.

That brings up another thing: Sidhelien RP doesn't seem like it ought to be bound to the divine bloodline rules the same way. I would think RP would have a different meaning and representation for them, and not be limited to bloodlines, with different metrics for max collection and accumulation.

But this then could intersect with another problem, particularly for players of elven realms, a similar one to dwarves -- just how should they be played, really?

To be true to their flavor, I don't think they really should be just like human realms, with a focus on build up and ruling. Even on the Source Regent side, most of these domains should already be in place and mature, and they should know many realm spells.

They are a slower, longer-lived race, and the above adjustments could mean they could be a terror and go on serious rampages. But they largely don't, because the long term weight of what that could bring down on them could be quite severe. Yet players would be tempted to do it. Especially to make life miserable for Cariele and any other realm with forests.

Yet do the Sidhe really have the numbers to be expansionists? Even Rhuobhe mostly thinks of destruction and vengeance rather than conquest and expansion.

A Sidhe realm should play very differently. The question is, how does the system keep up with interesting choices for that, when it is designed primarily for human realms?

There are similar issues with dwarves and even goblins. Goblin realms I think don't adequately represent their capabilities to be very dangerous through force of arms and numbers, without having to focus on traditional holdings. Dwarven realms might focus more on traditional holdings, but do they have the numbers to justify major expansionism in campaigns, or even to make sense appealing to the people for a major offensive outside of their realms that could cost many lives? And are underground holdings and Orog threats adequately represented in the rules? I don't think so.

It's a very human-oriented game, and it does that pretty well. Takes some effort for non-human races, I think, to make it work, more to balance it appropriately, and more to really fit the flavor while making it interesting, with enough to do that isn't just human-esque.

[AndrewTall]

That brings up another thing: Sidhelien RP doesn't seem like it ought to be bound to the divine bloodline rules the same way. I would think RP would have a different meaning and representation for them, and not be limited to bloodlines, with different metrics for max collection and accumulation.

Ideally there would be a modest RP collection and retention system for any ruler, but where bloodline makes it much more effective - before Deismaar there were still kings. Perhaps collection linked to charisma bonus, maybe a fraction of level and retention a low multiple thereof?



But this then could intersect with another problem, particularly for players of elven realms, a similar one to dwarves -- just how should they be played, really?

To be true to their flavor, I don't think they really should be just like human realms, with a focus on build up and ruling. Even on the Source Regent side, most of these domains should already be in place and mature, and they should know many realm spells.

agree entirely

[FhieleLlyrandor]

I note that:
Humans at their best combine near goblin-speed breeding and numbers with near karamhul discipline & fortifications and near sidhe skill at magic and arguably have the best priestly magic of all these races making them very good at war.


I remain eternally fascinated by the way the bizarre human quasi-supremacism remained imprinted through early 2e even though it had heavily started shedding the worst of it once the assumption that games weren't interesting unless the party was majority human died an extremely deserved death (Planescape and Darksun not obsessively focusing on humans as though nothing else was truly intended to be played, and even elves and dwarves mostly grudgingly existed to gracefully go extinct once humans wanted their lands, truly did feel like a minor revolution at TSR).

Then again it still rears its head in fantasy writing to this day, as though humans needed to be constantly coddled that they, really, truly, are the best.

Also for reverse RP I've tinkered with assuming every unblooded regent counts as tainted in a rules revamp, or reverse engineering the rp army maintenance rule where 1gb replaces 5rp of the cost of an action

[Fizz]

I remain eternally fascinated by the way the bizarre human quasi-supremacism remained imprinted through early 2e even though it had heavily started shedding the worst of it once the assumption that games weren't interesting unless the party was majority human died an extremely deserved death (Planescape and Darksun not obsessively focusing on humans as though nothing else was truly intended to be played, and even elves and dwarves mostly grudgingly existed to gracefully go extinct once humans wanted their lands, truly did feel like a minor revolution at TSR).

