>There should be only one definition for any fantasy creature

I guess the first one. You aren't really impressing me by calling your mushroom monsters elves, and it's not like you couldn't just pick a name that would actually help players to understand what they're dealing with

It's less "there is only one definition" and more...I dislike laziness. And there's a lot of laziness in this debate. Firstly there's, yes, the "Its a fungus spore monster from the moon called an elf", which like...if you've come up with a new thing, call it a new thing. Just because it's fantasy doesn't mean it has to have all the generic names. I even apply this to old things in new settings. Dinosaur riding hobbits and pirate dwarves are not hobbits and dwarves. Fantasy races are defined by their fictional context, and if you're gonna change them enough to take them entirely out of their context, change them a bit more and give them a new name. This cuts the other way too. If you say "My setting doesn't have any elves!" then you can't also say "But it does have pointy eared long lived magic guys who live in the woods and dislike outsiders. But they're called Onglar, totally different"

Between those two: camp 1.

But I'd still give a creator some leeway when it comes to naming things.

You can have tolkien elves, tiny forest fairy elves, spooky spirit elves, child eating elves, etc.

But going "My elves look like squidmonsters from space" is dumb.

>>54884656
>Dinosaur riding hobbits and pirate dwarves are not hobbits and dwarves.
so you hate all those alternative fantasy settings? (i mean stuff that takes stereotype fantasy setting and puts it out of context,like 40k).

>>54884632
Words are the reflection of idea's and perceptions

When dealing with matters entirely imaginary, what is important is if those words associate correctly to the idea behind them.

Elf creates an idea, and if the subject does not correctly encapsulate that idea, it's improper use

>>54884632
Typical high-fantasy elves, even Tolkien's, bear only a cursory resemblance to elves of folklore. And even then, the strongest connection is in them being proficient with bows as a reference to superstitions about elf-shot. The ship sailed on this a good while ago.
Your average D&D elf isn't going to 'forcibly seduce' someone via daydreams after cursing the townsfolk with phantom cramps and mental illness.
>inb4 'unless he's a bard'

>>54884632
It's less that there's only one true definition and more "why the fuck are you calling something that is not even remotely elf-like an elf?"

There are Tolkien's elves, there are mythological elves, there are D&D elves, and there are even Pratchett's elves. But they all have common features: They look mostly human, they're at least a bit magical, they're beautiful, etc. If someone described any of them to you and asked what you think they were describing, you'd most likely say elves.

>>54884782
Outside of Tolkien and DnD I think elves are more often associated with making cookies or toys for Santa Claus than anything else

>>54884632
A bit of both. I'm perfectly alright with adding a twist or two to an old idea, but the original concept should still be recognizable in the new creation, otherwise, you may as well just call it something different.

The former, but then you don't ever use elves, dwarves, orcs or hobbits because you're not JRR Tolkien or under the age of 12.

Camp 2.

"Magic" can mean basically anything. Monsters like ghouls and trolls can be a million different things and elves or dwarves are no exception.

I'd prefer more interesting names that fit better, but if you want to use a generic name then you can.

File: 1451348461935.jpg (99KB, 827x615px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 827x615px

Well, both are pretty stupid.

The first one is obvious bullshit if we look at what classic mythology and folklore calls Elf in Western cultural cannon:
From invisible, but otherwise unrecognisable-from-humans hidden folk of the Icelandic folklore past creatures of pure light, brighter than the Sun, inhabiting the skies, but also creatures of pure darkness, living deep undeground of Prosaic Edda, past tiny, drunken winged spirits of jollyness in Shakespear, past dwarf like Irish manual workers of American Christmass folklore, past the well known elves of Tolkiens dreams, past their ugly carricature in DnD and similar systems, past a ugly, dark skinned goblings that steal children and cause nightmares in classic medieval German folklore: the idea of an "elf" is incredibly variable from culture to culture, time to time.

On the other hand, the second option is silly because it clearly serves to only cause confusion among players of modern fantasy ruleset systems and causes divide between player expectations and reality of the rules.

In reality, it's just about basic communication and context. Use the word too far from what your audience generally anticipates from it, and you'll just confuse them and most likely won't improve their experience. Use it too strictly and you find yourself bothering history, or restricting your own imagination and getting stuck in a mindless cycle of boring tropes that have long been stripped of meaning.

That all said, my experience has been WORSE with people that insist that "In fantasy, word X ALWAYS HAS TO MEAN ONE THING" than the other camp. The kind of people who insist that dragon has to always have four legs and wyvern 2 and that is THE TRUTH tend to be the most obnoxious fucking assholes in the universe.
I guess I'd rather deal with people who use their imagination more (and end up with un-intuitive terminology), than people who refuse to acknowledge plurality and variety in IMAGINATION.

>>54884632
If there are cold-blooded elves with feathered plumage, but who ultimately still mostly look like and act like elves, that's fine. They can be elves.

If your elves are lizardmen then just call them lizardmen.