A Problem with Fey

Starfox · Nov 22, 2012

Tuhljin said:
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.

Actually, for spirits, this is not lame at all. Spirits are manifestations of nature; change nature and fey change. The spirits of polluted places are dealt with as horrors in games like Werewolf and Shadowrun.

For other races, like the dwarfs you mention, DnD has been doing it since forever, with more or less success. Duergar, derro, hill, mountain, and gully dwarfs being different but with recognizable roots. Elves in particular tend to come in dozens of varieties adapted to different places. So do goblins (mites, kobolds, xwarts, gremlins, redcaps). As these creatures are semi-fey, I have no problem, but I never considered these variants separate races. For more mundane races, like humans, this is more controversial and also done less.

I'd not expect Next to cease this diversification as it allows creators to stay with mythic themes and still create varied monsters.

ferratus · Nov 23, 2012

Starfox said:
Actually, for spirits, this is not lame at all. Spirits are manifestations of nature; change nature and fey change. The spirits of polluted places are dealt with as horrors in games like Werewolf and Shadowrun.

Meh, I'm a farmer and the son of farmers going back 1000 generations. Mother nature isn't just a giver of life and plenty. In truth, she's a b**** goddess, who needs to be appeased with blood sacrifice (preferably human). One minuute she shows you a beautific smile, and the other minute she shows you her sharp and pointy teeth.

So I like monstrous dryads. You don't need pollution or human corruption to make nature capricious or evil. Just try to make your living from it, or get lost for a couple days in the bush. Then the old folk tales start making sense.

Stormonu · Nov 23, 2012

Here's another question for the group:

what about male versions of these fey?

In the past, they've always been depicted as primarily female - if not exclusively so. Would you be opposed to having male nymphs, dryads, oreads, fossegrimme, etc.?

Nellisir · Nov 23, 2012

Tuhljin said:
Now, is the monstrous creature different from the dryad of 3.5? Sure, but the 3.5 dryad IS monstrous in its own way.

The 3.5 era dryad is a darn sight less monstrous than the 4e dryad.

Here's part of the issue for me. Can you, without reference to text or title, identify a creature by it's picture alone?

The answer should be yes, or at minimum, you should be in the same class. This is impossible with the 4e dryad. The lower part of the body is obscure, so frankly I'm not even sure it's a biped. Its either got no lower-half to its' face, or there's some kind of Bane mask thing going on. The eyes are featureless white orbs. It's got swirly design stuff going on, maybe glyphs or something, which makes me suspect it's some kind of construct.

There comes a point when you move far enough away from the original concept of a creature as to engender a whole new one. The 4e one did that.

The 3.5 dryad, on the other hand, is a much more successful mingling. The body shape is clearly humanoid and female, and the stance is neutral. The face is the most inhuman feature, which matches with many descriptions of faerie folk (including some of the more radical depictions of elves). There is a clear difference between the green of the hair (leaves), and the brownish wood tones of the skin. And the wood grain looks like wood grain, not mystical engravings. At night, or at a distance, or with a cloak, this is a figure that could easily be taken for a human or elf. I could see this dryad summoning up the 4e dryad as a guardian - it's the little girl with the big-ass monster protector theme.

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.

Oreads are mountain spirits. What civilized D&D race lives in the mountains? Dwarves. Who are oreads most likely to interact with? Dwarves.

Nellisir · Nov 23, 2012

Stormonu said:
Here's another question for the group:

what about male versions of these fey?

In the past, they've always been depicted as primarily female - if not exclusively so. Would you be opposed to having male nymphs, dryads, oreads, fossegrimme, etc.?

I don't see any of these as "races" or even "species" in the traditional sense. They don't need a male and female of the same species to reproduce. The concept of nymphs and dryads as females is pretty ingrained, and the concept of male seducers wandering bare-arsed around the forest is vaguely ridiculous. The stereotype that we have is that men are more vulnerable to temptation through sex, where women are more vulnerable to exploitation (I am NOT saying either of these is true, correct, or proper, but I think that is the common perception). And having a monster or monsters that wander around the forest magically compelling women into having sex....

Male versions could work with the monsters that are less familiar, such as fossegrim, oreads, and so forth, and provided they move away from the temptation/seduction theme.

Nellisir · Nov 23, 2012

Nellisir said:
I don't see any of these as "races" or even "species" in the traditional sense. They don't need a male and female of the same species to reproduce.

So the point I was getting at was, given that they don't need to reproduce, what is the point of different genders? I can't think of one beyond a generic stab at political correctness.

For whatever it's worth (probably nothing except trivia), I created leshii as a playable race in my campaign. The women look much like the 3.5 dryad. The men look like...well, look at my avatar. That's the leshii male someone drew for me. He's about 7' tall and there are branches growing out of his head. But they are a mortal race, and need two genders to reproduce.

Stormonu · Nov 23, 2012

Nellisir said:
I don't see any of these as "races" or even "species" in the traditional sense. They don't need a male and female of the same species to reproduce.