I played a lot of 2e, and i didn't find this at all. In fact, most of our groups and tournaments i was in were composed of demihumans: humans were the minority. Dark Sun had very compelling reasons to play non-humans. A friend of mine played a thri-kreen ranger: duel wielding bastard swords two handed- gah- by far the most lethal in combat.

In 2e, humans' only advantage are unlimited level limits for any class. But the vast majority of humans never reach anything near the demihuman level limits anyways. So negatives, but not many positives either, because they're the "standard" by which all others are measured.


Then again it still rears its head in fantasy writing to this day, as though humans needed to be constantly coddled that they, really, truly, are the best.

Well, there's plenty of fantasy books that aren't about humans (Drizzt comes to mind). But remember that fantasy books aren't written for elves or dwarves, etc (because they don't exist). They're written for humans, and literature is ultimately about the human condition, so why shouldn't they be written in that light? I don't think it has anything to do with coddling.


-Fizz

[FhieleLlyrandor]

I played a lot of 2e, and i didn't find this at all. In fact, most of our groups and tournaments i was in were composed of demihumans: humans were the minority. Dark Sun had very compelling reasons to play non-humans. A friend of mine played a thri-kreen ranger: duel wielding bastard swords two handed- gah- by far the most lethal in combat.

In 2e, humans' only advantage are unlimited level limits for any class. But the vast majority of humans never reach anything near the demihuman level limits anyways. So negatives, but not many positives either, because they're the "standard" by which all others are measured.


The conceit was very much present in 1e for most of its publication history. Also, like I said, I always felt like the publication of the more Maximum Fantasy settings like DS, PS and arguably SJ came with a change of things among TSR's writers. Tabletop groups always moved faster than that.

[Fizz]

The conceit was very much present in 1e for most of its publication history.

Well, 2e was not dissimilar from 1e, and i didn't find this, so i am not sure what you mean. What do you mean by "conceit"? What do you see as some examples of this?

-Fizz

[Michael Romes]

I remain eternally fascinated by the way the bizarre human quasi-supremacism remained imprinted through early 2e even though it had heavily started shedding the worst of it once the assumption that games weren't interesting unless the party was majority human died an extremely deserved death (Planescape and Darksun not obsessively focusing on humans as though nothing else was truly intended to be played, and even elves and dwarves mostly grudgingly existed to gracefully go extinct once humans wanted their lands, truly did feel like a minor revolution at TSR).

Then again it still rears its head in fantasy writing to this day, as though humans needed to be constantly coddled that they, really, truly, are the best.

Also for reverse RP I've tinkered with assuming every unblooded regent counts as tainted in a rules revamp, or reverse engineering the rp army maintenance rule where 1gb replaces 5rp of the cost of an action

Human quasi-supremacism?
The humans in Cerilia are the descendants of *fugitives* from Aduria, tribes that fled the rule of Azrai, Shadowmagic and humanoids.

They could establish themselves in Cerilia only with the goodwill of the sidhelien in the very beginning, when they settled the shores and few plains and showed themselves to be a valuable ally against the humanoid menaces that the sidhelien alone were unable to defeat.

That they pushed back the Sidhelien and turned half of Cerilia into Plains by logging forests down is something like the arabian conquest - where Byzantium/Eastern Rome and the Sassanids fight each other so long that an upstart tribal rival from nowhere could almost take over both.

And those same human tribes would have been nearly wiped out at and after Deismaar if not the Sidhelien(well, most of them) in the last moment saw through Azrais lies and changed sides *and* the human gods sacrificed themselves to defeat? Azrai.

Humans are certainly not quasi-supremacists in Birthright. Even goblins have managed to keep their chaotic instincts in check good enough to form pretty stable kingdoms, the Orog menace - not the humans - have most of the attention of the karamhul and every human ruler capable of strategic thinking fears the next rampage of the Awnsheglien because it will come sooner or later.

[FhieleLlyrandor]

Humans are certainly not quasi-supremacists in Birthright. Even goblins have managed to keep their chaotic instincts in check good enough to form pretty stable kingdoms, the Orog menace - not the humans - have most of the attention of the karamhul and every human ruler capable of strategic thinking fears the next rampage of the Awnsheglien because it will come sooner or later.

