Topic: Immortal Elves

[Skaran]

Also don't annoy Oberon or Titania if you know what is good for you.

[Spartan]

Great thread. I'm another of the Tolkienophiles, and I love elves. But they can be a pain in the posterior.

Somebody already mentioned H?rnic elves, which are essentially M.E. elves though debased somewhat. Like some other interpretations, their memories fade with time, leading to what N. Robin Crossby called a rather "stoned" behaviour. An ancient elf might THINK he remembers coming to H?rn with Siem, but in reality, it's what he read in a book last century.

With regards to elven "passion", a mainstay of Tolkien's elves, one could always explain an elven adventurer as being in that "passionate" stage... since they're immortal, that phase (as in "he's just going through a phase") might last a good 50 years. After which he grows up and settles down.

Another nice take on elves was done by Poul Anderson. That was a key influence on Michael Moorcock's Melniboneans. Basically immoral (well, more like amoral) immortals.

It all comes down to what you like in a setting. If you've got mature players, then someone who really likes and "gets" what elves are all about in your setting is going to do a good job, and everyone is going to enjoy it.

Elves rock. All elves, all the time. That's my motto. Or it is for this thread.

-Mark

[GrumpyOldFart]

1) Would being an "eternal teenager" mean they are progressive or concervative? The way you word it makes it seems as though humans get progressive as they get older, but that is not usually  the case. There's some quote about being born a democrat and growing up into a republican........

"Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart;
to be one at thirty is proof of want of brains."

- Georges Clemenceau, Former Prime Minister of France

I had immortal Elves as being extremely individualistic, so much so that the basic unit of Elven society (equivalent to the nuclear family in most human societies) is the individual Elf. They may have a hierarchical political structure of some sort, I would expect the ties between members to be very loose indeed. The main reason for that opinion is that, being immortal, they can afford to be patient when making their environment what they wish it to be. The purpose of ANY government is to provide as high a standard of living and as safe, predictable an environment as possible for the largest number possible. But if you personally can tweak the local ecology over several generations to do what you want, you can accomplish all that by yourself given enough time. Likewise if your 'tweaking' took the form of creating new species, "teaching the plants how to grow", and other things of that nature, your idealized environment is relatively permanent, you can one day get it to the point where it is self-maintaining. At that point, the only societal purpose to government is to referee disputes between members of the governed society. If the birth rate is low enough, population pressure will be likewise low enough to make the need for such a referee fairly uncommon. Such a governmental/societal structure would be roughly equivalent to modern Americans' and Europeans' going to church: Regardless of how seriously you personally may take it, for most people it's really just a way to keep a sense of cultural continuity, and a way to keep in touch with the neighbors.
I could quite easily see an Elf getting very cautious, as he doesn't have to die EVER if he's careful enough.... but I can just as easily picture an Elf engaging in risky behaviors out of sheer boredom. Think about it, most of the things we consider exciting rely on the perception of personal danger for their sense of excitement. At the very least, there must be a feeling of challenges overcome. To quote Mel Gibson in the movie 'Air America':
"We're trouble junkies. We've been mainlining danger and adrenalin so long nothing else gets us off."

And yes,

. .the kind to steal your baby and leave you a changling and all that. . .or take you in for an all night party that turns out to last 100 years.

that makes perfect sense to me. This is an Elf we're talking about, not some ephemera who has to check the mirror every morning to see if he got old while he wasn't looking. Why should he care, or even think about, the problems a 100 year party will cause for some mayfly species that barely lives that long? Why would he consider taking a human baby any more worthy of note than a human taking a wild dog's "baby" and domesticating it?

[Dreven1]

My players never actually abused the "Elvin" trait of immortality so I haven?t had to deal with that much.  I typically ask for a background idea, and if some historic fact comes up then that particular character wanting to use the information or use the knowledge better have purchased "Region Lore" or "History" for that part of the world... else the character didn?t make note of the event and/or was off dreaming about ponds lilly's or something...

Additionally, I did have a character with a 2000 year old elf play in a game.  He was STILL first level after that long... he spent most of his time doing odd Elvin jobs like thinking about existence, planting forests and making small talk with squirrels.  There was a time in my previous campaign where one of the other players asked, ?Weren?t you around for so-and-so major event?!? The Elvin player rolled his History lore and failed. The dice never lie? the character simply didn?t remember the event in enough detail.  Kind of like you having to remember what was the Daily paper headline for the morning of July 2nd 1992.  Anyone remember off the top of your head??? No? see my point?

[Dr. Joe]

I admit I didn't read every single post so I hope I'm not repeating someone else's ideas.

