RP Strategy Session - D-Elves the Problem Children

[Majikal]

I just realized I <3 you Musashi.

[ibusoe]

Original Poster's Note: This thread has been immensely valuable to me, I found out that I've been playing desert elves completely wrong for pretty much most of a decade. Went ahead and modified my original post to reflect this.

I took that to mean there were parts of the docs you disagreed with. Maybe I misunderstood.

No, you were perfectly clear, it was I who misunderstood. The actual docs that I didn't like were the "extended tribal source material" docs from the second re-org relative to the time that I started playing. As far as I know, those are classified? I don't think I'm allowed to post them, and at any rate I didn't save a copy of them so I don't have them. Are you authorized to post them? If so you're welcome to. If you're authorized to forward me a copy of something, I'll cheerfully have a look at it. Regardless, I no longer think I disagree with these docs, several smarter players than me seem to be quite big fans of these docs and I make it a point not to argue with people smarter than me. If I can help you in any way, please be direct. Please advise.

The way I reason it: If my desert elf sees another tribal human resource gathering in the 'Pah, I'm going to leave them alone because I don't want to provoke the ire of other tribes and cause trouble for my own.

But if my desert elf sees a city dweller out doing the same thing, I'm going to feel empowered to challenge them because they're the outsider. They are taking resources out of the 'Pah and if enough of them do this and there isn't enough food to go around for all the tribals living there, it could create a lot of hostility and territory wars over resources. Wars that these city dwelling rangers won't care or be involved in. In this, I feel I have all the justification I need to be out raged at non tribal hunters rolling through my tribe's backyard.

I think that this reasoning can seem nonsensical to players on the receiving end of the arrow. They probably think to themselves: Really?! I just got griefed over a durrit hide!?!?! There'll be another durrit in the same spot in like 15 minutes!!! GRAWH!!!

But I encourage everyone to remember that just because the game's code will spawn foragable goods and mobs to skin ad infinitum, in role play, the resources are supposed to be finite.

Yeah, by this point I don't see any fault, no matter how minor, with the way that you play desert elves. You probably play them a bit more aggressively than I prefer to, but at this point I'd say your interpretation of d-elves is 100% inline with the docs, the way that I understand them.

It seems we have a few remaining articles related to life in the Tablelands, though. For starters, I don't see desert elves being that territorial about the Tablelands. Should Desert Elves have a role in nature conservancy? You've made a point that they should, and if you choose to play your character this way I don't think that you're at all wrong to do so. But before we go any further, let's look at the life of criminals in the Commoner's Quarter of Allanak.

When I started playing, the people playing the Arm in the Commons were way too heavy handed. As such, most criminals simply refused to play there. As such, the Commons became way too safe. As a result, the Militia started to whine that they have nothing to do.

Nowadays?   Things are much better. The Militia people are playing as well as I've ever seen Legionairres played in this game. They allow (tolerate, pretend not to notice) a certain background level of crime from street people, and turn a blind eye to some of the quieter criminals who hide out in the Commons because they ply their crimes elsewhere. Let's say that the Soldier dudes unofficially decide that there's to be allowed like six active criminal players, maybe three street rats and three gangsters or something. Whatevs, it's up to them. After some time, a couple of new criminals move in. These new guys should have time to get acclimated. But suddenly there's a few too many criminals? What to do, eh? If the situation doesn't soon correct itself, the Soldiers job would then become to decide which of the existing population to prune, either muscling some of the criminals out, or arresting them or killing them (should they so choose), according to their decisions. This is beautiful. This is the machinery running exactly as it should.

Are things now running like this in the Tablelands? According to Mordiggan they are, and I've no reason to think this is not correct. Rather, I would just want it expressed that a population of city humans should be allowed into the Tablelands and then pruned as needed. Trust me, staring at my character from a few screens away is absolutely sending me a message.