I didn't mean on a setting level, I meant a degree of humanocentrism that tends to be worse in 1e and still reared its head in a lot of early 2e stuff.

That said the setting does use first person bias in a way that gets treated as a bit too canon for my tastes, because when it is the setting changes from "cerilian humans aren't actually that good compared to what they claim to be" to just being old school, 1e-style "actually humans are the only part of the world you should care about." And frankly it's hard to not look at cerilian humans' attitude that they deserve the whole of Cerilia whatever the locals may think as anything but at the very least quasi supremacist.

[Michael Romes]

I didn't mean on a setting level, I meant a degree of humanocentrism that tends to be worse in 1e and still reared its head in a lot of early 2e stuff.

That said the setting does use first person bias in a way that gets treated as a bit too canon for my tastes, because when it is the setting changes from "cerilian humans aren't actually that good compared to what they claim to be" to just being old school, 1e-style "actually humans are the only part of the world you should care about." And frankly it's hard to not look at cerilian humans' attitude that they deserve the whole of Cerilia whatever the locals may think as anything but at the very least quasi supremacist.

Which is irrelevant as everyone thinks he deserves the whole of Cerilia whatever the locals may think.
Rhuobhe would annihilate the humans AND goblins if he could, the other Sidhelien at least drive the humans from the forests, the humanoids would take all in the name of Azrai and not to forget the Vos despite being human would fight the other humans for the right to rule all of it. That is if the Raven, Magian and Gorgon don´t form a triumvirate first and rule them all...

[Fizz]

I am with Michael Romes on this one. (The name sounds suspiciously like Michael Roele... hrmmm. ;) ).



I meant a degree of humanocentrism that tends to be worse in 1e and still reared its head in a lot of early 2e stuff.


You're singling out 1e and 2e, but what changed in 3e and later editions? Humans are the most populous species in every setting, regardless of edition. How are other editions any different? Cite some examples.

And why would humanocentrism be a thing be a bad thing? The game was/is written and played by humans. All literature / art created by humans is bound to be humanocentric because it's written FOR humans! We're not elves or dwarves- those fantasy lives / mindsets are completely alien to us humans, so why shouldn't the setting be written from the human perspective?

If the demihumans weren't intended to be played, they wouldn't have been included in the rules. Humans are the "base", which means by definition they are neither better nor worse than the others.


And frankly it's hard to not look at cerilian humans' attitude that they deserve the whole of Cerilia whatever the locals may think as anything but at the very least quasi supremacist.


Really? If there is one species that thinks they are superior to others, it's the Sidhelien. Even before humans arrived the elves were waging wars against the goblins and others species, trying to rid the surface of goblins / gnolls etc. So how can you claim that humans are uniquely quasi-supremacist?

But the reasons for war and conquest are not so simplistic. Conflict arises from competing interests. Humans didn't start cutting down the forests because they thought themselves superior. They needed farmland to grow food to feed their children. Add to that the incomprehensibility of the elven mind to non-elves. and misunderstandings and conflict may have been inevitable. But there is no indication that humans invaded because they thought themselves superior.


-Fizz

[FhieleLlyrandor]

You're singling out 1e and 2e, but what changed in 3e and later editions? Humans are the most populous species in every setting, regardless of edition. How are other editions any different? Cite some examples.

3e, for one, did not ship with a PHB where the only focus characters in the art were all variations of the same 3 or so human dudes and did not set up a variety of rules to make it sound like you were playing wrong by not going human.



And why would humanocentrism be a thing be a bad thing? The game was/is written and played by humans. All literature / art created by humans is bound to be humanocentric because it's written FOR humans! We're not elves or dwarves- those fantasy lifestyles are completely alien to us humans, so why shouldn't it be for us?


There's no correlation there. Humanocentrism in a world where humans are not the only species is obviously bad. Humans really don't need fantasy to tell them how amazing they are, real life already does it enough, frankly undeservedly so. Birthright, if anything, is a setting I've always appreciated for having even the self-proclaimed good humans actually be some of the worst people in the setting.



