One question I've always had about the LeShay and never seen anyone ask: Who came first; Corellon or the LeShay? It's said that the first elves were born from Corellon's blood in a battle with Gruumsh. But it's also said that LeShay created the first elves. So who came first? Were Corellon's progenitor elf god-things the beings created by LeShay? I'm confused. Can someone at Wizards clarify?
PS I know you're on 5e, and you're not fans of descriptions that do the game justice anymore, but do you think you could throw on your creative hats and think of a way out of this paradox? Please and Thanks.
Having just looked them up on the FR wiki, I don't see an issue. They appear to be considered progenitors of the fey, with "some" considering them ancestors of the elves. There's nothing stopping them having created the fey, and Corellon the elves.
In any event, if your world's creation stories are all nice and consistent and lacking in ambiguity, I'd say you're doing it wrong. Myth ought to be messy. If some say Corellon created the elves, and some say the leshay did, there's no problem. Maybe Corellon actually created the leshay. Maybe one (or both) stories is from sources that were lying. If you, the DM, need the real truth for whatever reason, you can decide on it.
One question I've always had about the LeShay and never seen anyone ask: Who came first; Corellon or the LeShay?
It's not clear, but
leShay: The leShay were said to be the progenitors of all fey, with some believing them to even be the originators of the elves. If true, this meant that they were responsible for the creation of beings like the korreds, sprites, and pixies, and that they ruled Faerie as of −34,000 DR.
Corellon: Corellon is an eternal being who has existed since or before the dawn of creation. Dawn Age -30,000 DR.
If Corellon created the LeShay, they probably didn't come from another reality. And since they came from the reality that existed before Toril-Abeir popped into existence, they're most probably older than the oldest gods, as a civilization.
I don't know for you guys, but this whole Corellon vs leShay somehow reminds me of Harfoot vs Hobbit or Istari vs Wizard in Lord of the Rings: Ring of Power serie. 😉
I guess I'm just wondering if the elves that Leshay produced are a whole different evolutionary branch from Corellon's, or if Corellon's elves were created by the LeShay and then later they chose to worship Corellon, after the Dawn War, or maybe the LeShay's "proto-elves" were created from the blood of Corellon during the Dawn War and they're creations of both by technicality? I'm confused as to how it was meant to be canonically. I get that everything is a changeable, morphable framework on which you can build your own world. I just want some clarity about this one paradox.
Wizards could have just as easily chosen not to over-write 30 years of canon with a paradox, but they did. I just want a little clarification. I don't see them creating a lot of other paradoxical creation events for long standing base races. Dwarves are still born from stone. Orcs are still "Divine" cousins of the Elves, if Corellon's blood was used in the creation of the species elf, being born of the lost eye of Gruumsh, forever solidifying their role as Eye-for-an-eye combatants despite the wise teachings of Gondy, which is just a cute nickname for Gond. Humans are still born from the ancient Dragon TTRPG, "Houses and Humans" [TM] Dracoliches of the Shoreline, All Rights Reserved. See? Still the confusing mess you like. Still run by Gizzards of the Roast. No, it was.. Lizards who like to Boast? No that wasn't it either.. You know what I mean, Aos.
There are lots of "contradictions" in the lore of D&D for the larger settings such as Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk because those settings have had multiple contributors over multiple years and that's how seeming contradictions creep in. There are contradictions for stuff like Orcs and Dwarves and the Weave and all sorts, they're everywhere.
However, I use the word contradiction loosely because they're really not actually contradictions and you're tying yourself in knots over a complete non-issue. The vast majority of the lore for the various D&D settings is written through the lens of one unreliable narrator or another. Legend says this, accounts from over there say that. This bard says one thing and this wizard says another. There's next to no "word of god" on a lot of these contradictions and you can just pick whichever resolution works best for how you're running your game*. Maybe the LeShay created all fey except elves who were a creation of Corellon. Perhaps Corellon created the elves from the fey. Perhaps Corellon made the LeShay as well as the elves, explaining their elf-like appearance. Etc etc
*This is not a cop-out answer, this is a genuine, practical, pragmatic response. There is no "fact", no "truth", it's all a fiction to serve the explicit purpose of helping DMs run their games. So pick whichever path gives you the best game and don't worry about what's "right" or "accurate" because there's no such concept.
