A Problem with Fey

I would be perfectly happy if the Monster Manual has an entry called Nymph that describes the various subtypes and gives their stat blocks.

Klaus said:

As I posted on the article:

- I like the notion of making Dryads a specific type of Nymph. This opens the design space for Nereids, Naiads, Rusalkas and other "nature spirits", with an unifying connection.

- I like the Monster Vault depiction of the Dryad, where it can change shape between an elfin-like female and something that looks like a walking tree. This could hint at a connection between Dryads and Treants.

There's a huge gap between a full elfin-like girl and a "monstrous" form. See how Howard Lyon depicted the "Nymph of Summer" for the 4e Monster Manual 3:

Click to expand...

Agreed.
I like retaining the nymph as a quasi-generic "spirit of the wilderness", or put another way, a manifestation of the sublime in nature. The original concept of the sublime in nature is of something wondrous, compelling, beautiful, and deadly. I don't have an issue with dryads, naiads, and etc retaining an aspect of that, but they're specific manifestations of place, with different ways of threatening you.

And I prefer the nymph as a supernaturally beautiful human, rather than elf. That opens up the artistic vista a bit, I think.

Edit: Nymphs are beautiful humans. Dryads are beautiful elves. Oreads are beautiful dwarves (just...go with it). That suddenly makes me think about dwarves interacting with oreads and the fey....

Leatherhead said:

Oh, this isn't the problem I have with fey, at all.

I find their lack of a unifying theme and purpose far more problematic than what "supernatural beauty" could possibly mean. In this day and age they have computer programs which make "perfect" looking people with precise mathematical formulas and whatnot. It can't be hard to start with one of those as a base and then add some elf or a tree into the mix.

I mean seriously, what is a fey other than a magical creature that sometimes lives in the woods?

Click to expand...

That 2-foot jerk who gave me a wedgie and left me hanging from a tree.

I don't agree that the fey lack a unifying theme. Most of them share the same descriptors of being aloof, haughty, tricksters, nature-oriented, arcane-oriented, ect...

However, and this is a bit "bigger picture", I feel that for the Fey, and a lot of creatures and races, the social aspects of why this beastie is different from that other one that looks exactly the same but has scales/vines/purple toenails; get overlooked in place of the physical details. Which are often meaningless without the social details.

Without social descriptors, how is a 7-foot-tall human with long hair and covered in tattoos different from a 5-foot-tall elf with long hair covered in tattoos?
Oh...you mean the elf is covered in arcane runes and the human in tribal art?
Oh you mean you can only see the runes on the elf's neck and hands because they're fully clothed 'cause they're a wizard while the human is nearly nude because they're a barbarian?
Oh you mean the runes detail the elf's arcane power and their status in society while the human show their connection to their animal gods?

Yeah...physical appearance means nothing without social context.

Stormonu said:

(hmm...does that mean Jon can't see the forest for the trees? ).

Click to expand...

You may think you're joking, but I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head.

Dryad = specific nymph subtype good.

Monstrous dryad bad.

'nuff said.

Kinak said:

Yeah, this seems like the smallest problem with the fey.

Click to expand...

Actually I think the appearance and nature of fey are so strongly liked that the question is completely relevant. I love that they put out a poll like this.

I find it absolutely hilarious that everyone said they wanted individual monsters and monster subtypes to be visually distinct a few columns ago, but now everyone is clamoring for the dryad and the nymph to look the same. Hypocrisy, thy name is D&D fans.

Myself, I think all fey should be beautiful on the surface and have a monstrous form underneath. In 4e, I used minis that were beautiful females when the dryads were peaceful, and I brought out the freaky monstrous dryads when they wanted to turn humans into fertilizer and bury them under their oak trees.

I liked the Pan's Labyrinth, Grimm fairy tale, old myths and folk legends direction the fey went in 4e. I like magic-eyed Formorian Giants, I like spriggans as twisted gnomes, I like dryads as monsters, and I like the realm of the faerie to be ethereal and deadly.

Now you can have 10 different varieties of pretty elf ladies for your fey, but I prefer them not to be pretty, but only look that way... with different attacks and combat abilities other than "oh look, you are fascinated because they are pretty and thus duplicate the charm person spell".

Does WotC OWN the older editions of their books?

This was solved in 3.5

[sblock]
Dryad (trees)


Nymph/Naiad (generic/water)


Oread (mountain)


Fossegrim (waterfalls)


Nereid (seas)


Maenads (fury)


[/sblock]

Each is visually distinct and unique.

ferratus said:

I like magic-eyed Formorian Giants, I like spriggans as twisted gnomes,

Click to expand...

Well, that's exactly in keeping with folklore.

... I prefer them not to be pretty, but only look that way...

Click to expand...

Dryad: I'm not pretty, I just look...pretty.

Is this a Jessica Rabbit thing?

Remathilis said:

Does WotC OWN the older editions of their books?

This was solved in 3.5

Click to expand...

They are assuredly perfectly aware of such solutions. However:

Jon Schindehette said:

Well, if any of the feedback about the contemporary D&D dryad is to be considered, you might think that folks in the D&D realm were more comfortable with the classic concept of the dryad than they were with the re-envisioning of the dryad as a monstrous creature as depicted by William O'Connor.

Click to expand...

Now, is the monstrous creature different from the dryad of 3.5? Sure, but the 3.5 dryad IS monstrous in its own way. Just look at the picture you provided. That's not the classical dryad that people were pushing for in the feedback - including the people here on this forum.

ferratus said:

I find it absolutely hilarious that everyone said they wanted individual monsters and monster subtypes to be visually distinct a few columns ago, but now everyone is clamoring for the dryad and the nymph to look the same. Hypocrisy, thy name is D&D fans.

Click to expand...

Amen to that.

steeldragons said:

So, how did the brilliant painter Waterhouse differentiate the two nymphs? Well, simple. He put the dryad in a tree! Yep, still a beautiful, semi-nude young woman, but this time she's been integrated into a tree.

​

-snip Hamadryad by John William Waterhouse-

Is it that simple? Is a nymph just a beautiful young woman depicted in different ways to designate the type of nymph she is?


​

Yes. Yes, Jon. It is, in fact, that simple.
...

Yeah, this article is a non-starter.

Pretty elfish women in a tree. Pretty elfish women around water. No "design challenges" needed here or cause for any "problem."

Click to expand...

So... if we grab some elves and have them settle around a lake, are they now lake elves? As in, a whole "new" race/subrace/creature, called "lake elves"? Shall we take some dwarves, change nothing visually about them except perhaps their clothes, and put them in a forest, so now they're a subrace called forest dwarves? Lame.

They don't necessarily need huge visual differences, but a change of clothes or scenery shouldn't even count as a "difference" race/subrace-wise.

Now, if you want to say the difference isn't in their appearance or only in where they live or what they wear, let's discuss this. Is it a change in their personality or behavior? That's never qualified for "subrace" status before. If it's a change in their supernatural abilities, and those abilities are innate and not learned, maybe, but it sure runs counter to how subraces have always been handled before. Something else? In any case, none of them can fit the "make different types of creatures visually distinct" creed we were supposedly following.

Nellisir said:

And I prefer the nymph as a supernaturally beautiful human, rather than elf. That opens up the artistic vista a bit, I think.


Edit: Nymphs are beautiful humans. Dryads are beautiful elves. Oreads are beautiful dwarves (just...go with it). That suddenly makes me think about dwarves interacting with oreads and the fey....

Click to expand...

Now that is an interesting idea. I definitely agree with the nymphs more like humans instead of elves bit and the dryads more like elves. Dwarves? Well, it's definitely worth considering.