Elven ethics

[Nile]

Just curious if elves are supposed to have a sort of biologically determined system of ethics? I've always thought of them as utilitarians in tribal situations, but are there examples of deontological ethics (there are absolute moral principles) etc?

[Brokkr]

Riding?  Theft?

[Nile]

Riding?  Theft?

Obviously. I was thinking more along the lines of questioning these values instead of taking them as simplistic absolutes. For instance, the arguments about if/when an elf should be on a wagon or whatever, or when being caught thieving has harsh internal consequences.

But, what I take from this is that the staff don't really care. Up to each player.

so thread closed

[Hauwke]

The riding thing is really a point of pride rather than an impossibility. Are they so wounded that they cannot at all ever even consider making the trek back to camp while a mekillot sits just over yonder about to charge?

In my mind any sane elf would just suck it up and ride on the wagon, they absolutely will not enjoy it, and they will remember that moment as them being incredibly weak for the rest of their life. But hey, at least they didn't die.

[Jihelu]

"In my mind any sane elf would just suck it up and ride on the wagon, they absolutely will not enjoy it, and they will remember that moment as them being incredibly weak for the rest of their life. But hey, at least they didn't die."

I'm pretty sure staff don't share this opinion and will store you if you do it, not that I agree with it.

[Armaddict]

If they store you for roleplaying the shame of it, then they're delusional.

[Hauwke]

Honestly role-playing the shame of it would be fun as hell.

[SmashedTregil]

A delf would never consider suicide, unless he's sacrificing himself for the sake of the tribe.

A delven ability to run is part of their identity. For them to put that ability under question is to betray themselves. When the choice between betraying themselves, or ensuring personal death comes to them, the thing that breaks that tie are tribal needs. If the tribe will suffer because they did not ride the wagon, then they will ride the wagon. But once it's done and the need for the tribe is gone, please understand, that they have lost themselves. They're no longer elves. They've died, for they lost what makes them elves. They still cant suicide, because it is absolute anathema for them, but they'd seek out every possible way to sacrifice themselves for the tribe, because ... they're already dead. And it's not a matter of them being shunned, or exiled, or accused. There will be no need. They will be able to do this to themselves all on their own.

So if there is a mekillot on the ridge and you have 1% chance to survive running past it, or 100% to survive by riding a wagon. They will pick 1% chance, because riding a wagon means "certain" death. Unless ... the selfishness of choosing not to die, will make the tribe suffer. In which case delf will do everything he can to assure tribe's well being, and only then worry about his eventual invalidation as a being.

At least this is how I understand it.


Overall. There is a myriad of ways to practice mental acrobatics to talk your delven self into being able to ride wagons. The fact is that it's against theme. It doesn't have to make sense, it's just part of the racial quirk and a player needs to play it out, instead of creating an 'exception' every time. It's not difficult to give a good logical reasoning why delf should be able to do it. It is simply requested by the theme of the game that a player does not do that, because that is the theme of the race.

[RogueGunslinger]

Just dont join any clans as a city elf and never leave your city. Never visit the wagonyards or take jobs that might involve stealing from them. Avoid the situation entirely because approaching it from a roleplay standpoint is tiresome and irritating and could leave you in trouble with the staff or have people vaguebooking on the GDB about you.

Want to play an outcast who can join clans and go places? Play a half-elf.

[Jihelu]

In Dark Sun they handled the situation well: Elves /could and would ride/ if they were dying or too injured to. They are prideful beings who are extremely proud of their running, but they wouldn't be caught doing it. But they also aren't suicidal or stupid.

I think they would be exiled from their tribe if they were caught and they might exile themselves even if they weren't, but here's the kicker: They'd do it after escaping the fucking threat on their ass and have a chance to rest up.

This also may vary by edition.

As it stands you can't even physically hop on a mount for staff to store you, I tried it on an elf once just to see if you could actually get on a mount and I got the message 'you can't ride this'. I think it was a beetle or something, maybe I was just too tall but I doubt it.

[rinthrat]

As it stands you can't even physically hop on a mount for staff to store you, I tried it on an elf once just to see if you could actually get on a mount and I got the message 'you can't ride this'. I think it was a beetle or something, maybe I was just too tall but I doubt it.