Really? If there is one species that thinks they are superior to others, it's the Sidhelien. Even before humans arrived the elves were waging wars against the goblins and others species, trying to rid the surface of goblins / gnolls etc. So how can you claim that humans are uniquely quasi-supremacist?


I can claim it very easily actually, and I am in fact pretty much fundamentally right as far as the setting is concerned. First person region books are nice for the presentation of a bias but when even the biased source make it clear that the humans didn't stop claiming, conquering, deforesting elvish lands and massacring and pushing out the locals to make room for humans after Deismaar (including most of Tuar's own country to build a road), the implication that they're not doing because they believe in human superiority is funny. Human arrogance, if anything, is deep limitless ocean.

Still this is entirely unrelated to my point about old school 1e writing being fundamentally written with a low key perspective that you were basically wrong for playing a non-human and any group with more than one of one type was an abomination.

[Fizz]

3e, for one, did not ship with a PHB where the only focus characters in the art were all variations of the same 3 or so human dudes

Your characterization of earlier editions' artwork is demonstrably false. The drawings in 1st ed are few, and mostly simple sketches. Of course there are pictures of humans, but there are plenty of pictures where humans are not the focus (or even present).

From the 1st ed AD&D Player's Handbook, pages 13, 15, 93, 108 all contain images of non-human groups, one even a full page. And there are numerous examples in the DMG too.

2nd Ed (when TSR had a bigger budget) had more images, and in color, and there are numerous examples of all types of demihumans. Being that 2nd ed is just a tweak of 1st ed, any differences in artwork is not evidence of anything other than a difference in budget.


and did not set up a variety of rules to make it sound like you were playing wrong by not going human

What rules are you talking about? 1st Ed had the same set of traits/rules that distinguish the demihumans from the others as any other edition. Asides from system mechanics, they're the same. So what in 1st edition made you think playing a dwarf was wrong? Tell me where to find examples of this.



Birthright, if anything, is a setting I've always appreciated for having even the self-proclaimed good humans actually be some of the worst people in the setting.

We agree here. I like that Birthright has muddied the ethics. But i have the caveat that this feature applies to ALL the demihumans and cultures. In standard D&D, elves are portrayed as entirely chaotic good, the dwarves as lawful good (with the exception of the subraces). In a standard AD&D game, if you run into elves or dwarves, they'd be helpful (or at least not a threat).

But in Birthright, encountering a band of elves may be an instant fight for your life, particularly if you're a human. The gheallie sidhe is certainly not portrayed or justified as a good act. And the dwarves are not immune either: consider the good dwarves of Baruk-Azhik versus the evil dwarves of Mur-Kilad.

Birthright is different not because humans can be antagonists (other settings have examples of evil humans too), it's because all the cultures are compromised.




So how can you claim that humans are uniquely quasi-supremacist?
I can claim it very easily actually, and I am in fact pretty much fundamentally right as far as the setting is concerned.

As far as the setting goes, you are incorrect.

I didn't say humans were not capable of having a superiority complex. My question was "how can you claim that humans are uniquely quasi-supremacist?" Note the word "uniquely". Why do you think only humans are capable of a superiority complex?

The Birthright rulebook describes elves as "very conscious of their perceived superiority and treat others with coldness or condescension". So as i said, if any species has a superiority complex, it's the elves. No such description is mentioned for humans.

If you want your humans to think themselves superior, fine. But they're not different than other species, and by canon elves are the biggest offenders. So why single out humans?


... make it clear that the humans didn't stop claiming, conquering, deforesting elvish lands and massacring and pushing out the locals to make room for humans after Deismaar (including most of Tuar's own country to build a road), the implication that they're not doingbecause they believe in human superiority is funny. Human arrogance, if anything, is deep limitless ocean.

But your ascribing human actions to arrogance alone is to ignore the history that led to these events. The elves are not innocents in this. The humans did encroach on elven lands, but it was the elves who started the gheallie sidhe, killing humans indiscriminately: soldier, logger, peasant, child. And this continued even after Deismaar. Don't you think that after generations of such attacks the humans might be pissed off enough to not care about elven concerns? Thus, a superiority complex is not required to be antagonistic towards them.