There are lots of "contradictions" in the lore of D&D for the larger settings such as Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk because those settings have had multiple contributors over multiple years and that's how seeming contradictions creep in. There are contradictions for stuff like Orcs and Dwarves and the Weave and all sorts, they're everywhere.
However, I use the word contradiction loosely because they're really not actually contradictions and you're tying yourself in knots over a complete non-issue. The vast majority of the lore for the various D&D settings is written through the lens of one unreliable narrator or another. Legend says this, accounts from over there say that. This bard says one thing and this wizard says another. There's next to no "word of god" on a lot of these contradictions and you can just pick whichever resolution works best for how you're running your game*. Maybe the LeShay created all fey except elves who were a creation of Corellon. Perhaps Corellon created the elves from the fey. Perhaps Corellon made the LeShay as well as the elves, explaining their elf-like appearance. Etc etc
*This is not a cop-out answer, this is a genuine, practical, pragmatic response. There is no "fact", no "truth", it's all a fiction to serve the explicit purpose of helping DMs run their games. So pick whichever path gives you the best game and don't worry about what's "right" or "accurate" because there's no such concept.
Lore-as-written IS a valid stance, but does lead to people lore lawyering & metagaming their way into ways to win & outshine other players unfairly.
So, while I personally don't play as such, I can see why people want answers. Necromancy & bothering authors aren't going to help, & neither will demanding a response on Beyond.
My advice to OP:Please remember that history is written by the "winners" even in Dungeons & Dragons lore, so you might want to account for that bias. ESPECIALLY with Correlion, since he comes off, to me, as Chaotic Stupid with some of his actions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
In any event, if your world's creation stories are all nice and consistent and lacking in ambiguity, I'd say you're doing it wrong. Myth ought to be messy. If some say Corellon created the elves, and some say the leshay did, there's no problem. Maybe Corellon actually created the leshay. Maybe one (or both) stories is from sources that were lying. If you, the DM, need the real truth for whatever reason, you can decide on it.
That's a bit of a hot take, particularly if it's a setting where the creators can and do, y'know, show up and talk about how they put everything together. Obviously there's the issue of source credibility, but it wouldn't be the same kind of tangle irl myths form as various regional tales are drawn together and then disseminated and reiterated into different forms over and over. Also, from a narrative perspective leaning to heavily into "or is this exposition a lie" is a gamble because the audience can disengage if they get the impression that they're going to keep being told that what they think they know is wrong.
In any event, if your world's creation stories are all nice and consistent and lacking in ambiguity, I'd say you're doing it wrong. Myth ought to be messy. If some say Corellon created the elves, and some say the leshay did, there's no problem. Maybe Corellon actually created the leshay. Maybe one (or both) stories is from sources that were lying. If you, the DM, need the real truth for whatever reason, you can decide on it.
That's a bit of a hot take, particularly if it's a setting where the creators can and do, y'know, show up and talk about how they put everything together. Obviously there's the issue of source credibility, but it wouldn't be the same kind of tangle irl myths form as various regional tales are drawn together and then disseminated and reiterated into different forms over and over.
It should be. The fact that a single creator may have sat down and decided on how the creation of the fictional world happened doesn't mean that that's how it ought to be presented. Having a canonical answer on questions of what, exactly, happened tens of thousands (or more) years ago is weird. Even if there are literal immortals who were there and still interact with mortals shouldn't help much -- most people don't get this info directly from the literal immortals, but from people who heard it from somebody who heard it from them. And memory fades, and stories change to make the teller sound good.