In my interpretation of the Tablelands, the Tablelands are a lot wilder and whoolier than the Vrun Driath. To me, it's not like there's a lot of scarcity in the Tablelands. To me, it's more like the Tablelands are dangerous *because* nature is so healthy there. Nature is trying to eat you.

The Tablelands should be more dangerous because the hegemony of the city-states doesn't extend there, opening the area up for raiders. If anything, the presence of a couple of desert elves should be a bit comforting to a city guy, because at least desert elves keep the raiders away. True enough, desert elves are never going to be all that friendly, at least in a genuine sense, and will represent a threat of their own.

By all means, if you aren't enjoying playing with someone else you're free to avoid them. We play the game for enjoyment purposes. I'll quickly outline the story that my character was a part of.

I was playing a tribal shaman, the other person was playing a tribal ranger. We did not get along. The PC's in the clan were split into two cliques, I was in one group and she was in the other. Her clique decided that for the good of the tribe they needed to murder a merchant who was part of my clique and they tried to do so while they were supposed to be protecting said merchant on a run into one of the cities. They failed. The merchant got away and told me. I told the clan's head shaman NPC, he told me to find the traitors and tear our their souls and make them invent a new, more serious word for suffering. Then the clan's chief NPC intervened and the whole tribe had a big pow wow at the camp fire where the would be murderers were judged, punished, and officially forgiven. That whole story arc was a big, entertaining deal that involved staff support, really cool role play, and lots of tension.

After it was over, the next chapter of that saga began. My character HATED the ranger even after she was forgiven by the chief. Time went on. Other PC's came and went till she and I were now the old timers and the new group had no idea why we loathed each other so much. She would come sit down at the campfire and my shaman would literally spit at her, call her the shame of his blood, and get up and leave. We didn't do a lot of inter acting with one another directly in those days but our lingering feelings towards one another created a lot of RP opportunity for the new blood who would try to mend the wounds ... or pick a side ... or whatever.

Eventually, that ranger died defending a group of newer rangers from a batch of kyrl that attacked them on a hunt. I sent in player kudos outlining how much fun having that rivalry through the IG years had been, and in death, my shaman finally gave in and acknowledged that his old enemy had in fact earned her placed among their people. He led her funeral ritual and stood among her friends in solidarity to mourn her death.

To me, this was an amazing story, and it is what defined my desert elf as a person. I'm very grateful to the player of that ranger my shaman rivaled with, although our interactions were almost always antagonistic, she played a crucial role in my character's story and I'd like to think, mine in hers as well.

When I say good RP can come from tension just as easily as from friendships in game, that is what I'm thinking about.

Actually, that story is beyond good role play, that story is kind of awesome. I love a good story. Thank you for sharing that particular one.

Yeah, I think that's good and I'm really starting to understand you as a player, but now that I've conceded your point, I want to stand by my point that if you're interested in bullying, you're better off in the Byn. If you're interested in social climbing, you're better off in House Kadius. If you're interested in infighting, isn't like Borsail the place for that? What makes the story you presented, is that it appears that infighting was consensual on some level. Very cool.

One thing that I think desert elf peeps don't understand, is that inside of a tribe, we're like third-cousins at most. Life is tough on the tribal dudes, so their lifestyle doesn't accommodate beggars and freeloaders. My point? My character has a job in the clan, and that job is needed. If you're stopping my huntie character from hunting? I'm going to complain to my boss (probably my mother or something). She's friends with your mother. These kinds of conflicts tend to be resolved pretty darn quickly. At the higher echelons, should their be elbows thrown as people jockey for status? Oh, heck yeah. I just think this kind of stuff shouldn't apply to the little guys.

Anyways, thanks for being patient enough to correct my ideas. I've learned a lot from this, and can only hope that I'm one day lucky enough to play in the same tribe as you. I think that I've still got a lot left to learn.

EDIT:  Wanted to point out that I've thought of one situation that Desert Elves probably should take exception to, which would be hunting tons of stuff for export. 

