DRAGON #360 Art Gallery: Dryad
Testament
First Post
Clavis said:
I see this argment crop up all the time, and it still makes no sense to me. Nowhere do I see dilution of the class archetypes at all. If you disagree, enligten me, I'm genuinely curious.
In terms of races, archetype doesn't have to be diluted. Class/race interaction has no place here for my money, 'no dwarven wizards' is stereotype, not archetype IMO. If your group prefers very Tolkienesque elves, then do so. Hell, its the first thing that comes to many people's minds when they hear elf. Personlly, I dislike Archetype anyway, it too easily becomes stereotype, which I hold in similar contempt to telemarketers, racists, Emo music and cockroaches.
At any rate however, I do think archetypes are changing. The younger generation's fantasy influences are coming from the LotR films sure, but also from anime/manga, WoW, shows like Avatar, video games. Their influences I do think point to the sort of thing described in the BO9S preface, 'culture-blind' fantasy. And I like it. Do What Thou Wilt!
Last edited:
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Kintara said:
That's a bit too literal.
I was using magic in the more general sense, in that it really is more "magical" for a mermaid to exist than for a manatee to be mistaken for a mermaid. In the same way, it's more "magical" for a beautiful tree spirit to exist then for some malformed twig to be mistaken for a beautiful tree spirit.I mean, dryads aren't typically illusion-using tricksy fey. They're more representative of nature than the spirit world.
Mustrum_Ridcully said:
Actually, all those are very different.
Dyads and Nymphs (which dryads are just kind of a class of, in myth) usually represent the true beauty of nature. They're not there to lead people astray, they're there because it's pretty and they're pretty and pretty things go together and are attracted to each other. They represent the fragility of nature, being protected, chased...as well as the sexuality of nature, and the parallels between the untamed world and the young person. Specifically, because they're Greek, they've got more than a little dash of that ol' time misogyny, to boot.
Sirens are specific monsters that lure people into danger with songs. Sirens have more in common with Will O' Wisps and Kelpies than dryads and nymphs. They represent the dangerous side of unknown space along with it's attractive side, how we are tempted to cause our own destruction by our interest in this hypnotic effect. They don't really embody any natural forces or natural things, they're just supernatural beasts like anything else, not avatars.
Mermaids aren't so much a dangerous temptation as they are a living thing. They're not avatars like the dryads and nymphs, they're not exactly terrorizing monsters like the sirens, they're more just an entry in the catalog of species, an interesting insight into the world of natural history, something exotic and bizarre, like the Bearded Lady, but not something unnatural.
Succubi are dangerous, but they're not natural monsters like the sirens, they're otherworldly temptations. They don't use tricks of song or light to lure their prey, and they don't live on some forlorn rocky outcrop, they live right next door and you've known her all your life and she will use you, throw you aside, and damn your soul while she's at it.
The roles they fill as Anybodies are quite distinct, and the roles they could fill as Adversaries and Allies should be similarly varied. Though nymphs and dryads could be rolled together and I wouldn't begrudge it much, I think the powers of a dryad could be different enough from (say) and oread to warrant the division in the game.
Actually, the fact that they are hot-looking women out in the middle of the wilderness where goblins and orcs and snakes and spiders and all sorts of other unpleasant things lurk is THE reason to resist their temptation.
Though, again, the dryads and nymphs would have no reason to be trying to tempt themselves. They *are* attractive. They don't try to lure people in, they just happen to do so by virtue of what they are. They'd prefer to be left alone, and they need protection from the aggressive threats out there who don't want to leave them alone.
That's the same story told about the wild areas. They are replete with useful things that lure people in just by the virtue of being wild, these wild areas will loose what they have if they are not protected from the aggressive threats out there who want to take what they have.
Loving a beautiful fey creature (and even having children with them) is a well-represented theme in myth. If you loved a dryad, you would take care of her tree. If you loved a nymph, you would defend her field. And if you have a child with one or the other, you might have a hero on your hands (or a villain). There really shouldn't be a problem with that potentially occurring for the PC's.
See, this is disappointing. D&D characters should, in part, behave like superstitious weirdos because most of the superstitions from our world are REAL in D&D. In such a case, someone meeting a pretty girl out in the middle of nowhere should be VERY suspicious, because the most likely options are that she's going to kill you, she's going to drive you mad, or she's going to drive you mad and then have your children kill you.