My last celf hopped onto mounts just to title them, because there seems to be no other way to add a unique keyword to a mount. It's possible, at least for celves.

[Jihelu]

Huh, I was a celf.

Why the hell could I not get on the mount. (If I play an elf in the next few whenever I'll test it again)

[SmashedTregil]

Some guilds give riding skill, so elves of these guilds can do it. Some don't and elves can't do it.

So a warrior celf could do it, even if he shouldn't have. An assassin elf cannot
A human assassin doesn't have ride, but he learns it instantly on first try, so it doesn't apply. Something like that.

[LauraMars]

The reason staff are so hard on people playing the exception in this case is, I think, the following:

1) The game code for riding in wagons or riding a mount is superior in every way to getting around on your own two feet.
2) The better the code gains, the thinner the roleplay justification people seem to need in order to take advantage of it.

See also: Every dwarven focus that revolves around "git gud at fite"

I understand where the ridiculously black and white take on "elves never ride" comes from.

It gets taken too far and the contortions people come up with to justify it are extremely silly and unrealistic by any storytelling metric, but who on staff wants to consistently police that particular thing? Nobody.

[Brokkr]

It is only ridiculous if you think of elves as tall, skinny humans with peculiar quirks that you can work out with human logic.

As opposed to a different race, with a different psychology.  As a trout, not really understanding why a turtle would choose to go onto land.

[Armaddict]

Just curious if elves are supposed to have a sort of biologically determined system of ethics? I've always thought of them as utilitarians in tribal situations, but are there examples of deontological ethics (there are absolute moral principles) etc?

Since we kinda derailed on the riding thing, you could read my 'Why I play City Elves' thread if you haven't already.  It talks about some of the examples and a different way to view them that I view as a more 'elven' way of it.  Theft and such are always common themes, but might give you framework for a different psychology to adapt to your own play.  It might touch more on find a unique set of non-human ethics.

[Alesan]

It is only ridiculous if you think of elves as tall, skinny humans with peculiar quirks that you can work out with human logic.

As opposed to a different race, with a different psychology.  As a trout, not really understanding why a turtle would choose to go onto land.

You almost sound like elves are so alien as to be unfathomable for us real life humans. This is why mantis are no longer playable, yes?

[Dar]

It is only ridiculous if you think of elves as tall, skinny humans with peculiar quirks that you can work out with human logic.

As opposed to a different race, with a different psychology.  As a trout, not really understanding why a turtle would choose to go onto land.

You almost sound like elves are so alien as to be unfathomable for us real life humans. This is why mantis are no longer playable, yes?

What a strange post.


Dwarven logic is unfathomable to us, because they're not humans. This is why to dwarves abandoning their focus is unthinkable. Not discouraged by peer pressure, or disliked as an admittion of defeat, but  'unthinkable'. It wont occur to them.

It sounds ridiculous only if we think that dwarves are short, strong, bald humans with peculiar quirks that we can work out with human logic.


Yes. Elves and Dwarves are both mantis like.

[Alesan]

It is only ridiculous if you think of elves as tall, skinny humans with peculiar quirks that you can work out with human logic.

As opposed to a different race, with a different psychology.  As a trout, not really understanding why a turtle would choose to go onto land.

You almost sound like elves are so alien as to be unfathomable for us real life humans. This is why mantis are no longer playable, yes?

What a strange post.


Dwarven logic is unfathomable to us, because they're not humans. This is why to dwarves abandoning their focus is unthinkable. Not discouraged by peer pressure, or disliked as an admittion of defeat, but  'unthinkable'. It wont occur to them.

It sounds ridiculous only if we think that dwarves are short, strong, bald humans with peculiar quirks that we can work out with human logic.


Yes. Elves and Dwarves are both mantis like.

I appreciate your attempt at making me sound stupid, but I was only pointing out how strange the original statement was, that the things elves (and dwarves, thank you for the example) do are incomprehensible to us humans, yet we play them just the same. They are obviously playable, so maybe we can in fact comprehend just enough to play these characters.

[Brokkr]

And yet when we put in place "This is the way the race works" in the documents...lots of folks just ignore that, or try to reason ways around restrictions, like it is an optional piece of RP rather than a core aspect of the way they are.