[ibusoe]

At times in prehistorical research, the question comes up of why homo sapiens survived where the neanderthals died out.

It's really easy to go for explanations like 'they were too stupid'or something similar, but human amd neanderthal brain size aren't even that much different, and archaeological evidence shows that the tools used by neanderthals just about match those of homo sapiens, which would suggest there being more at play here.

Some people point to things like neanderthal tongues being unable to vocalise many words or somesuch, but the theory I've always liked is that of age: neanderthals, to a fault, seem to mever have lived very far past the age of forty, whereas there are corpses of prehistoric homo sapiens who lived well past sixty. Those twenty extra years would allow homo sapiens to perform tasks that required more specific skills, as well as pass them on to further generations.

I think we can carry this theory over to Zalanthas pretty easily.

A young elf might be brash and adventurous, sure. A young elf is therefor also at risk of getting the shit kicked out of him by people next door and deciding that, okay, it might be the coolest thing ever to bring back one of those sweet leaf-bladed spears from the twin tail tribe, but beatings kinda hurt so next time watch out.

This essentially means that an elf of the age of forty is about as fit as a human in his late twenties, while having had more than a decade of extra years of being conscious and responsible enough that the dumbass got beaten out of them. Couple this with a family that is genetically predisposed to immensely care about you and want the best for you no matter what, and said same culture making sure the elf himself is going to always, no matter what else, think of his tribe's wellbeing.. I just dont't see elves being the daredevils you make them out to be.

Also, elf wisdom is way lower than the elf docs promise. Wtf guys?

Wow, thanks!  Damn, this is deep.  Okay, assuming you're right, and I'm well-nigh convinced that you are, my one complaint about your theory, is that it seems to assume that elves live longer than humans, rather than assuming that they simply have the capacity to live longer than humans. 

*Do* elves live longer than humans, or have I gotten that wrong as well??

[Doublepalli]

I agree with tribal human pc's being treated like utter Shit or I'd without reason. Its been over a year so I can say this, but one of the last seiks I ever played, while decked out in seik gear and tattoos, had a desert elf run up and ok my guy with no to after looking at me, while I was hunting a skeet for dinner. Leagues away from camp.

[musashi]

It seems we have a few remaining articles related to life in the Tablelands, though. For starters, I don't see desert elves being that territorial about the Tablelands. Should Desert Elves have a role in nature conservancy? You've made a point that they should, and if you choose to play your character this way I don't think that you're at all wrong to do so.

I consider them quite territorial because of the information in the help files on desert elf role play:

Desert elves are territorial. Once a tribe picks a territory, members of that tribe don't usually leave the area without a good reason, just like most humans spend their entire lives in the city of their choice. These territories might be pretty big, but they're usually restricted to one region, such as the grasslands, the Red Desert, or the tablelands. A tribe of elves may very well move their camp from one side of the grasslands to another on a seasonal basis, but long moves from one end of the known world to the other are very rare and often only inspired by war or other genocidal events. Also, elves will rarely leave their tribal grounds, as the tribe is looked to for safety. The further an elf travels from his or her "stomping ground" the more danger they perceive themselves to be in.

My desert elf characters never ventured into cities, never learned sirihish, and rarely left their tribe's territory. Some never even left the camp although I wouldn't advise that, it can be pretty isolated and boring if your own tribe isn't hopping.

As for having a role in nature conservation, the docs say that elves don't necessarily care about the environment innately the way I believe mantis do ... but rather they are mindful of over hunting so as to avoid sparking resource wars with other tribes. Some tribes may care about the environment for the environment's sake, depending on their tribal docs, but others might not.

But before we go any further, let's look at the life of criminals in the Commoner's Quarter of Allanak.