Dryads are something of exceptions to the usual rule. And if the core rules aren't going to support that, but are still going to insist on calling it "The Dryad," I'm going to be disappointed at WotC's failure of imagination.
If dryads or nymphs aren't particularly dangerous, I can deal, though I'd prefer them to be dangerous AND attractive.
You don't need to look like some sort of tree-monster to be dangerous. You can look like a beautiful young woman and kick butt WELL out of proportion to your appearances, and, in fact, probably do. I mean, if a dryad can survive out where orcs and goblins and spiders and serpents lurk, she's definitely tougher than anyone back in the village who isn't an adventurer.
Testament said:
It should be noted that I do agree with this sentiment 100%. But I also think that it's important to reflect the origins of these influences. Rangers did COME FROM Aragorn. Aragorn CAME FROM old-school European legendary kingship. D&D should be able to reflect old-school European legendary kingship, and someone who is one of those should be able to travel across the wilderness like Aragorn and be a Ranger.
Of course, Drizzit has about as much influence as Aragorn at this point, so they should also wield two weapons in a blinding flurry of steel and skill.
Don't just use archetypes. Use what those archetypes *mean*.
Dryad doesn't mean "scary woodland tree-monster." Dryad means "natural untamed beauty that is, perhaps, under special protection." Unless 4e is compatible with that idea, it should represent that idea.
And if 4e IS incompatible with that idea, I've not only got fears about WotC's imagination-level, I've now got fears that I might need to learn a different game in order to recapture that mythic feel that D&D has been able to capture for me since I realized it could be present in a game.
Last edited:
I'm not sure why they really have to be turned into combat hack-monsters. Is it wrong to think that some encounters don't involve chopping something up into hamburger? Particularly Fey.
I've always thought that Fey should be more dangerous....but not as in "I'm an ogre crossed with a tree, and I'll smash you flat", but more like out of Raymond Feist's novel "Faerie Tale". The Fey in that book are beautiful, and in many cases humanoid in appearance (they can choose their form), but they're dangerous. Human minds get all messed up just from being around them. They play havoc with emotions and it's almost like they are surrounded by a charm or fear aura (depending on which court they belong to). After humans meet them, they are often affected by Confusion.
This makes them more dangerous from a mystical/otherworldly perspective, but some of that danger comes from what they are....not that they're necessarily trying to cause harm. They see mortals as playthings, and don't always understand that doing XYZ to a mortal will permanently kill him.
Both Castle Falkenstein and 7th Sea had Fey who were very much like this. That's what I'd prefer to see, rather than a walking tree stump who's also supposed to be a beautiful tree spirit.
Of course, maybe the Dryad's "boys" are the ones who are trees. She's a tree spirit afterall. She probably likes trees and mortals. Maybe she charms a mortal she likes, and does whatever she will....but over time, *he* turns into the tree monster, who in turn becomes a defender of hers. Sort of like Will Turner's father in Pirates of the Caribbean. The dryad in turn, doesn't see anything wrong with her boyfriend growing roots and leaves....after all, she loves trees. And she's probably still best friends with him, but any mortal who knew that would happen to him if he hooked up with the tree spirit would probably become uninterested really quickly. And maybe *that's* why the dryad, while not evil, and still pretty to look at, is actually very dangerous to be around.
Banshee
I've always thought that Fey should be more dangerous....but not as in "I'm an ogre crossed with a tree, and I'll smash you flat", but more like out of Raymond Feist's novel "Faerie Tale". The Fey in that book are beautiful, and in many cases humanoid in appearance (they can choose their form), but they're dangerous. Human minds get all messed up just from being around them. They play havoc with emotions and it's almost like they are surrounded by a charm or fear aura (depending on which court they belong to). After humans meet them, they are often affected by Confusion.
This makes them more dangerous from a mystical/otherworldly perspective, but some of that danger comes from what they are....not that they're necessarily trying to cause harm. They see mortals as playthings, and don't always understand that doing XYZ to a mortal will permanently kill him.
Both Castle Falkenstein and 7th Sea had Fey who were very much like this. That's what I'd prefer to see, rather than a walking tree stump who's also supposed to be a beautiful tree spirit.