Same here...

3) In most fantasy settings deities are not a matter of belief but a matter of fact. Once an Elf accomplishes what he thinks to be his destiny it is possible that he wishes to die and live again in the afterlife.

...but this, I think, is one of the central issues about the difference between (Tolkien) elves and humans. Humans live, die, and then pass out of the spheres of the world, which is their main gift from Eru Iluvatar. Elves are immortal, but typically die of violence or tire of the troubles of (Middle) Earth, thereafter to gather in Mandos' Halls (located in Valinor, a place quite a few elves have actually been to) until the end of time. Their souls do not pass on into some kind of afterlife separate from existence, rather, they simply have to sit and wait (which may be extremely boring?).

Note that this also implies that immortal elves are so only w.r.t. the time frame of the existence of the world, which seems to be limited (both in terms of space and time). Only human souls are truly immortal, whereas those of elves cease to exist once the world disappears - at least that's how I understand it. The fate of the elves is tied to Arda/the world and the battle of the deities there (or rather, the angels aka Valar vs. Melkor/Morgoth, the fallen angel), but humans really get to leave - something that elves may even be envious of, considering all the losses they experience...

3) Exactly. When you have proof of the soul and life after death, everyone changes how they deal with dying - not just elves. That, right there, would necessitate a change in the basic cultures of every species on (or in) that world.

What proof??? 

As indicated, the souls of (Tolkien) elves and humans are different, therefore their societies/cultures would certainly develop different attitudes towards life, death, and what to do in between!? Isn't the cause of the fall of Numenor the failure of humans (aka the Edain) to realize Iluvatar's gift as such, rather trying to extend their (personal) lives, pondering their ancestry, and other useless things like these? In short, a lack of trust or belief in Iluvatar? They definitely have no proof of the existence of their souls, or what will happen to them after death - it is a question of belief!

As for the elves, they're pretty directly involved in the battles by design, as the fallen Melkor wants to rule the world and supersede them with his own creatures (in a contest with Iluvatar himself!). They don't have much of a choice in the conflict (whereas the humans do, and they even have the above guaranteed escape option...), at least many of them believe that they must defend themselves (or regain the stolen Silmarils) and try to defeat the evil Melkor represents.

Also, there seems to me no problem with the motivation of elves to go adventuring. In the battles with Melkor, large armies regularly are defeated by masses of orcs led by dragons, balrogs, even Sauron (which simplifies the population control issue...). The next generation must prepare for the next battle, so adventuring is simply training (for those who strive to be a leader in that battle - I assume the ranks of the armies aren't adventurer types!). This argument may easily be used in other settings, as "enemies" of the elves will certainly consider them more dangerous (due to their potential from their lifespan) than puny humans, plus the latter are typically more gullible and can be duped into service...

To me, such a basic difference goes a long way in explaining away all the elf vs. human issues. So much for the theories...

Now, in game terms, it's always seemed to me that there is a certain elf racism among players, which is why only few ever play an elf (I admit not having a large statistics to back this, though). This seems directly related to the longevity issue, i.e., envy. As a GM, this plays into my hands in the sense that there is a "natural" antagonism towards a different race/culture, which to my mind goes rather well with the above differences.
Considering motivation to go adventuring, well, the players don't really ever worry about this, apart from the first few session where they prepare and explain their background. Mostly, that background loses importance as a common memory develops from the situations mastered (or not  ) in the game.

Currently (playing in the Shadow World), I have two half-elves - for both of which there is a clear min-maxing tendency: The players chose their race only to benefit from better bonuses and resistances. I sometimes wish they would make more of their characters in the light of the above...

[Dreven1]

Ah, in addition, I believe that most Elves will get bored of life after a few thousand years (and like the post above) will seek to find out what is in the "beyond".

We tend to think in "human" terms... I believe that if I was on this earth for 1000+ years I would be filled with this life and want to experiance something else.

Just a thought.  Good post from above!

[GrumpyOldFart]

We tend to think in "human" terms... I believe that if I was on this earth for 1000+ years I would be filled with this life and want to experiance something else.

For that matter, if I had been born in the time of Julius Caesar and was still alive, I'd probably be heartily sick by now of humans so predictably acting like humans. I could easily picture opinions along the lines of, "You guys are idiots. I saw Hitler comin by the mid 1600s, and saw Saddam Hussein comin by WWI."

[Dreven1]

Grump, another excellent point! Being immortal would mean seeing the same patterns over and over and it would (to me at least stepping outside my mortal shell) get routine or mundain.