[Potaje]

perhaps it is not beyond our ability to understand that which is beyond our own reason but not beyond our own reasoning. The story of the ant and the grasshopper.

Perhaps yest the ant prepares ifs self for the future with hard work and when tough times come and it survives due to toiling all its life in preparation makes the ant not comprehend the whimsy of the grasshopper the summer child that plays and enjoys and does not toil to prepare and is not set to face those tough times.

But for the grasshopper perhaps it was a life well lived, enjoyed in splendor and the inevitable end is best meet with the joy experiences.

I think that it is as simple as that from the perspective out of the game. If one is to boil things down. Of those two when viewing each other their understanding of existence and how to approach it seems alien/ foreign to the other. And that is how we are asked to approach the races of the game to give them the expression they embody.

[RogueGunslinger]

The problem is taking a trait that is foreign to us, like never being willing to ride and then expanding that out to the most absurd circumstances, like wagons or silt skimmers. Im sure we all agree that it would be stupid if an elf refused to roll or slide down a hill because not using their own legs for locomotion is faux pas. Should elf whirans never fly? Do elf babies refuse to crawl? Do elf mothers refuse to carry their children? Do all elves have irreparable ptsd from the 9 months they were forced to be to be carried around in a womb?

Sure these examples are absurd. But its also absurd to think an elf trapped on a silt island would never be willing to swallow their pride and ride a skimmer home.

edit: Also simply stating "thats how they are  written and how we expect you to play" is a nonstarter. This discussion is about if they should be written that way. Not wether or not players should follow the rules.

[Armaddict]

Sure these examples are absurd. But its also absurd to think an elf trapped on a silt island would never be willing to swallow their pride and ride a skimmer home.

Clarifying, and perhaps this is where I deviate from what staffers say, I think the above scenario is fine.  I'm a little iffy on the silt-skimmer scenario altogether, because for me, it was always about reliance on another creature to move you long distances...not traversing impassable terrain on something that doesn't even use other creatures to do so.

However, what I don't think is fine is taking the action lightly.  No one else has to give your elf shit about it.  They will be thoroughly shamed by it for the rest of their lives, it will mark their self-measurement, and when in the presence of powerful sharps, they may not even feel up to meeting their gaze.

[Dar]

It is only ridiculous if you think of elves as tall, skinny humans with peculiar quirks that you can work out with human logic.

As opposed to a different race, with a different psychology.  As a trout, not really understanding why a turtle would choose to go onto land.

You almost sound like elves are so alien as to be unfathomable for us real life humans. This is why mantis are no longer playable, yes?

What a strange post.


Dwarven logic is unfathomable to us, because they're not humans. This is why to dwarves abandoning their focus is unthinkable. Not discouraged by peer pressure, or disliked as an admittion of defeat, but  'unthinkable'. It wont occur to them.

It sounds ridiculous only if we think that dwarves are short, strong, bald humans with peculiar quirks that we can work out with human logic.


Yes. Elves and Dwarves are both mantis like.

I appreciate your attempt at making me sound stupid, but I was only pointing out how strange the original statement was, that the things elves (and dwarves, thank you for the example) do are incomprehensible to us humans, yet we play them just the same. They are obviously playable, so maybe we can in fact comprehend just enough to play these characters.

Shit. I'm sorry.

[Nile]

I'm also interested in tribal responses to threats. Would elves typically sacrifice their own to save the tribe itself (as I've usually seen done)? Or is this quite a fluid cultural element?

[ShaLeah]

I'm also interested in tribal responses to threats. Would elves typically sacrifice their own to save the tribe itself (as I've usually seen done)? Or is this quite a fluid cultural element?

Again. Depends.
The black and white of a tribal is 'family forever' but the individuals WITHIN that family are sometimes fucked up and need to die. So...

What happens when you have one kin yapping like they talk for the tribe, making decisions that are against the nature of an isolated, wilderness family like... oh I don't know... kanking city folk. They're heading into the city, renting apartments, got themselves a nice piece of elven ass from the rinth, they're telling templars sure, they'll help in their war, they'll shoot that raider... If I were playing a delf I'd follow the chain of command, talk around the fire, what does everyone think, let's talk to them. They don't listen? Go to the elders. They're in charge for a reason. Can't get the elders on your side? NOW you gotta make a decision.