Hmm. I have never thought of desert elves as the militia of the wild outdoors. But I think the militia can be quite territorial as well no? How much crime does the militia of Allanak tolerate inside the areas they actually care about like the templar and noble quarters? I agree that militia soldiers ought to be indifferent to the areas of Allanak where the powerless and un-influential reside, but I don't think that's a good comparison to a desert elf's territory.

What makes the story you presented, is that it appears that infighting was consensual on some level. Very cool.

I thought it was very cool as well, but I'd be lying if I said it was all, always consensual. I remember some corresponding clan board discussions from around the same time the tone of which made it clear tempers were running high OOC'ly as well as IC'ly. But after the heat of the moment has passed good players can usually hug it out and let the IG conflict continue without it feeling like an OOC attack as well.

I agree with tribal human pc's being treated like utter Shit or I'd without reason. Its been over a year so I can say this, but one of the last seiks I ever played, while decked out in seik gear and tattoos, had a desert elf run up and ok my guy with no to after looking at me, while I was hunting a skeet for dinner. Leagues away from camp.

I haven't heard anyone even try to defend this behavior. I've called it out as poor RP myself. I don't know if I would file a player complaint about it because there could be IC reasons for it, but I would absolutely alert staff to what had happened so that they could then make the game world react to it. I don't imagine the Seik elders would take kindly to another tribe targeting their hunters. Sabers should start to rattle and the elf responsible should feel the consequences of their actions.

[Patuk]

At times in prehistorical research, the question comes up of why homo sapiens survived where the neanderthals died out.

It's really easy to go for explanations like 'they were too stupid'or something similar, but human amd neanderthal brain size aren't even that much different, and archaeological evidence shows that the tools used by neanderthals just about match those of homo sapiens, which would suggest there being more at play here.

Some people point to things like neanderthal tongues being unable to vocalise many words or somesuch, but the theory I've always liked is that of age: neanderthals, to a fault, seem to mever have lived very far past the age of forty, whereas there are corpses of prehistoric homo sapiens who lived well past sixty. Those twenty extra years would allow homo sapiens to perform tasks that required more specific skills, as well as pass them on to further generations.

I think we can carry this theory over to Zalanthas pretty easily.

A young elf might be brash and adventurous, sure. A young elf is therefor also at risk of getting the shit kicked out of him by people next door and deciding that, okay, it might be the coolest thing ever to bring back one of those sweet leaf-bladed spears from the twin tail tribe, but beatings kinda hurt so next time watch out.

This essentially means that an elf of the age of forty is about as fit as a human in his late twenties, while having had more than a decade of extra years of being conscious and responsible enough that the dumbass got beaten out of them. Couple this with a family that is genetically predisposed to immensely care about you and want the best for you no matter what, and said same culture making sure the elf himself is going to always, no matter what else, think of his tribe's wellbeing.. I just dont't see elves being the daredevils you make them out to be.

Also, elf wisdom is way lower than the elf docs promise. Wtf guys?

Wow, thanks!  Damn, this is deep.  Okay, assuming you're right, and I'm well-nigh convinced that you are, my one complaint about your theory, is that it seems to assume that elves live longer than humans, rather than assuming that they simply have the capacity to live longer than humans. 

*Do* elves live longer than humans, or have I gotten that wrong as well??

Elves have about 50% longer lifespans than humans do. Arm's age code means that this also means elves take longer to grow and such, which I sorta find a shame, but even so elves do flat-out live longer than humans do.

[CodeMaster]

At times in prehistorical research, the question comes up of why homo sapiens survived where the neanderthals died out.

It's really easy to go for explanations like 'they were too stupid'or something similar, but human amd neanderthal brain size aren't even that much different, and archaeological evidence shows that the tools used by neanderthals just about match those of homo sapiens, which would suggest there being more at play here.

Some people point to things like neanderthal tongues being unable to vocalise many words or somesuch, but the theory I've always liked is that of age: neanderthals, to a fault, seem to mever have lived very far past the age of forty, whereas there are corpses of prehistoric homo sapiens who lived well past sixty. Those twenty extra years would allow homo sapiens to perform tasks that required more specific skills, as well as pass them on to further generations.