I'm not interested in reproducing, but I don't see why "nature's beauty" has to always produce a feminine form. Or an adult form for that matter.

Nellisir said:
The concept of nymphs and dryads as females is pretty ingrained, and the concept of male seducers wandering bare-arsed around the forest is vaguely ridiculous.

Why is a male running about the forest nude ridiculous and a female not?

Nellisir said:
The stereotype that we have is that men are more vulnerable to temptation through sex, where women are more vulnerable to exploitation (I am NOT saying either of these is true, correct, or proper, but I think that is the common perception). And having a monster or monsters that wander around the forest magically compelling women into having sex....

Depite the term nymphomaniac, D&D's treatment of these natures spirits has always been as more than sex objects. They are the embodiment of nature's beauty, and in ways it capriciousness. I don't see anything wrong with a "beautiful boy" whom the women find mysterious and charming (and with no sexual agenda) and is yet a powerful - sometimes frightening - force of nature.

Furthermore, any seduction abilities they do have are magical in nature, overcoming the nature of anyone they encounter. If a female nymph can overcome a male paladin's chastity, why can't a male nymph present the same danger to young ladies?

In a way, there are some role models - Adam and Tarzan being two that come to mind.

Nellisir · Nov 23, 2012

Stormonu said:
In a way, there are some role models - Adam and Tarzan being two that come to mind.

Also satyrs, and, traditionally if not in D&D, centaurs. In folklore, leshy and woodwose are male forest spirits.

I can sort of see where you're coming from, but it's not a niche that feels like it really needs filling to me, or that I totally agree with within the context of D&D.

I guess, should the succubus be portrayed as male?

(emphasis added to make clear my comments do not reflect my thoughts, opinions, actions, attitudes, or whathaveyou on gender roles in the real world.)

Tuhljin · Nov 23, 2012

Starfox said:
Actually, for spirits, this is not lame at all. Spirits are manifestations of nature; change nature and fey change. The spirits of polluted places are dealt with as horrors in games like Werewolf and Shadowrun.

I'm fairly sure they still either aren't separate races/subraces or don't look look like the same creature but with a different backdrop or different clothes, no other significant difference. Remember the article about the visual difference between ghosts, spectres, and wraiths (here). Even if they're all essentially the same sort of base stuff, they look very different.

If you want to have "dryad" as a paragraph or two under the "nymph" heading, then the way some people are asking for it to be (e.g. people I addressed in my last post), but that's not the way D&D's ever done it before and I see no reason why it should begin now. (No, I don't have a problem with it being a subrace, necessarily, but it should actually be a true subrace then - which gets its own subheading, unique art, and more than two paragraphs whether or not you organize the book so it's under "nymph" - and not just a cosmetic change.)

For other races, like the dwarfs you mention, DnD has been doing it since forever, with more or less success. Duergar, derro, hill, mountain, and gully dwarfs being different but with recognizable roots. ... goblins (mites, kobolds, xwarts, gremlins, redcaps) ...

They all have distinctive looks, especially those goblin/goblinoid/goblin-like races - some more distinctive than others, but it's not just the place where they live. "Beautiful elf-like female" vs "Beautiful elf-like female" doesn't work.

Of course, the water gets muddied when you consider than some "subraces" really seem to be cultural differences more than anything (some small attribute bonus changes aside), but I'm fairly sure even they have a difference that amounts to more than clothing and home. In any case, D&D has always treated the difference between a nymph and a dryad as something more.

As these creatures are semi-fey, I have no problem, but I never considered these variants separate races.

Per rule zero and as the DM, you can tell your players they're all the same race, but that's not how the Monster Manual has it.

I'd not expect Next to cease this diversification as it allows creators to stay with mythic themes and still create varied monsters.

Diversification is exactly the thing I'm pushing for. Dryads must look distinctive from nymphs, or "other nymphs" if we're going to classify them as a type of nymph. Because, again:

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.

Tuhljin · Nov 23, 2012

Nellisir said:
The 3.5 era dryad is a darn sight less monstrous than the 4e dryad.

This is true, and I do prefer the dryad to not be so monstrous. I was just a bit annoyed at the implication that was made that Wizards somehow stupidly forgot its own past and wanted to point out that 3.5 did not "solve" the problem that was outlined in the article. It may have "solved" the "how should fey look" issue in Remathilis's opinion, but it did not address the feedback that Wizards got (and continues to get judging by this thread) which essentially boiled down to people wanting the dryad to look exactly like a nymph (or "any other nymph", if we're going to say the dryad is a type of nymph).

Here's part of the issue for me. Can you, without reference to text or title, identify a creature by it's picture alone?

Yes. Hence I should be able to tell the difference between a dryad and a standard nymph. (I won't go into your criticism of the 4e dryad; it's not my intention to defend it.)

Oreads are mountain spirits. What civilized D&D race lives in the mountains? Dwarves. Who are oreads most likely to interact with? Dwarves.

I'm aware of this. I'm just not sure what they'd look like in practice or if that's the route we definitely want to take lore-wise. I'd certainly be all for it it if it is well executed.