The tribe is above any individual. In order for that tribe mentality to be kept alive, you have to live and breathe it. You are not an individual first, you are a member of the Soh Lana Kah first, her blood runs through your veins. You will keep her alive. It is your duty. If ANYONE or ANYTHING threatens that? It's fair game.

[Barsook]

The problem is taking a trait that is foreign to us, like never being willing to ride and then expanding that out to the most absurd circumstances, like wagons or silt skimmers. Im sure we all agree that it would be stupid if an elf refused to roll or slide down a hill because not using their own legs for locomotion is faux pas. Should elf whirans never fly? Do elf babies refuse to crawl? Do elf mothers refuse to carry their children? Do all elves have irreparable ptsd from the 9 months they were forced to be to be carried around in a womb?

Sure these examples are absurd. But its also absurd to think an elf trapped on a silt island would never be willing to swallow their pride and ride a skimmer home.

edit: Also simply stating "thats how they are  written and how we expect you to play" is a nonstarter. This discussion is about if they should be written that way. Not wether or not players should follow the rules.

This maybe a absurd example or something else but what do elves think when they climb up something?

[SmashedTregil]

Perhaps it's a matter of trust as well.

When you're using your own limbs to move around, you trust yourself. But trusting an animal? trusting a construction built by humans?

[Barsook]

I think you hit the hammer on the nail there.

[Armaddict]

Perhaps it's a matter of trust as well.

When you're using your own limbs to move around, you trust yourself. But trusting an animal? trusting a construction built by humans?

I would say that's maybe some component but not as large of one as the pride, otherwise there'd be justification after a few goes to start learning to trust the things.  The same way they do with friends.

[ShaLeah]

Perhaps it's a matter of trust as well.

When you're using your own limbs to move around, you trust yourself. But trusting an animal? trusting a construction built by humans?

I would say that's maybe some component but not as large of one as the pride, otherwise there'd be justification after a few goes to start learning to trust the things.  The same way they do with friends.

Long ago there was this elf bynner who had a "trusted" human friend. Said elf almost got dead in whatever shenanigans they were into and the human friend, being a good friend, took said passed out elf and either subdued and dragged him or tossed him onto the argosy, I can't remember which. That was the end of that friendship and the eventual murder of that "friend". That taught me a lot.

[kahuna]

In Dark Sun they handled the situation well: Elves /could and would ride/ if they were dying or too injured to. They are prideful beings who are extremely proud of their running, but they wouldn't be caught doing it. But they also aren't suicidal or stupid.

I don't know about this. Here is a link to the original Elves of Athas documentation, it's 100 pages so plenty of information on the topic. Of course this isn't applicable since Armageddon uses its own documentation, I'm just linking the original source material to clear up any confusion on the whole riding thing. There are a few other things but this was always the go to docs for elves in Darksun.

https://filebin.ca/51fvWy6pc4CP/elvesofathas.docx

[Jihelu]

You might be right the only source I can find is some shitty 5e conversion

[Narf]

I can understand why staff makes the policy the way they do. It's not realistic in every circumstance because it's not designed to be realistic in every circumstance. I suspect the policy is designed to establish and maintain an elves particular cultural norm in the metagame, something that needs to be done because if the cultural norm isn't maintained in the metagame its in game effect will quickly degrade.

Putting something in documentation about a culture, or putting examples of that culture in game will have some impact on the culture of the game, the far bigger influence is going to be what players actually do with their characters. Players characters by their very nature are going to be more dynamic and impactful on the world around themselves. They talk, they interact, they do things, and those things are constantly effecting othe player characters.

You cannot rely on docs and NPCs to overwhelm the PC zeitgeist.

This means that in order for any cultural norm to maintain itself in the game you have to have a large number of PCs following that cultural norm. The more important the norm is, the more PCs you need to conform to it. The problem with this is that you have four separate populations of characters that will usually choose not to conform to most cultural norms in the game:

1) The newbie. They haven't read the documentation to a significant extend and they're just doing whatever. This group is pretty much unavoidable, but probably the least numerous. Still, they add to the pile.

2) The snowflake. These people want to play something outside (usually above) the norm, and they will violate cultural norms for the sheer thrill of it regardless of whether or not it benefits them. This group usually isn't numerous enough to dash a cultural norm by itself, but again they add to a pile of other players who are all dragging down the norm for their own reasons.