I think we can carry this theory over to Zalanthas pretty easily.

A young elf might be brash and adventurous, sure. A young elf is therefor also at risk of getting the shit kicked out of him by people next door and deciding that, okay, it might be the coolest thing ever to bring back one of those sweet leaf-bladed spears from the twin tail tribe, but beatings kinda hurt so next time watch out.

This essentially means that an elf of the age of forty is about as fit as a human in his late twenties, while having had more than a decade of extra years of being conscious and responsible enough that the dumbass got beaten out of them. Couple this with a family that is genetically predisposed to immensely care about you and want the best for you no matter what, and said same culture making sure the elf himself is going to always, no matter what else, think of his tribe's wellbeing.. I just dont't see elves being the daredevils you make them out to be.

Also, elf wisdom is way lower than the elf docs promise. Wtf guys?

Wow, thanks!  Damn, this is deep.  Okay, assuming you're right, and I'm well-nigh convinced that you are, my one complaint about your theory, is that it seems to assume that elves live longer than humans, rather than assuming that they simply have the capacity to live longer than humans.  

*Do* elves live longer than humans, or have I gotten that wrong as well??

Elves have about 50% longer lifespans than humans do. Arm's age code means that this also means elves take longer to grow and such, which I sorta find a shame, but even so elves do flat-out live longer than humans do.

Dwarves live even longer, which means they have to live quite a few years before they're even the equivalent of a human 13 year old.

Taking longer to grow is a detriment if you start your characters young, but it also means more game years spent in the prime of your stats -- which might mean something if you play your character close to the wire, which I'd imagine is often the case for desert elves.

[Alesan]

Dwarves live even longer, which means they have to live quite a few years before they're even the equivalent of a human 13 year old.

Taking longer to grow is a detriment if you start your characters young, but it also means more game years spent in the prime of your stats -- which might mean something if you play your character close to the wire, which I'd imagine is often the case for desert elves.

Do stats properly adjust with age into adulthood? As in, will you grow into the same stats you would have gotten if you rolled the character as a "prime of life" age? I've read posts on this board that suggests this isn't the case, which would make rolling a young character detrimental to overall progress.

[CodeMaster]

Dwarves live even longer, which means they have to live quite a few years before they're even the equivalent of a human 13 year old.

Taking longer to grow is a detriment if you start your characters young, but it also means more game years spent in the prime of your stats -- which might mean something if you play your character close to the wire, which I'd imagine is often the case for desert elves.

Do stats properly adjust with age into adulthood? As in, will you grow into the same stats you would have gotten if you rolled the character as a "prime of life" age? I've read posts on this board that suggests this isn't the case, which would make rolling a young character detrimental to overall progress.

Some years ago Morgenes said he tested it and it's working as expected.

But I've had some more thoughts on this since my last post, so here they are:  if it's coded up as your character having a "base" roll (e.g., representing his/her prime) with penalties/bonuses for age, then it's probably a trivial piece of code to get right, and I would bet money the system is coded correctly.

If there is no base roll and it's coded up as your character having a random chance of receiving stat adjustments each year, then these kinds of stochastic processes are very hard to get right -- and easy to think you have it right when you have it wrong.  You can have situations where averages line up, but variances diverge, or otherwise numbers that "look" the same through the lens of standard summary statistics, but are from altogether different distributions.  So if this is how it's coded, I wouldn't be quite as confident -- especially since players keep mentioning things aren't quite right (which I really can't weigh in on).

[edit: removed excessive text]

Anyway... I thought Patuk's post was really informative.

The issue of age and patience in elves is an interesting topic that I haven't seen discussed in much detail.  From memory, your standard D&D elves were described as leading exceedingly long lives and having more patience (and wisdom) as a result.  But in Dark Sun, the elves have drastically shortened lifespans, and are described as eschewing hard work and living "for the day", and tend to be thieves and raiders.

