It fits closer to older depictions of elves in folklore where they were viewed as harmful/disruptive to human society. As opposed to to being elusive and desirable when they became romanticized.
Elves, like most(all) creatures in pagan mythologies are magical creature of
nature, neither benevolent or harmful by design but they can be. Again, they represent nature first and foremost. Tolkien's elves, while generally benevolent toward humanity, are not its protectors and did plenty of nasty things, if you actually read The Silmarillion. They are a product of mythology, and as myths and magic recede at the end of the Lord of the Rings, so do the elves, just as it happened in the real world. So you see Tolkien did not do anything to elves, neither did anyone else for that matter.
Tolkien's elves are not "good elves", and "bad elves" are not "edgy original elves", this division doesn't even make sense.
What canon is there to violate?
So you try to claim there is no canon while judging how close they are to a canon that you claim doesn't exist. Ok..
All this results in, is a misuse of the term "elf" and the corresponding loree as a shell for a random construct.
Would you mind answering why this random mind construct has to be named an "Elf" specifically? What do you derive from this? Since you claim there is no canonical depiction of an elf, what is the purpose of defending this name specifically and not let elves represent actual elves, let giraffes represent giraffes, and let
Lizards represent Lizards.. ops, and it seem Larian already did that.