3) The powergamer. If a cultural norm is in the way of acquiring power they'll probably try to come up with a way around it.

4) The conviencegamer. If the kids need to be fed and the chores need to be done IRL they'll probably come up with a means and excuse to expedite play at the sacrifice of any cultural norms the designer is trying to establish.

As a designer coming up with a way to stop a large enough build up of players from these four different groups from destroying the culture and feel of a race or group can be incredibly daunting, and the easiest solution is to just ban the behavior for PCs. There are sacrifices involved in going this route, people have pointed out more than a few on this thread, but honestly I think people underestimate the difficulty of other solutions from a designer's perspective.

[Riev]

4) The conviencegamer. If the kids need to be fed and the chores need to be done IRL they'll probably come up with a means and excuse to expedite play at the sacrifice of any cultural norms the designer is trying to establish.

CONVENIENCE gamer.

How dare they.

They have things to do, but choose to spend their time here? AND THEY FADE CULTURAL NORMS?

Fuck these people.

[Hauwke]

How very dare I have kids and a life. Shame on me.

[Narf]

How very dare I have kids and a life. Shame on me.

Whether or not a player's behavior is morally justified isn't really relevant to whether or not it presents an obstacle to a game designer.

These factors are not correlated.

[Hauwke]

Well you called out that people who can't play a lot are essentially bad, so regardless of anything else, I am going to entirely ignore any point you try to make from here on out.

[Dar]

Really? People take offence to that? I understand him completely and I am a convenience player. A person who will suddenly gain instant knowledge of the sewers, just because I need to quit out and I don't have the time to explore randomly for a quit room.

A person who will eat raw flesh, just because I gotta be somewhere else fast and the character is starving, but I don't have time to cook the dish.

I did all that. I don't feel particularly guilty. Life trumps game every time.

Way to take offense over nothing.

[Narf]

Really? People take offence to that? I understand him completely and I am a convenience player. A person who will suddenly gain instant knowledge of the sewers, just because I need to quit out and I don't have the time to explore randomly for a quit room.

A person who will eat raw flesh, just because I gotta be somewhere else fast and the character is starving, but I don't have time to cook the dish.

I did all that. I don't feel particularly guilty. Life trumps game every time.

Way to take offense over nothing.

I've been all four at one point or another.

[Jarvis]

In that case is it safe to say that an elf will much rather die than tarnish his race's pride?

(in the hypothetical scenario of both his legs are broken, he can ride or get turned into little mush by a mek who's not all too happy)

[Gentleboy]

Hey all! Do elves feel the same way about magick as humans do?

[JohnMichaelHenry]

Not all humans, nor all elves, feel the same way about magick. Depending on where you are. And don't forget, you always have quite a bit of flexibility in how YOUR character feels about magick, although sometimes playing the exception can lead to persecution of your PC. I know that sounds pretty vague, but it's better than saying, find out IG.

[Armaddict]

Hey all! Do elves feel the same way about magick as humans do?

Talked about this in my why I play a city elf write up.  I do believe they see it differently, but not in a way that makes magick 'likable'.

Elven History, Oppression, and -Magick-
Most documentation of city elven tribes, all that stuff that we don't really use today, included some sort of long-standing history of the tribe; they aren't brief surges of a family, they are usually a very long term memory, some of them predating the consolidation of tribes in Gol Krathu and Vrun Driath into what we now know as Tuluk and Allanak.  Simply put, elven society has a rich history, coming from a place of what could be conceived as elven dominance into what they are now; second class citizens.  A large part of this has to do with the neutering of their ability to fight other powers through the eradication of their tribal sorcerers.