In fact, it may be the elven superiority complex that lead to the gheallie sidhe- they're only humans, just a pest to be wiped off the map.



Still this is entirely unrelated to my point about old school 1e writing being fundamentally written with a low key perspective that you were basically wrong for playing a non-human and any group with more than one of one type was an abomination.

Again, where this is stated or even implied? Genuinely, from where do you get the impression that playing a non-human is wrong? I played 1st ed and even more 2nd, and a human pc was always in the minority.


-Fizz

[Michael Romes]

...
Again, where this is stated or even implied? Genuinely, from where do you get the impression that playing a non-human is wrong? I played 1st ed and even more 2nd, and a human pc was always in the minority.
-Fizz

My guess would be that he refers to the few rules favouring humans.
Paladins had to be humans and all demi-humans had level restrictions in place. However due to low-level campaigns or demi-human multiclassing I never had a problem with them.

[Fizz]

My guess would be that he refers to the few rules favouring humans.
Paladins had to be humans and all demi-humans had level restrictions in place. However due to low-level campaigns or demi-human multiclassing I never had a problem with them.

Hmmm... good point. Maybe. That was meant to be the humans' sole advantage. Elves, dwarves, etc, all had special abilities, and the humans' special "ability" was unlimited advancement. Whether that was a fair trade-off is another question entirely, but i don't think it says "playing a non-human is wrong".

It's odd, over the years the complaint i always heard was the exact opposite, that there was no reason to play humans- they're too boring. (I didn't agree with that sentiment either. Heh.)


-Fizz

[FhieleLlyrandor]

The humans did encroach on elven lands, but it was the elves who started the gheallie sidhe, killing humans indiscriminately: soldier, logger, peasant, child.

-Fizz

There is nothing indiscriminate about farmers and loggers being targeted when they're part and parcel of the adurians' colonial expansion.


Thus, a superiority complex is not required to be antagonistic towards them.

It took a gigantic superiority complex in the first place to decide that lands they'd never even set foot on until the expansion of the Adurian empire were theirs by divine right.

The claim that the gheallie sidhe is arrogant for its existence reminds me of a common saw in a lot of fantasy settings, if anything, that elves are inherently arrogant for merely wanting to survive without becoming conquered subjects of humanity.


Paladins had to be humans and all demi-humans had level restrictions in place. However due to low-level campaigns or demi-human multiclassing I never had a problem with them.

Among other things, basically yes. Also some of the obviously arbitrary class restrictions; it took complete druid and complete bard to drop the silliness of elves not being able to take those up in core 2e.

[Fizz]

There is nothing indiscriminate there.

If they were willing to kill children as willingly as soldiers, that by definition is indescriminate. That's the very meaning of the word.


It's entirely on the humans that they weaponized their innocents as a human shield for the sake of colonialism.

This is your defense of elven behaviour? "It's not my fault- they made me kill them" ?

But justification is not the issue. My point is that elves killing humans indiscriminately is going to enflame things, regardless of whether you think humans arrogant.


It took a gigantic superiority complex in the first place to decide that lands they'd never even set foot on until the expansion of the Adurian empire were theirs by divine right.

That is incorrect. The humans fled Aduria. It had nothing to do with wanting to conquer. It was about surviving. Per Atlas of Cerilia, they were "fleeing the domination of decadent empires and the wrath of a vengeful god". You seem to be suggesting that humans' desire to survive makes them arrogant, yet you give a pass on the elves for this.


The claim that the gheallie sidhe is arrogant for its existence reminds me of a common saw in a lot of fantasy settings, if anything, that elves are inherently arrogant for merely wanting to survive without becoming conquered subjects of humanity.

This is what you're making of humans though- they initially came to Cerilia to survive, not to invade. This is well established in the Atlas of Cerilia. It was later generations that ended up warring with the elves as humans multiplied and needed more land.

