Knights & Knaves Alehouse

ScottyG wrote:It's another Tokien-inspired thing.

Possibly, although it might have a connection to Anderson's elves from Three Hearts and Three Lions too, where elves and other faerie creatures are beings of Chaos opposed to Law, as represented by the Church. Under that model, it might also make sense to deny that elves have souls as humans do.

toresimonsen wrote: It seems like a major RP drawback to play a character type that cannot be resurrected. I’m not sure if that rule is fair.

You can always take the Tolkien route that elves never die. They just go another place, reform, stay there for a while and come back centuries or millenniums later.

James Maliszewski wrote:

ScottyG wrote:It's another Tokien-inspired thing.

Possibly, although it might have a connection to Anderson's elves from Three Hearts and Three Lions too, where elves and other faerie creatures are beings of Chaos opposed to Law, as represented by the Church. Under that model, it might also make sense to deny that elves have souls as humans do.

Indeed. I don't have the book in front of me right now but, IIRC, Anderson makes the point that Elves (or as characters in the book call them, "Pharisees") don't have souls. Given that Gary's conception of Elves had much in common with how they appear in that book I'd suggest that it's at least a possibility that this is where he got the idea. I really do think that - at times - people make much out of the Tolkien influence on Gary as opposed to the influence from all the other stuff he read.

Does anyone know if this was covered in Gary's Q&A threads either at enworld or DF?

Gray Mouser wrote:I really do think that - at times - people make much out of the Tolkien influence on Gary as opposed to the influence from all the other stuff he read.

You'll get no arguments from me on this score. I've been trying to convince people of this point for a while now, but it's a a difficult position to get people to accept. Most gamers simply lack familiarity with fantasy authors before the Tolkien craze of the 70s to recognize their obvious influence over Gygax. Likewise, there's a powerful mythology that denies Gary's sincerity when he stated that Tolkien had minimal influence over his conception of D&D. People simply assume he was being disingenuous, if not mendacious (or worse), and so they continue to see Middle-earth as the source of D&D's ideas, when it was in fact only one source among many and a somewhat minor one at that.

Well, I think Tolkien and Anderson are on the same wavelength on a lot of things. They are both writing fantasies based on Catholicism and Germanic Mythology, amongst other things. Tolkien’s The Hobbit (1937) may or may not have been an influence on Anderson’s The Broken Sword (1954), or, for that matter, Andre Norton’s Huon of the Horn (1951). But I think none of them would claim to be greatly original on the matter of Elves, and would simply say they were restoring Elves to their stature from the Old Icelandic epics and such.

Anyway, the fact that Tolkien and Anderson come to the same conclusion regarding Elves not having souls like Men kind of renders it a moot point whether one or the other is the main influence on Gygax in that regard. Why, Gygax read both!

Falconer wrote:Anyway, the fact that Tolkien and Anderson come to the same conclusion regarding Elves not having souls like Men kind of renders it a moot point whether one or the other is the main influence on Gygax in that regard. Why, Gygax read both!

Well, yes, of course. And I suppose you could make a somewhat lengthy list of things that EGG borrowed from both JRRT (halflings, orcs, the original "balrog" demon, rangers, etc.) and Poul Anderson (swan mays, trolls, "fantasized" paladins, much of Anderson's image of dwarves, etc.). But people tend to forget appendix N when discussing Elves, for some reason.

I'm all for DM's adapting things to their particular campaign if they wish. We've all done it one way or another, I'm sure. But if one actually reads the description of Elves Gary puts forth in the MM, PHB and DMG I think that on balance they have more in common with Anderson's chaotic "Pharisees" than with JRRT's Noldor or Sindar. At times I think some people allow the influence Tolkien has on them to color their view of Elves in AD&D and then read into Gary's description their own views. Heck, I remember thinking for years that Gary had for some reason "made a mistake" when describing Elves since they were obviously supposed to be taller than Men.

James Maliszewski wrote:You'll get no arguments from me on this score. I've been trying to convince people of this point for a while now, but it's a a difficult position to get people to accept. Most gamers simply lack familiarity with fantasy authors before the Tolkien craze of the 70s to recognize their obvious influence over Gygax. Likewise, there's a powerful mythology that denies Gary's sincerity when he stated that Tolkien had minimal influence over his conception of D&D. People simply assume he was being disingenuous, if not mendacious (or worse), and so they continue to see Middle-earth as the source of D&D's ideas, when it was in fact only one source among many and a somewhat minor one at that.

Well, it’s a tired debate, but maybe I can squeeze in some points about that:

Both sides are overreacting. It is not true that “Middle-earth is the source of D&D's ideas,” I agree, but you’re running too far in the opposite direction by claiming that it was a minor/minimal source for D&D.

Gygax genuinely preferred other authors—Merritt, Lovecraft, Howard, Leiber, deCamp/Pratt, and Vance—and thought of them as his major influences. Any reasonable and well-read person can look at the great majority of Gygax’s works (modules, novels, supplements, rules) and agree that their influence outweighs Tolkien’s.

However, there is a special exception within the Gygax corpus: the Chainmail Fantasy Supplement and the original 3-volume Dungeons & Dragons set are heavy with direct and explicit Tolkien references far exceeding the references to any other fiction. Any reasonable person who cracks open “Men & Magic” will appreciate this fact immediately.