I know that sounds extreme, but that's actually written into documentation; sorcery was outlawed as a means of securing power.  This is something that tribal humans also experienced...but for them, that lack of ability to fight back was not translated into oppression and second-class citizenry.  Thus, it is my opinion that elves, while suffering from the same fear and distrust of magick as everyone else, are very possibly more able to view a reliable magickal tool as useable, insofar as they can control it.  Think of it as a very pronounced realization among some of their populace that they are at a constant disadvantage to those who use it, and so some cases, they will bend a little farther to use it than the average commoner.  Importantly, that is not done lightly, nor without caution; they don't build parties, they don't immediately jump to it, but for a rogue mage or dissatisfied mage, an elf is probably a prospect for alliance more than we'd care to admit, purely because of the history of elven tribes and where they came from, to where they are now.  This familiar oppression of elves that we -all- know and acknowledge, often turn directly into real racism, is long lived and has molded elves into an entirely new methodology which will be discussed at length in other topics; the gist of it is?  Elves play a lot of stealthy roles or shady roles for a reason.  It's adaptation for the treatment of mainstream society.

Basically, think of if everyone hated guns, but the powers-that-be used guns all the time to shove your face in the muck.  Other people sometimes get their face shoved in the muck, but by and large are treated as 'normal' citizens, while you get the brunt of it all.  You still don't like guns.  At all.  But your tribe used to use big guns to defend itself from other big guns, so occasionally you might carefully take a small gun out of a lockbox to get something done, insuring that no one uses guns to keep you down during it.

It doesn't mean you apply guns to all scenarios, it doesn't mean you love the things, it just means that you recognize the status quo as putting you at a disadvantage on purpose, and you, fortunately, don't care much for their laws regarding such.  You will sometimes even the playing field.

EDIT:  Important to note that this is my personal opinion and I was still very reserved about magickal relations in game.  It's a very slippery slope when you make an allowance one time for a character.

[HavokBlue]

Hey all! Do elves feel the same way about magick as humans do?

This is gonna vary regionally and culturally.

Elves in Allanak are probably going to regard mages the same way humans in Allanak do, maybe with some added fear since the only legal mages are effectively slaves to the Templarate.

Tribal elves will have varying beliefs on magick between tribes. What the Two Moons think about magick will be different from what the Akei'Ta'Var think about magic, which is different from the Sun Runners and the Soh Lanah Kah etc.

[Scrumpkin]

One thing that I have always questioned is if you save an elf in battle, subdue them and ride them back to safety, do they love you or want to kill you?  I have been in this situation more than once where I saved an elf from death by this measure.  I think it's been 100% they loved me.  Sometimes friendship and comradery outweighs inbred beliefs.  A good friend goes a long ways when making a choice.   

[Doublepalli]

Something I've seen that city elves like to do -

Attack and provoke massive conglomerates and defend the elves threatening extinction of their tribe.

Its like a Soh Lanah Kah attacking a blackwing and the Soh back the Soh up.

- how should elves treat other, more powerful tribes?
At what point is an elf exiled from the tribe? Murdered by the tribe?

[Inks]

Something I've seen that city elves like to do -

Attack and provoke massive conglomerates and defend the elves threatening extinction of their tribe.

Its like a Soh Lanah Kah attacking a blackwing and the Soh back the Soh up.

- how should elves treat other, more powerful tribes?
At what point is an elf exiled from the tribe? Murdered by the tribe?

Clearly you aren't the one playing elves here or don't understand celf, because your post sounds like vapid complaining.

There is a point, but past a certain point it is often all for one.

Past that point of trust, that is the true strength of elven tribes.

[Armaddict]

Something I've seen that city elves like to do -

Attack and provoke massive conglomerates and defend the elves threatening extinction of their tribe.

Its like a Soh Lanah Kah attacking a blackwing and the Soh back the Soh up.

- how should elves treat other, more powerful tribes?
At what point is an elf exiled from the tribe? Murdered by the tribe?

Well.  To point 1...remember that there's a lot of shadiness and underhandedness, that desire for the upper hand, for the 'superiority' of the elf.  The same as with theft, just remember that daring is rewarded...but the big deal is -not getting caught-.

Point 2 is actually pretty complicated.  The first distinction I'd make for the players of city elves is that gangs are -not- tribes, but something in between...that loyalty is there, but not to the degree of a tribe.

As far as a tribe, killing another member is a huuuuge deal.  Exile is pretty much the worst punishment for most scenarios, barring the impetus of an external force (i.e. 'Unless this member is executed, I will exterminate your tribe.')  In this scenario, you'd have elven leaders making very hard decisions...they're more likely to exile than execute, then just tell the aggressing faction that the member is no longer a member, and they can hunt them down as they please.  In rare cases, that leader might decide to do the execution, but that would put them on a shaky foundation with other tribe members.  It's a family member committing fratricide, and saying it's for the good of the family.  If it's a bad decision, it may result in the leader being usurped down the line by someone who didn't agree...though even in the usurpation, it would be an exile, in more cases than less.