[Jenkyna]

This may have been mentioned before, but one of the side effects of the long term view of an immortal race would be the need to cover up past mistakes. In the US our ancestors in a very real sense committed genocide against the Native Americans, but as mortals we can distance ourselves from those actions; after all we weren't alive then to have any say in the decision making that led to those events. An immortal on the other hand wouldn't be able to think that way. That village he quietly helped wipe off the face of the map when he was young and foolish would need to stay safely lost to history or he'd have to deal with being regarded as hitleresque by society for... well the rest of his life. Such a character might go to great great lengths to cover up such a past mistake no matter how noble or good he might be regarded.

In addition a previous post pointed out that in a level one start campaign an immortal, by virtue of being level one, would be young. Perhaps in my above example the elf having realized what he had done gave up the sword, and worked as a potter for the last 1000 years trying to hide from his own past. Now he has taken it up again to protect his homeland from a great threat, and maybe finally atone for his past wrongs. Having not lifted a weapon in a millenia, while he might have a really high pottery making skill, he'd effectively be a level one fighter. The GM has a great deal of leeway in deciding how to factor in the skills of a centuries old being, the most obvious necessity being a need to make the character level one in their 'party job' skills. Their highly developed past life skills can simply be things that make up the characters unique persona. Perhaps the evil that threatens the world eventually leads back to the immortals past mistake. How does he handle the situation? Does he sacrifice himself to make amends? or does he begin murdering his companions in their sleep to cover it up? A good GM would find ways to encourage him to make a well role-played decision.   

Tolkien's works also had a variety of established elven communities not all of which were involved in / aware of the goings on in Middle Earth, or even each other. Once again a GM has latitude in deciding how to manage the potential for knowledge of historical events that are supposed to remain lost to history till the time is right for the the GM to spring them on the players. Just because a player is 1000 years old doesn't mean he has witnessed or even paid attention to all of recorded history. Consider the staggering number of Americans who only read the sports page, and forget the rest of the paper. An immortal might well have spent that century too involved in his own affairs, learning a new art form, etc. to notice whats was going on in the world. Perhaps his political party was on the loosing side of an election and he stopped paying attention out of frustration. After all he's immortal he can always read about it later, and then the next thing he knows later is too late and people are too busy burning the books to stay warm to worry about the knowledge they are destroying. This too can become a part of a characters motivation in the present day. He sat it out once, and the world went to hell around him, so now he's taking an active hand.

I think immortality can be role-played properly it simply requires care on the part of the GM in designing the world and it's PC"s, and a willingness on the part of the player to run the persona correctly.

In some campaign settings immortality could be a useful trait. In a middle earth setting immortality could be used a vehicle to allow the players to participate in minor events surrounding the major chapters of world history from the first to the 4th age. The GM simply skips ahead a few hundred years after the last quest in order to set the stage for the next one e.g. the pc's go from the destruction of Angband forward in time to the destruction of Numenor. An alternative might be a campaign that involves flashbacks like in the film 'Highlander,' with the players acting out events they participated in centuries ago in their own past.

Immortality is simply another character trait that needs to be managed in the world system. Magic isn't exactly a 'realistic' thing either and necessitates lots of rules and limitations that the GM must manage in order to make it playable.

[Dreven1]

Great post jmsrober!

I agree with almost everything you have stated!

I do disagree however on the line of thinking that a level 1 MUST be young.  I tend to think that levle 1 is when the character decides to journey into life.  To branch out and experience new things in life. To go beyond their "Adolescence" skills.

Here is an example.  I have a 3402 year old Elf.  She has traveled but never really paid attention to where she was going.  She used her adolescence skills to make crafts or find food.  Using the starting money to survive on or to use the basic skills to help out general society (cooking, tailoring, etc) but was always a drifter.  Never really buckling down and accepting life and its challenges. 

I have MANY friends like this.  They neither improve themselves or try to achieve something better they just live off society's graces and drift. Pisses me off but that?s another story...

So, at level 1 the character actually makes a decision to apply themselves harder, to achieve or try to experience all that life has to give. 

Take our lives, some people in our world simply choose to "exist".  Never trying to achieve better, never to try harder or "work" at life . . . if there was a group of people that only lived 5 years... don?t you think they would see those people as almost immortal? To someone that only lives 5 years they would have a hard time comprehending why that 70 year old wasted her life.

So, to US a 3400 year old elf that simply drifts along her life would seem ridiculous to us but to an immortal elf would just be a short amount of time.

I don?t know if I properly conveyed the way we play elves in my games or if I gave you a good example of the way I believe an immortal elf would think.  its just my 2 cents!

