|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 31, 2004 7:09:14 GMT -5
Problem here is that a means must be created by which the 'affinity' - determined as a part of the imagery - for the arboreal environment can be created despite bipedalism. The whole chicken/egg scenarios about maximising horizon view for potential predators, maintaining minimum surface area exposed to the sun for 'cooling', etc., are all fine but are predicated mostly for a shift to the plains environment. We must maintain that 'natural' habitat. (E.g. it would be easy to argue that eldar "came down" from the trees but stayed within the canopy to regulate body temperatures for excessive metabolisms, but this is a tad too restrictive to me.)
It would also be easy to argue that it is less a question of 'tolerance', but also one of 'preference'. But at the moment I'm swinging (ha ha) towards keeping an intimate connection with arboreal environments throughout their evolutionary process...
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Oct 31, 2004 7:15:32 GMT -5
Why, could not living by an ocean be just as good, I must say I suscribe to the theory that humans were aquatic apes living in the tidal zones, having moved out of the trees. Why could eldar also be patially aquatic, not gills and stuff but they are very streamlined.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 31, 2004 8:01:38 GMT -5
I was merely saying that we should keep the arboreal environment as a focus, or rather that was what I mean to say. Not that other habitats were excluded, just that I would personally prefer to keep a link with the arboreal approach... This is purely a product of evolution rather than long-term application in their history.
|
|
|
Post by Pudding on Oct 31, 2004 9:14:57 GMT -5
as is often the case with evolutionary shifts, change comes with cataclysm. here are a few options that leave the Eldar in a jungle but create a distinct advantage to a biped.
1) competition for the same niche. the proto-Eldar might have been the 'loser' for the tree branch niche, and adapted to life on the ground after being forced there by an invasive species.
2) death of the forests. if the food in the trees dried up, because of a new disease or bug, the proto-Eldar could be forced out of the trees.
3) migration. the proto-Eldar might have started out in the forests and migrated to, as has been suggested, coastal areas, or just the edge of the forest.
4) agriculture. crazy as this might sound, given the Eldar's age, it's not out of the question that they became 'intelligent' while still in the trees. however, despite what the Ewoks would have you believe, the trees are not a good place to develop civlization. as they began to build things on the ground, evolution would select for bipeds etc etc.
just some thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 31, 2004 15:46:55 GMT -5
Isn’t Eldar evolution down to the Slann?
All of the biped races in 40K were from the mind of the Slann, so the Eldar didn’t evolve they were made. The only true evolutionary development among bipeds in 40K was the Slann.
As for anatomical structure I think I’ll leave that hot potato alone!
Eldar longevity I put down to their Psyker abilities rather than their metabolism.
|
|
|
Post by Pudding on Oct 31, 2004 18:59:56 GMT -5
speaking only for myself, i am categorically ignoring all GW fluff that involves the C'tan and the 'war in heaven,' so in my little delusion, no, Eldar evolution was not totally up to the Slann.
re: longevity, i'd agree, one thing that seems fairly consistent across 40k races is that psykers live longer than normal people.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 31, 2004 19:26:02 GMT -5
Remembering that the goal is to keep them in the arboreal environment. Again, this is merely a "hang on" to the image of the eldar in the 40k universe. Personally, I don't have to much trouble in getting rid of this little image if it creates a consistent image, as indeed it would be if it was merely a preferetial environment rather than related to specific tolerance and therefore evolutionary pressures... competition for the same niche. We do have the mon'keigh to consider. There representation in eldar 'myth' might have a more basic level than the trans-dimensional race idea... Same principle as our 'little hobbits'. death of the forests. if the food in the trees dried up, because of a new disease or bug, the proto-Eldar could be forced out of the trees. Again, the basic and superficial 'tree hugger' imagery is to keep them in the forest. But then again preservation of 'non-canopy' (or whatever) forage in preference for ground-forage would make a sense in this regard...? migration. the proto-Eldar might have started out in the forests and migrated to, as has been suggested, coastal areas, or just the edge of the forest. In which case the arboreal imagery is devalued and therefore irrelevant. Again, I point out that I'm not bothered in the slightest. But at some poine some of the 'elf' imagery must have an impact since, when it comes down to it, that is a core part of the imagery of the 40k universe... And that's not necessarily "revised 40k" It's fairly easily to put eldar into 'human' forms of evolution... the challenge is to move the other way. Eldar longevity I put down to their Psyker abilities rather than their metabolism. I would personally argue that it is not wise to disclude one from the other. I'm afraid that the C'tan and Necron information is something that is too strong a 'thing' for us to ignore. It therefore behooves the creative mind to include it in a way that is consistent with the original vision of the 40k universe rather than the overt 'heroic fantasy' that determines it at the moment... But, again, we must include aspects of the modern image, otherwise there is no point to the project... After all, we try to show GW a tempered approach, not just a money-based one... (And, yes, I know that it is cynical to say such...) Oh yes, and there is no 'hot potato' about eldar physiology... Only if you want to give them "backward knees" and revise them completely!
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 31, 2004 19:56:54 GMT -5
Oh yes, and there is no 'hot potato' about eldar physiology... Only if you want to give them "backward knees" and revise them completely! I never gave them ‘backward knees’ If you remember they stood on tip toes and lacked heals, but their knees were forward facing. You got me on the ‘revise them completely’ bit, and if given the opportunity would completely redesign them, their worlds and their technology. Elves in space, it just gets my goat. Oh, I forgot, I changed them some more, now the have ‘feather’ like hair, and have amazing hair, err… I mean featherdo. They look rather striking and come in many forms.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 31, 2004 20:08:02 GMT -5
<-- Note them, Phillip... Told you that I like some of your ideas. I just happen to intensely dislike the revision of the eldar that you allowed people to see, if only briefly. "If it ain't broke..."
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 31, 2004 20:13:20 GMT -5
So I guess pearlescent skin and bird of paradise hair is a no no?
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 31, 2004 20:27:39 GMT -5
So I guess pearlescent skin and bird of paradise hair is a no no? Give me logic for either and I might agree. Knee jerk reaction is 'no' to the second. Reminds me too much of a time when a good friend was arguing that 'elves' should have special hairstyles merely because they were elves. This included small weather-patterns around the hair. Sometimes imagery is just not 'cool'. But then again we all have our preferences. I see the movement to 'differentiation' for differentiations sake to be a weakness. But that's me. And, again, lets stay OnT.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 31, 2004 20:36:57 GMT -5
Give me logic for either and I might agree Skin=Protection Hair=Sexual Display Hair is just step away from feathers or even scales, so why not?
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 31, 2004 20:48:10 GMT -5
"If it ain't broke..."
Guess you and my friend would love to discuss about lightning storms in the bonnet... Cool image, but... Well, whatever.
And now back OnT...
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 31, 2004 21:02:51 GMT -5
Seeing as I want to do a complete overhaul, I would be of the opinion it is broken - and I’m arguing that the Eldar are not ‘Elves’, or rather shouldn’t be. I like Tolkien but I don’t think he is the only person with an imagination (and I hate ‘fantasy archetypes’)
But you’re right about it being OfT. As for official fluff? Hmm, not sure, it seems drowned out by my own musings…
|
|