In Birthright, elves (as a whole) are arrogant. It says so in the original rulebook. It reads: "Elves are very conscious of their perceived superiority and treat others with coldness or condescension". Further, the Atlas of Cerilia states their hatred "extends to humans humanoids and whomever stands in the way of elven domination". This is exactly what you've been ascribing to humans! So why do you only criticize humans for this behaviour and not the elves?

Blindly applying "arrogance" to villify only one side is simplisitic thinking and ignores a long and complicated history. By canon elves are the species with the biggest superiority complex and worst arrogance.



Among other things, basically yes. Also some of the obviously arbitrary class restrictions; it took complete druid and complete bard to drop the silliness of elves not being able to take those up in core 2e.

Kinda, sorta. 1st Edition's Unearthed Arcana allowed all types of elves (except dark) to be druids (unlimited level too, except for wild elves). In 2nd ed, Complete Druid allowed only sylvan elves to be druids. In Complete Bard, an elf could only be a bard if of a specific kit. So it wasn't a free choice yet.

Now, the Complete Book of Elves included an option (to the DM) to expand level limits. The consequence of this, as noted by the section, is that elves would quickly become the dominant species on the planet due to their long lifespans.

Humans one and only advantage was unlimited level advancement. Humans do not get bow and sword bonuses, elves do. Humans do not have 90% resistance to sleep and charm, elves do. Humans do not have infravision or the ability to notice secret doors, elves do. Etc etc. As such, human flexibility (any class) was meant to be the way of balancing, not a secret way of saying "only play humans". It never worked in any game i played though- nearly everyone wanted to play a demihuman. (Ironically, i always liked elves. :) )


-Fizz

[FhieleLlyrandor]

This is your defense of elven behaviour? "It's not my fault- they made me kill them" ?

But justification is not the issue. My point is that elves killing humans indiscriminately is going to enflame things, regardless of whether you think humans arrogant.


If you start violently conquering someone's home, you don't get to hide behind the children you put in harm's way to pretend the people opposing you are the evil ones in this equation.




That is incorrect. The humans fled Aduria. It had nothing to do with wanting to conquer. It was about surviving. Per Atlas of Cerilia, they were "fleeing the domination of decadent empires and the wrath of a vengeful god". You seem to be suggesting that humans' desire to survive makes them arrogant, yet you give a pass on the elves for this.



And in betraying the elves for their lands they proved that they were no better. The Atlas is history from the perspective of an Anuirean and even he admits the early settlers betrayed the elves, not the other way around. This is without even going into the PS for Talinie and Ilien implying genocidal warfare as part of the process of "human survival"

A decadent empire worshipping a vengeful god is basically late Anuire, somewhat ironically.

The humans decided to "survive" by conquering another people and driving them to near-extinction rather than accomodating themselves as refugees. This is the height of arrogance.

[Michael Romes]

If you start violently conquering someone's home, you don't get to hide behind the children you put in harm's way to pretend the people opposing you are the evil ones in this equation.

Only that it was not "one´s home". The books clearly say that the sidhelien established an empire that dominated the karamhul who retreated back into the mountains and that not ruled, but enslaved the goblins and kobolds of the Stonecrown Mountains "teaching them civilization", e. g. in the Chronicles of Cerilia from Dragon Magazin 241

The time given between the sidhelien dominating the karamhul until a peace accord is found only took 11000 years...

And all of that happened before a single human set foot on Cerilia. And not all land in Anuire that the humans took later was ruled by the sidhelien, e.g. the 3rd tribe of the Andu, the Mhora are mentioned to have been in war with the goblin kingdom of Kar Durgar for 40 years until they razed Kar-Durgar and established Mhoried.



And in betraying the elves for their lands they proved that they were no better. The Atlas is history from the perspective of an Anuirean and even he admits the early settlers betrayed the elves, not the other way around. This is without even going into the PS for Talinie and Ilien implying genocidal warfare as part of the process of "human survival"

A decadent empire worshipping a vengeful god is basically late Anuire, somewhat ironically.