I generally associate poaching and overhunting as a kind of theft -- which Dark Sun and Zalanthan elves are all about.  It might be helpful if the documents clarified that they only tend to steal what people view as personal possessions.

[whitt]

It might be helpful if the documents clarified that they only tend to steal what people view as personal possessions.

Except that would be entirely not true.

[BadSkeelz]

Yeah, elven theft is a philosophical concept with many more facets more than the physical act of taking.

Fortunately, the docs do say elves are idiots and will steal ever more challenging things simply for bragging rights, so them poaching a territory to the point of wasteland because "pride bro" does make a twisted sort of sense.

[musashi]

When I was playing a desert elf, some of my tribe mates stole one of the tables from a tavern in Tuluk.

Staff was not amused.

[CodeMaster]

It might be helpful if the documents clarified that they only tend to steal what people view as personal possessions.

Except that would be entirely not true.

Yeah, sorry.  I didn't mean to say that's how things actually are.  More like, if you accept that elves are out to steal everything in general, how can you not expect them to poach?  Raid?  Overhunt?  Deplete ground water?  Expand and mark off territory through campaigns of harassment and agile guerrilla warfare?  The idea of a tribal elder telling everyone, "Now hold on pilgrims, let's try not to upset anyone" doesn't jive.

[musashi]

It might be helpful if the documents clarified that they only tend to steal what people view as personal possessions.

Except that would be entirely not true.

Yeah, sorry.  I didn't mean to say that's how things actually are.  More like, if you accept that elves are out to steal everything in general, how can you not expect them to poach?  Raid?  Overhunt?  Deplete ground water?  Expand and mark off territory through campaigns of harassment and agile guerrilla warfare?  The idea of a tribal elder telling everyone, "Now hold on pilgrims, let's try not to upset anyone" doesn't jive.

I don't think elves are so obsessed with stealing that they are willing to destroy themselves and their entire tribe over it.

I imagine that when it comes to poaching and over hunting as a form of thievery ... they love it so long as they're doing it in someone else's territory. It's not hard for me to imagine them having a "don't shit where you eat" policy.

[Synthesis]

It might be helpful if the documents clarified that they only tend to steal what people view as personal possessions.

Except that would be entirely not true.

Yeah, sorry.  I didn't mean to say that's how things actually are.  More like, if you accept that elves are out to steal everything in general, how can you not expect them to poach?  Raid?  Overhunt?  Deplete ground water?  Expand and mark off territory through campaigns of harassment and agile guerrilla warfare?  The idea of a tribal elder telling everyone, "Now hold on pilgrims, let's try not to upset anyone" doesn't jive.

I don't think elves are so obsessed with stealing that they are willing to destroy themselves and their entire tribe over it.

I imagine that when it comes to poaching and over hunting as a form of thievery ... they love it so long as they're doing it in someone else's territory. It's not hard for me to imagine them having a "don't shit where you eat" policy.

What is the point of having a racial bent toward thievery if they also behave perfectly rationally?

Tall, skinny, fast humans.

[Patuk]

Elves aren't one-dimensional permanent incorrigible kleptomaniacs who will brag about stealing a Templar's toe socks to a crowd of soldiers. Elves are those guys who will always hold their in-group's interests as their number one priority as their highest interest no matter what. The documentation is very, very clear about stealing from/screwing over tribesmates being not done, and dumb shit like making durrit go extinct in your ancestral homes or making sure your neighbours send over fifty angry dudes with spears because you were an idiot is grounds for a communal beatdown, not for a round of beers and hifives.

Theft is elven culture, not the sole reason of their existence. Like human culture, it's something you can start honing and perfecting as you can spend more time and resources on it. Becoming a pickpocket(or a thug, or a snake oil salesman, or a usurer..) esentially means you went pro, so to say, and elves may be fond of doing so, but when given the choice between their tribe's survival and pulling offf a really sweet heist, elves generally are gonna pick the former. The ones that don't end up dead or cast out.