Gygax has admitted to deliberately adding plentiful Tolkien references in the OD&D set above and beyond what was present in his home campaign, in order to make it viable on the market. Apparently, this had the desired affect.

So, there is no question of authorial intent to debate on this point. Unless one wants to claim that Gygax was trying to trick people into buying a Tolkien game and then playing a non-Tolkien game. But I don’t believe that any more than I believe that he wrote sold Warriors of Mars in hopes that people would buy it for the Burroughs references but really end up playing some other Mars.

Falconer wrote: Both sides are overreacting. It is not true that “Middle-earth is the source of D&D's ideas,” I agree, but you’re running too far in the opposite direction by claiming that it was a minor/minimal source for D&D.

Also lest we forget the Tolkien Fad that was at it's height back then. While Gygax himself may used other sources of inspiration he probably bombarded with "Hey I want to this from Lord of the Rings!", "How about this neat thing from the Hobbit." type of comments and requests.

Falconer wrote:It is not true that “Middle-earth is the source of D&D's ideas,” I agree, but you’re running too far in the opposite direction by claiming that it was a minor/minimal source for D&D.

Perhaps I should have said that Tolkien's influence was "superficial," by which I mean that most of the direct borrowings from Middle-earth are in the form of monsters rather than "high level" conceptions, such as the nature and functioning of magic. But you're right: I do overstate my case, mostly because I've grown tired of the assertion made by many, as exemplified by guys like John Rateliff, that Gary was lying or under legal pressure (or "brain addled") to deny any connection to Tolkien's work.

That said, I readily concede that OD&D, as a descendant of the fantasy supplement of Chainmail probably owes more to Tolkien than does AD&D, which more strongly evokes Gary's own preferences. I have an article Gary wrote in 1974 entitled "Fantasy Wargaming and the Influence of J.R.R. Tolkien" in which he presents his own feelings about Tolkien and his relative influence on the game. What's most interesting to me is that, though this article was written mere months after OD&D's release, its general tone and content are consistent with his later comments on Tolkien and D&D -- the ones that are supposedly the result of lawsuits rather than genuine conviction.

I still think Tolkien's influence on Gygax was much less than that of other fantasy authors, but I don't deny the influence. I merely want it to be put in its proper context and feel Gary's repeated comments on the matter ought to be taken at face value.

The soulless-ness of creatures of faerie is a major theme in Anderson's Merman's Children. The first two thirds of it was published in short story form prior to D&D's release. The remainder was written after D&D's release and published in 1979.

I have some vague idea that soulless elves and other creatures is based on Hans Christian Andersen somehow - you either live a short time with a soul or live a very long time but then you're dead and that's it.

In this 1903 "funny" version of GAWAIN AND THE GREEN KNIGHT called GAWAYNE AND THE GREEN KNIGHT there is addition of an elf girl named "Elfinhart" with a relevant line to this thread:

In Elfinhart's sweet nature from her birth
By fairy tutelage; and that was mirth.
For fairy natures are compounded all
Of whimsies and of freaks fantastical,
And what the best of fairies loves the best
(Except pure kindness) is an artless jest.
And so wise men have argued, on the whole,
That the misguided creatures have no soul;
But as for me, if the bright fairy elf
Has none, I'll get along without, myself!

From Gygax himself, see Thomas Keightly's 1850 THE FAIRY MYTHOLOGY pages 97-98 referring to an Icelandic reference:

The fullest account we have of the Icelandic Elves or Dwarfs is contained in the following
passage of the Ecclesiastical History of Iceland of the learned Finnus Johannaeus.
“As we have not as yet,” says he, “spoken a single word about the very ancient, and I know
not whether more ridiculous or perverse, persuasion of our forefathers about semigods, this
seems the proper place for saying a few words about this so celebrated figment, as it was
chiefly in this period it attained its acmè, and it was believed as a true and necessary article
of faith, that there are genii or semi-gods, called in our language Alfa and Alfa-folk.
“Authors vary respecting their essence and origin. Some hold that they have been created by
God immediately and without the intervention of parents, like some kinds of spirits: others
maintain that they are sprung from Adam, but before the creation of Eve: lastly, some refer
them to another race of men, or to a stock of pre-Adamites. Some bestow on them not merely
a human body, but an immortal soul: others assign them merely mortal breath (spiritum)
instead of a soul, whence a certain blockhead, in an essay written by him respecting them,
calls them our half-kin (half-kyn).

toresimonsen wrote:So half-elves have souls, but elves do not?

It seems like a major RP drawback to play a character type that cannot be resurrected. I’m not sure if that rule is fair.

The game explanation does make sense - if a human has a soul, and an elf has a spirit, than a half-elf would have one or the other. As it's benefits are toned down as compared to a full elf, they get the advantage coming back from the dead.

It's a fair rule, because it's not a surprise. If a player didn't like it, he could always ask me to trade off some of their special abilities in exchange. Since elves are the only race that get's a +1 to hit with two weapons (the most commonly chosen, also) against any type of enemy, and virtual immunity to mind-controlling and sleep magic, I would let an elf PC be raise-able from the dead, if the player was willing to give up those two abilities in exchange (or maybe get the reduced 30% of a half-elf). Would that be considered a fair trade?

Don't forget the Elvish immunity to Ghoul Paralysis!