Of course, maybe the Dryad's "boys" are the ones who are trees. She's a tree spirit afterall. She probably likes trees and mortals. Maybe she charms a mortal she likes, and does whatever she will....but over time, *he* turns into the tree monster, who in turn becomes a defender of hers. Sort of like Will Turner's father in Pirates of the Caribbean. The dryad in turn, doesn't see anything wrong with her boyfriend growing roots and leaves....after all, she loves trees. And she's probably still best friends with him, but any mortal who knew that would happen to him if he hooked up with the tree spirit would probably become uninterested really quickly. And maybe *that's* why the dryad, while not evil, and still pretty to look at, is actually very dangerous to be around.
Banshee
Fifth Element
Legend
And positions on a football team aren't archetypal? Assuming you mean American football, if I say "linebacker" does not a specific set of characteristics come to mind? The same applies for "lineman", "wide receiver", "kicker", and on and on.Reynard said:
Just as defenders have certain characteristics that make them defenders, the same for controllers, strikers, etc.
I guess I just don't understand what you mean by "archetype".
Fifth Element said:
When I use the term "archetypal" with regard to D&D, I am referring to something similar to, but not identical with, Jung's archetypes. I wouldn't necessarily want to see the classes reduced to "Wise Old Man", "Warrior Hero", "Trickster" and "Artist-scientist". Although it might make a good game, the classes would be too abstract, and not respectful enough of D&D's origins and history to be appropriate. But I 100% support the idea that the character classes should represent the stock characters of myth and legend, which are reflective of the archetypes.
Stock characters are re-used over and over because they connect with the deep aspirations and foibles of human beings. A simple, straight-forward stock character is nothing but a cliche, of course, so there should be some degree of customization possible. But the designers of D&D should not dilute the archetypes too much.
What dilutes the archetypes? Changing classic monsters until they are unrecognizable, but still keeping the classic name. Skill and Feat rules that seem like they create well-balanced, individual characters at first, but really ensure that all high-level characters have essentially the same abilities. Reducing the class system to absurdity by introducing classes that are simply collections of kewl powerz, rather than representations of classic characters from fiction and myth.
Archetypes are not combat positions. If I tell a new player your character is a "controller", they're going to think I'm saying their character has a control-freak personality. They won't think he's a thief! The name of a character class should tell someone with a decent education 90% of what they need to know about playing it. If it doesn't, the class is not archetypal enough. And yes, that means I think the "monk" should be dropped, or re-named the "martial artist".
I don't believe previous editions of D&D were perfect by any means. I think WOTC has done a poor job of developing the game. I think they've bungled the implementation of their own great idea (d20), and created a new game (3.x edition D&D) that is barely D&D anymore. 4th edition D&D, which they have already said is not compatible with any previous edition, will probably no longer be D&D at all. No matter what they call it.
Damn, I can really ramble when I've had too much turkey.
Last edited:
Testament
First Post
Clavis said:
OK, now I'm really confused. People choosing X and Y feat/skill combos is more an issue with the players than the classes. And how the heck the class system was EVER able to represent classic characters from fiction and myth is completely beyond me. You say you wouldn't want to classes reduced to pure Jung, but everything else you say suggests to me that you do.
Did you ever consider that maybe they've contnued to create new base classes because the first ones were well recieved? Nomenclature is another matter altogether, but I don't think its just for mechanical reasons that lots of people, myself included, replaced the normal fighter with Warblade and called it the Warrior or something similar from there on in.
This has always struck me as ridiculous, I'm sorry, but thats how I see it. What D&D is is such a nebulous and subjective notion that calls of "its not D&D anymore" just come across as the bitter tears of jaded grognards who've been left behind by ever-changing notions of fantasy and game development.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've said it before and I'll say it again, because it bears repeating in these sorts of discussions: I started on 3rd Edition. I'm 24 years old and have no table-time experience with any edition from before. I look at the books for older editions and see mechanical atrocities of design and most of the art makes me laugh more than anything else, especially 1st edition. I have no sentimental attachment of any kind to the previous editions. I've never read Leiber or Moorcock, have found their books almost nowhere, and hadn't even heard of either until I started visiting sites like this. I thought the LotR films were infinitely superior entertainment to the books, I play WoW (FOR THE HORDE!
), watch Anime and read comics and Manga. Fact is, I'm 99.9% sure that I'm the audience for late 3.X and 4th edition, not Grognards. The history of D&D and its so-called traditions are just so much dead wood to me. ANYTHING I say in a debate like this should be viewed in light of that fact.