[musashi]

What is the point of having a racial bent toward thievery if they also behave perfectly rationally?

Tall, skinny, fast humans.

I totally agree.

And what's the point of having a dwarven focus if you don't pursue it in the most short sighted suicidal and irrational way possible at all times?

Short, stocky, strong humans.  

[Synthesis]

What is the point of having a racial bent toward thievery if they also behave perfectly rationally?

Tall, skinny, fast humans.

I totally agree.

And what's the point of having a dwarven focus if you don't pursue it in the most short sighted suicidal and irrational way possible at all times?

Short, stocky, strong humans.  

Yes, dwarves should do that, if that's what the situation calls for.

I had a 50 or 60 day dwarf ranger whose focus made him unflinchingly loyal to his organization.

He had kind of a semi-newb superior who said, "alright, we're gonna charge in at these two maxed-out krathis."

OOCly I'm in the other window already writing up my next app, but ICly I did it anyway, because that's what dwarves are fucking supposed to do.

[CodeMaster]

And what's the point of having a dwarven focus if you don't pursue it in the most short sighted suicidal and irrational way possible at all times?

Short, stocky, strong humans.  

Rationality is such a loaded term.  Nevertheless it's a term you have to parse through the documentation about these races.  Dwarves, for example,

will not be shaken from their purpose, whatever it might be at the time, even if it means their death

Dwarves are the guys who will break through walls instead of trying to find their way through a maze.  Strongly agree with Synthesis here.

Elves, too:

Theft is desirable simply because it is. If an elf sees something that belongs to someone else, and provides moderate challenge for them, they want to take it - simply for the sake of taking it.

Even 21st century educated earth humans behave irrationally (e.g., overeating) because it's just how we're wired.

[musashi]

Yes, dwarves should do that, if that's what the situation calls for.

I had a 50 or 60 day dwarf ranger whose focus made him unflinchingly loyal to his organization.

He had kind of a semi-newb superior who said, "alright, we're gonna charge in at these two maxed-out krathis."

OOCly I'm in the other window already writing up my next app, but ICly I did it anyway, because that's what dwarves are fucking supposed to do.

Yes I recall my krathi murdering those two  
Didn't have another krathi with me though. Just a ranger buddy who fled the room immediately to escape the blast radius.

But fond memories aside, a human soldier would have reasonably done the same when that's the life you've chosen and you get orders from a superior.

It was certainly suicidal, but I wouldn't call that irrational.

I did read a log once of a dwarf whose focus involved making a metal weapon or something so as a newbie they immediately set out for the dragon at the west gate of Allanak with a chisel and hammer. While amusing in isolation, that would make dwarves incredibly one dimensional gag reels if they all acted in such a short sighted manner.

It would be the same if elves couldn't help but try to "get all" every room they walked into because thievery.

[musashi]

Rationality is such a loaded term.  Nevertheless it's a term you have to parse through the documentation about these races.  Dwarves, for example,

will not be shaken from their purpose, whatever it might be at the time, even if it means their death

Dwarves are the guys who will break through walls instead of trying to find their way through a maze.  Strongly agree with Synthesis here.

Elves, too:

Theft is desirable simply because it is. If an elf sees something that belongs to someone else, and provides moderate challenge for them, they want to take it - simply for the sake of taking it.

Even 21st century educated earth humans behave irrationally (e.g., overeating) because it's just how we're wired.

I think we are having this discussion in the context of whether or not desert elves are able to control their thieving urges when it comes to over hunting in their own territory so as to avoid conflict with neighboring tribes, correct?

In that context:

Theft is desirable simply because it is. If an elf sees something that belongs to someone else, and provides moderate challenge for them, they want to take it - simply for the sake of taking it.