As far as a -gang-, it is a business venture.  A survival venture.  This is not family, this is not tribe.  This is a loyal group to do things with, but any leader would need to make that appraisal if a member of the gang is threatening either the overall business or survival of all members.  You'd still be very very hard pressed to get them to turn on their associates since there -is- a high degree of loyalty involved...but any leader worth their salt will make that hard decision.
Edited to add here:  Just to be clear, 'make that hard decision' doesn't mean kill them, necessarily.  It just means it's way more 'on the table' since the whole point of the group forming was not to make a family; it was mutual benefit, with elves who had developed some system of trust with each other.  I think they'd be very hesitant to straight up 'end' another elf in the group unless that elf had not just fucked up once, but made a habit out of ignoring the group's benefit as a whole.  In a tribe, this would be exile.  In a gang, your trust level doesn't hit the point that you're confident that with the mutual benefit gone, they won't just turn into a knowledgeable enemy.

In whatever case, the problem most players make, in my opinion, in trying to deal with 'elven threats' is that they try to beat them up and put them in their place on their own.  This is just more of the same for an elven group, even if you mop the floor with them it will only make them a bigger enemy unless you can manage to completely eradicate it.  Arrangements and business are far better alternatives; if you can get the leader or prominent members regulating the group for you, you're doing it better.

Just my opinion.

[Inks]

Or saying they are no longer a member to powerful force x then continuing business as normal is far more likely. It's elves. But I like Armaddict's post.

Another thing, a southside celf group would be much more likely to have to react to certain threats than an eastside group. Because hunting elves eastside is generally a dangerous prospect oocly codedly and icly gameworld wise.

[NinjaFruitSalad]

I do think saying something like, "Elf and Dwarf logic is completely and utterly alien to humans and incomprehensible!" is a copout. As it has been pointed out, we players are humans, and not only do those of us who choose to play such races need to understand how these races think, but the admins of Arm are also human. They also need to understand how these races think, but even more completely because they judge players on how they roleplay these races. So we need to get away from this notion that Elf and Dwarf logic is unfathomable, and we need to find ways to relate to the way humans think, otherwise it's more like a guessing game, playing with unknown contents of a black box.

I feel I should also point out that even individuals among the human species think differently, and often times we don't understand how another person thinks. I wouldn't say it's impossible.. but I do believe there are some who are harder to understand than others. There are some who only care about themselves and lack empathy, and either can't comprehend or don't care how other people think. There are some people who maybe think they can relate to others, and not everyone. And there are also very gifted people who understand how other people think. This last group of people would have quite an advantage and be able to act certain ways without drawing suspicion, and they could also easily manipulate other people.

I might be going off on a tangent there, so let's reign it back. I guess the point is, while other races might be difficult to understand, and some players might not be able to understand them, that doesn't mean all players will not be able to grasp how another race thinks.

Now then, something else I'd like to say is that logic is logic. I don't believe there is a such thing as "dwarf logic" or "elf logic" in the literal sense of the phrases. And I apologize if I'm being needlessly semantic. But just to emphasize the point, I think what people mean is: there's certain engrained ways dwarves tend to think, and there's certain engrained ways elves tend to think. When I say logic is logic, I mean just that. Things like 1+1=2. Facts, and logical statements related to those facts: for example, if all people born in Allanak are from Allanak, and the Labyrinth is in Allanak, then therefore, all people born in the Labyrinth are from Allanak. You can try to dispute the nuances of what citizenship means, but in this scenario, it's more like an "All squares are rectangles" argument.

I guess the point to that spiel is, despite differences in outlook between all races, if they got a chance to sort their thoughts out, they should be able to come to logical conclusions. This all is a fundamental aspect of sapience. It's identity, pattern recognition, reasoning, intelligence, etc. I do think that help files may be too restrictive. When describing how these races think I think it better serves to think of them as generalities and how they typically react and subconsciously think. But at the end of the day, all "logic" should arrive to the same conclusions.