[GrumpyOldFart]

So, at level 1 the character actually makes a decision to apply themselves harder, to achieve or try to experience all that life has to give.

The only problem I have with that is that people, even drifters with no ambition, motivation or energy, learn *something* every day. Granted, the aimless ones learn a tiny fraction of what those who are out and doing learn. Nonetheless, I can't see someone having lived for 3400 years and having NO skills or expertise they did not have 3398 years before. They may only gain a level every 500 years or so, but they'd have learned *something*.
I suppose the reason I feel that way is because I consider "adolescent skills" to be largely the things you can't *help* learning by growing up in your parent culture. It's not as if small children are legendary for being motivated to succeed and improve themselves.

But then, part of the delight of RPGs is that 2 GMs don't have to agree on everything, or indeed anything, for their players to all be having fun.

[rdanhenry]

Perhaps in my above example the elf having realized what he had done gave up the sword, and worked as a potter for the last 1000 years trying to hide from his own past. Now he has taken it up again to protect his homeland from a great threat, and maybe finally atone for his past wrongs. Having not lifted a weapon in a millenia, while he might have a really high pottery making skill, he'd effectively be a level one fighter.

That's D&D thinking. He's a low- or mid-level (depending on how much he challenged himself with his crafting and other non-adventuring activities) Fighter who just hasn't developed many ranks in weapon skills. He may fight no better than he did at first level, although even that is unlikely, as his stats have probably improved a bit, but that's because Rolemaster is skill-based rather than class-and-level based.

Consider the staggering number of Americans who only read the sports page, and forget the rest of the paper.

Thereby developing the skill History (Sports).

[yammahoper]

How about this...any immortal is meant primarily as a plot devise, NOT as a pnp character for players to play.

[Temujin]

How about this...any immortal is meant primarily as a plot devise, NOT as a pnp character for players to play.

Why should players not be a plot device?

[GrumpyOldFart]

Why should players not be a plot device?

I had a player whose character's parents were both famous arena fighters. In point of fact, his mom had killed his dad in the arena when he was an infant.

He was a plot device for nearly his entire career.

[RandalThor]

3) Exactly. When you have proof of the soul and life after death, everyone changes how they deal with dying - not just elves. That, right there, would necessitate a change in the basic cultures of every species on (or in) that world.

What proof??? 

Please, remember when I started this thread (oh, so loooonggg agggoooo.....) I was not referring to Tolkein elves (though, they are the original version of immortal elves). For the most part, I was referring to the Rolemaster elf. In the generic fantasy world there are elven gods along with gods for most of the races, and their ideals of an afterlife were very similar (just the somantics were different).

[RandalThor]

As for the level/age thing consider this:

You were born in the age of Christ (or a thousand years before) and you are now (still) living. Do you know anything about the modern world? Or is all you knowledge/active skills related to the opening of the first century?

The only way it makes sense is if the person was in some sort of stasis. Just the general day-to-day living teaches, you have no choice but to be in situations, some dramatic, some dangerous, even without trying - specially if you live for millenia! Things happen. (The edited version of the statement).

And Players are the ULTIMATE plot device.

[Jenkyna]

I would point out that Tolkein drew heavily on Norse legends in creating his books. I don't really know where the elves figured into that. There is a pretty good chance he was not the originator of the idea of immortal elves, but rather it came from our own myths and legends.

[GrumpyOldFart]

He also drew heavily on Celtic mythology as well, perhaps that's where he got it.

[Jenkyna]

I disagree with the assertion that it's D&D thinking to say that a fighter who hadn't touched a sword in a thousand years would forget the skill. Martial artists must train constantly just to maintain their skills let alone see any improvements. Real skill improvements in martial arts take a considerable amount of dedication and practice above that of someone who just wants to retain what they have learned. This is especially true of the swords arts which require enormous discipline. A black belt in Akido once commented to me that in life he had forgotten much more than he currently knew, and he was good enough to have been invited to teach Akido in Japan. It would be perfectly reasonable for a GM to remove skill ranks from a person who didn't use a skill or practice it for a very long time. A player might also reasonable decide that he or she wants to discard a skill in favor of learning a new one. You could in effect bar them from putting any development into that skill from that point forward, and then let them add an additional skill in it's place. They wouldn't loose all knowledge immediately, but you could remove ranks from the old skill as they add them to the new one to reflect their lack of practice as well as any limitation the brain has on storage and retrieval of knowledge. It wouldn't need to be a 1:1 ratio either.

In life I have chosen to discard skills. I could no more do Algebra II today than fly without an airplane. I haven't used it in 20 years, and Algebra II is less demanding than the study of the sword which requires both physical and mental conditioning.