... probably needs to be tempered with:

[...] most desert elves would be wary of over-hunting. Not for ecological reasons, but because if they share the territory with any other tribes, which they probably do, then consuming more than their fair share of resources could create a lot of hostility and territory wars.

Don't you think?

For that matter it wouldn't hurt to temper:

will not be shaken from their purpose, whatever it might be at the time, even if it means their death

with:

It should be something that takes years, perhaps a lifetime, to achieve. [...] A dwarf may do things unrelated to the focus [...] Also, as a general rule, a focus should neither be impossible nor easy - but rather, something that is possibly attainable over a long period of time if it is worked hard upon. The focus should be something your character is not close to achieving - the point of it is that you have to play through the attainment of the focus.

If a dwarf's focus is to kill a templar, I believe the dwarf is capable of realizing that attacking the first one he sees, while possibly the most simplistic and direct path to achieving his focus, has an unacceptable risk factor to go along with it, and thus he's capable of plotting and arranging a situation in which his chances of success are more favorable.

Likewise, while typing get all in every room you enter, and attempting to kill and loot everyone you see is possibly the most simplistic and direct path to expressing the elven penchant for stealing, it also has an unacceptable risk factor, and the elf is capable of plotting and arranging a situation in which chances of success are more favorable.

In addition to that, elves have a sense of tribal solidarity, which is equally as important to them as a race as their desire to steal, I find this is more than enough to justify why they can sometimes refrain from stealing if it means it protects their blood.

[CodeMaster]

This is getting kinda strawmanny.  I imagine anyone can prioritize whatever parts of the desert-elf roleplay docs they like and it's probably fine.  I feel like screwing people over (sure -- when they think their tribe can get away with it) is quite high on the totem pole, but to each his/her own.

[musashi]

If I'm following this correctly the conversation started here:

It might be helpful if the documents clarified that they only tend to steal what people view as personal possessions.

Except that would be entirely not true.

Yeah, sorry.  I didn't mean to say that's how things actually are.  More like, if you accept that elves are out to steal everything in general, how can you not expect them to poach?  Raid?  Overhunt?  Deplete ground water?  Expand and mark off territory through campaigns of harassment and agile guerrilla warfare?  The idea of a tribal elder telling everyone, "Now hold on pilgrims, let's try not to upset anyone" doesn't jive.

I imagine screwing people over when it doesn't endanger the survival of their tribe ranks quite high on the totem pole as well.
I can also easily imagine elves being irrationally suicidal with their kleptomania so long as the tribe isn't being directly threatened. An elf running back into the cave full of undead while everyone else is in full retreat because he's not leaving without that dagger that was sitting on the altar, for example.

I could just as easily see the elf retreating like everyone else, but planning another trip when he thinks he can have a better chance of actually getting the dagger.

But I think the docs explain why they don't do the things you outlined above already, without the need to narrow their passion for theft down to only things people view as personal possessions.

[CodeMaster]

You're right musashi

You know, that one line about never consuming more than their "fair share" is kind of strange.  What is one's "fair share" in the lifeless, water-poor wastes of Zalanthas?

Is one's "fair share" enough to ensure survival?  Do tribes in the tablelands never run into the tragedy of the commons?  Are they in a state of perfect harmony and balance?   Eh.  Maybe I'm reading too much into it, and that line was just written to hint to d-elves not to be robo-hunters.

[musashi]

I bet it's all about the power of politics.

For example, I played in the Sun Runners after the war with the Red Fangs and a big part of our role play at the time revolved around trying to project more strength than we actually had in order to keep Blackwing and the other bigger tribes of the 'Pah from smelling blood in the water and circling like sharks.

Going out and rattling sabers was a directive from the elders, specifically because they were worried about being perceived as hurt and vulnerable by the other groups after that fight.

So in my mind, your "fair share" is probably whatever you can take. Just be careful you don't win so many battles you lose the war.