Also, things like the creation of the world or the origins of the elves are incredibly in-the-weeds stuff. Almost nobody, including the world's creator, really needs to know this. You may need to know that Gruumash and Corellion have beef, but why they have beef is much less relevant to the actual task of telling stories in the world.
And in practice, this stuff rarely gets set in stone. Things get added when they're needs. (AFAIK, Ao, the creator of all the gods of the FR, was added when they decided to have a big event to explain the changes to the FR from 1e to 2e.) Things get changed when a new idea comes up. (See the entirety of the History of Middle Earth. Tolkien was doing all this stuff entirely for his own entertainment, and he kept tinkering. The Silmarillion was assembled by his son.)
Unless you have some particularly unusual conditions, a consistent creation story breaks the verisimilitude of your worldbuilding.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
One question I've always had about the LeShay and never seen anyone ask: Who came first; Corellon or the LeShay? It's said that the first elves were born from Corellon's blood in a battle with Gruumsh. But it's also said that LeShay created the first elves. So who came first? Were Corellon's progenitor elf god-things the beings created by LeShay? I'm confused. Can someone at Wizards clarify?
PS I know you're on 5e, and you're not fans of descriptions that do the game justice anymore, but do you think you could throw on your creative hats and think of a way out of this paradox? Please and Thanks.
Regards,
BreakerOfRailroads
Corellon because he was invented in 1980. The Leshay were invented in 2000-ish
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Having just looked them up on the FR wiki, I don't see an issue. They appear to be considered progenitors of the fey, with "some" considering them ancestors of the elves. There's nothing stopping them having created the fey, and Corellon the elves.
In any event, if your world's creation stories are all nice and consistent and lacking in ambiguity, I'd say you're doing it wrong. Myth ought to be messy. If some say Corellon created the elves, and some say the leshay did, there's no problem. Maybe Corellon actually created the leshay. Maybe one (or both) stories is from sources that were lying. If you, the DM, need the real truth for whatever reason, you can decide on it.
It's not clear, but
leShay: The leShay were said to be the progenitors of all fey, with some believing them to even be the originators of the elves. If true, this meant that they were responsible for the creation of beings like the korreds, sprites, and pixies, and that they ruled Faerie as of −34,000 DR.
Corellon: Corellon is an eternal being who has existed since or before the dawn of creation. Dawn Age -30,000 DR.
If Corellon created the LeShay, they probably didn't come from another reality. And since they came from the reality that existed before Toril-Abeir popped into existence, they're most probably older than the oldest gods, as a civilization.
I don't know for you guys, but this whole Corellon vs leShay somehow reminds me of Harfoot vs Hobbit or Istari vs Wizard in Lord of the Rings: Ring of Power serie. 😉
I guess I'm just wondering if the elves that Leshay produced are a whole different evolutionary branch from Corellon's, or if Corellon's elves were created by the LeShay and then later they chose to worship Corellon, after the Dawn War, or maybe the LeShay's "proto-elves" were created from the blood of Corellon during the Dawn War and they're creations of both by technicality? I'm confused as to how it was meant to be canonically. I get that everything is a changeable, morphable framework on which you can build your own world. I just want some clarity about this one paradox.
Wizards could have just as easily chosen not to over-write 30 years of canon with a paradox, but they did. I just want a little clarification. I don't see them creating a lot of other paradoxical creation events for long standing base races. Dwarves are still born from stone. Orcs are still "Divine" cousins of the Elves, if Corellon's blood was used in the creation of the species elf, being born of the lost eye of Gruumsh, forever solidifying their role as Eye-for-an-eye combatants despite the wise teachings of Gondy, which is just a cute nickname for Gond. Humans are still born from the ancient Dragon TTRPG, "Houses and Humans" [TM] Dracoliches of the Shoreline, All Rights Reserved. See? Still the confusing mess you like. Still run by Gizzards of the Roast. No, it was.. Lizards who like to Boast? No that wasn't it either.. You know what I mean, Aos.