The humans decided to "survive" by conquering another people and driving them to near-extinction rather than accomodating themselves as refugees. This is the height of arrogance.

Not quite. At first they settled the coasts with the sidhelien seeing their arrival as a blessing that could help them in their still going wars against the humanoids.
"The Flight from the Shadow" (the flight of the humans from Aduria to Cerilia) started in -515 Haelyn´s Count.
Between -515 and -465 "Andu settle most lands now recognized as Anuire"
-478 "First humans reach Tuarhievel; elves and humans agree to share the forests"

That should make clear that the humans did not drive the sidhelien from all of Anuire. Quite a lot of Anuire was under humanoid rule after the sidhelien empire crumbled under the slave revolts and splintered into various kingdoms.

The human-sidhelien coexistance lasted for 115 years as the Wars of humans and elves raged from
-400 to -200.

115 years for humans nowadays are already long. WW1 was not ago that long in our world and yet the current generation nowadays hardly knows anything about it or who ruled what back then.

For a society on the level of the Andu back then that probably was 3 generations to grow their numbers and need more land and to see the lands they live in as their own.
And if the Sidhelien use land in a way similar to the Natives in the Prairies of the US, e.g. not farming and mining, no permanent cities but perhaps a semi-nomadic lifestyle, then from a human point of view that land was free to take and put to use.

[Fizz]

If you start violently conquering someone's home, you don't get to hide behind the children you put in harm's way to pretend the people opposing you are the evil ones in this equation.

Your premise is flawed. The humans did not "start violently conquering". (See below). And humans did not put their children at knowing risk. Humans did not ever think "if i chop down this tree my child might be killed... ey i'll chance it". With the gheallie sidhe it didn't matter what you did- if you were human, you were to be slain.


And in betraying the elves for their lands they proved that they were no better. The Atlas is history from the perspective of an Anuirean and even he admits the early settlers betrayed the elves, not the other way around. This is without even going into the PS for Talinie and Ilien implying genocidal warfare as part of the process of "human survival".

I cannot find anything in the the Atlas that says the early settlers betrayed the elves. Where does it say that? It does say that the humans continued to expand after the goblinoids were pushed back, but how is that a betrayal?

In the PS Ilien book, there is no reference to humans being genocidal towards elves. Conflict perhaps (it says the elves fled, and there were battles later), but no indication of genocide.

And in the PS Talinie book, it specifically says the Andu did not wipe out other peoples, this is evidence that the humans did not come with a 'divine right' to conquer all, it was something specific to their encounter with the Trautha.

The Atlas's account is largely consistent with that of the elves: it was the elves who started the genocidal wars. Consider Rhoubhe's own words from Blood Enemies. First regarding the human crimes: "Our forests were defoliated than they could repair themselves". His conclusion: "War was inevitable". His goal: "...never cease until each and every lying human on Cerilia was killed".

So Rhoubhe acknowledges they began an attempted genocide of the humans because he objected to their treatment of the forests. After humans started being killed, of course humans would have fought back, and that led to all-out war.

So what about this chain of events is human arrogance?


The humans decided to "survive" by conquering another people and driving them to near-extinction rather than accomodating themselves as refugees. This is the height of arrogance.

So in your view, once a refugee, always a refugee? If the elves expected humans to "stay in their place", that's arrogance on the elven side, not the humans.

As shown above, humans didn't deliberately start driving back the elves until full blown war had erupted- after the gheallie sidhe began. And earlier we established humans didn't arrive on Cerilia out of conquest. Thus i fail to see the 'divine right' of conquest at any point of the history discussed here.


Michael Romes makes a very good point about timelines. Humans lifespans are so short they may not even noticed an ongoing change to the world. To an elf, a human lifespan is like a weekend is to us. Plus elves are magical, don't need to sleep or farm, etc. These are alien species to one another. No wonder conflict occured.

This is in part why i like Birthright. There are no simple answers. No one side is overtly evil or good. And even within each "side" are multiple opinions and individual motivations that can be misconstrued. Not good vs evil, but conflicting motivations and consequences.


-Fizz