There are lots of "contradictions" in the lore of D&D for the larger settings such as Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk because those settings have had multiple contributors over multiple years and that's how seeming contradictions creep in. There are contradictions for stuff like Orcs and Dwarves and the Weave and all sorts, they're everywhere.
However, I use the word contradiction loosely because they're really not actually contradictions and you're tying yourself in knots over a complete non-issue. The vast majority of the lore for the various D&D settings is written through the lens of one unreliable narrator or another. Legend says this, accounts from over there say that. This bard says one thing and this wizard says another. There's next to no "word of god" on a lot of these contradictions and you can just pick whichever resolution works best for how you're running your game*. Maybe the LeShay created all fey except elves who were a creation of Corellon. Perhaps Corellon created the elves from the fey. Perhaps Corellon made the LeShay as well as the elves, explaining their elf-like appearance. Etc etc
*This is not a cop-out answer, this is a genuine, practical, pragmatic response. There is no "fact", no "truth", it's all a fiction to serve the explicit purpose of helping DMs run their games. So pick whichever path gives you the best game and don't worry about what's "right" or "accurate" because there's no such concept.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Lore-as-written IS a valid stance, but does lead to people lore lawyering & metagaming their way into ways to win & outshine other players unfairly.
So, while I personally don't play as such, I can see why people want answers. Necromancy & bothering authors aren't going to help, & neither will demanding a response on Beyond.
My advice to OP:Please remember that history is written by the "winners" even in Dungeons & Dragons lore, so you might want to account for that bias. ESPECIALLY with Correlion, since he comes off, to me, as Chaotic Stupid with some of his actions.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
If you need to explain this, three easy ways to do so.
1. Corellon created the first elves, which WERE the LeShay. The LeShay then created the mortal elves.
2. Corellon created the mortal elves in the image of the LeShay, who had always been there.
3. Corellon was a LeShay who ascended to godhood and so his creation myth is true after a fashion.
Have fun with it!
That's a bit of a hot take, particularly if it's a setting where the creators can and do, y'know, show up and talk about how they put everything together. Obviously there's the issue of source credibility, but it wouldn't be the same kind of tangle irl myths form as various regional tales are drawn together and then disseminated and reiterated into different forms over and over. Also, from a narrative perspective leaning to heavily into "or is this exposition a lie" is a gamble because the audience can disengage if they get the impression that they're going to keep being told that what they think they know is wrong.
The leShay are elf-like fey creature, so to me they're not elves at least in the way we normally conceive them.
Tel'Quessir are mortal Humanoid, not immortal Fey.
It should be. The fact that a single creator may have sat down and decided on how the creation of the fictional world happened doesn't mean that that's how it ought to be presented. Having a canonical answer on questions of what, exactly, happened tens of thousands (or more) years ago is weird. Even if there are literal immortals who were there and still interact with mortals shouldn't help much -- most people don't get this info directly from the literal immortals, but from people who heard it from somebody who heard it from them. And memory fades, and stories change to make the teller sound good.
Also, things like the creation of the world or the origins of the elves are incredibly in-the-weeds stuff. Almost nobody, including the world's creator, really needs to know this. You may need to know that Gruumash and Corellion have beef, but why they have beef is much less relevant to the actual task of telling stories in the world.
And in practice, this stuff rarely gets set in stone. Things get added when they're needs. (AFAIK, Ao, the creator of all the gods of the FR, was added when they decided to have a big event to explain the changes to the FR from 1e to 2e.) Things get changed when a new idea comes up. (See the entirety of the History of Middle Earth. Tolkien was doing all this stuff entirely for his own entertainment, and he kept tinkering. The Silmarillion was assembled by his son.)
Unless you have some particularly unusual conditions, a consistent creation story breaks the verisimilitude of your worldbuilding.