A Problem with Fey

[Leatherhead]

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?

 

[RACER_X?HAHAHA]

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?

A consolidated mass of chaos and arcane magic.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

There is a lot of talk elsewhere of there being variants on the nymph according to their habitat. Dryads, naiads, etc. I'm in favor of that.

Some of those variants existed in some editions of the game, too (primarily 2e and 3e). So the question is, if those variants exist again in this version (and I don't see why they shouldn't), do we still need a generic nymph?

My answer is that, yes, we still need a generic nymph. I don't want something that has been there since the beginning yanked from the MM. But what exactly are her properties that differentiate her from the specific types? That's the question. I'd suggest that we already have mechanical traits (in the form of the blinding/killing gaze (or being gazed at)).

What we need is simply a story explanation for why some nymphs are specialized, and why some aren't.

 

[RACER_X?HAHAHA]

Some of those variants existed in some editions of the game, too (primarily 2e and 3e). So the question is, if those variants exist again in this version (and I don't see why they shouldn't), do we still need a generic nymph?

My answer is that, yes, we still need a generic nymph. I don't want something that has been there since the beginning yanked from the MM. But what exactly are her properties that differentiate her from the specific types? That's the question. I'd suggest that we already have mechanical traits (in the form of the blinding/killing gaze (or being gazed at)).

What we need is simply a story explanation for why some nymphs are specialized, and why some aren't.

I think the traditional nymph could be the nymph of humanoids. There are nymphs for different habitats, animals, and plants, so why not a nymph of people?

 

[Leatherhead]

I think the traditional nymph could be the nymph of humanoids. There are nymphs for different habitats, animals, and plants, so why not a nymph of people?

I'm a fan of supernatural adaptability.

There is only one kind, but it has different abilities depending on it's location.

It's also how I prefer to do elves outside of established settings.

 

[Klaus]

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:

 

[Jhaelen]

Well, _I_ have a problem with people who don't know their mythology! Even wikipedia could have told Mr. Schindehette that dryads _are_ a type of nymph. Every nymph is associated with a natural feature or force. And that's exactly how they should be treated in D&D.

 

[Klaus]

Well, _I_ have a problem with people who don't know their mythology! Even wikipedia could have told Mr. Schindehette that dryads _are_ a type of nymph. Every nymph is associated with a natural feature or force. And that's exactly how they should be treated in D&D.

Have you read the article? Jon specifically says that dryads in mythology are a type of nymph. But that hasn't been true in D&D's history, which is why he's wondering if D&D should adopt that take or keep both creatures separate.

In fact, nymphs were subdivided depending upon where they lived: dryads (forests), naiads (springs and rivers), nereids (the Mediterranean), oceanids (the sea), oreads (mountains), limoniads (meadows), limniads (lakes, marshes, and swamps), meliads (ash trees), epimeliads (with sheep?), and napaea (valleys and glens).

 

[steeldragons]

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.

Give her a tail and she's a mermaid or oceanid, put her in a tree and she's a dryad, drop her in a stream and she's a naiad. Is it truly that simple? Seriously??



​

Well, not the mermaid part, but other than that...Yes. Yes, Jon. Seriously.

Well, if any of the feedback about the contemporary D&D dryad is to be considered,


​

And why wouldn't it be?

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.
​

Well, I can't speak for all folks in the D&D realm, but for myself....YES! Most definitely! The "monstrous dryad" was an AWFUL and COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY departure from a pretty well known and established bit of real world mythology AND D&D lore.

Yet another case of "ain't broke, don't [think you can] fix it!" Making work/a problem where there isn't any...drives me nuts.

I posted this in the comments on the article, but I'd like to drop them here also.

In other words, it looks to me like Jon is trying to create a problem where there isn't one. My internal image of these fey creatures are the pictures from the 3.5 Monster Manual, which pretty much use these descriptions, if memory serves. They are very clearly separate in my mind, anyways

My thoughts exactly.

Well, _I_ have a problem with people who don't know their mythology! Even wikipedia could have told Mr. Schindehette that dryads _are_ a type of nymph. Every nymph is associated with a natural feature or force. And that's exactly how they should be treated in D&D.

Yup. Always have been.

And just as an fyi, 1e "nymphs" were basically defaulted as naiads and oceanids...seemingly always supposed to be found around beautiful natural places with water.

Nereids were differentiated in 1e also (though not until MM2), where they are separated from "nymphs" by making them Elemental Water creatures (not "fey"/faerie or sylvan, as it was once called). There is, again, no differentiation, however, between oceans, rivers, mountain springs, etc...just naturally beautiful places with water.

They also had a scarf that had something to do with controlling them or containing their soul or something. And there was no "seeing them naked kills you" thing...they had poisonous spit ANYwho...

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."

Separating goblins v. hobgoblins v. orcs, telling devils from demons (a bit unnecessary, but could be useful), heck the "look" of High elves from Drow elves. Have fun.

Pretty elfin women in trees v. pretty elfin women around water? Ought not be a source of concern.

--SD

 

[Starfox]

This was my reply at wizards:

Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder

All fey are spirits, and can appear in different aspects. Ultimately, their appearance is a mix of their nature and the spectator's expectations. But this is too complex for a game. Having two forms - one pretty and one for combat, should suffice. All dryads and nymph look essentially the same in their pretty form, as depicted above they are beautiful women with few special traits. These spirits were supposed to be able to marry and live unnoticed among humans for years, so they can look fully human. They also have a different form they can take on when angry, and that may well be a woman of wood with sharp twigs for claws or a pillar of water, depending on their nature. They could also have hybrid forms, which have the stats of one of their main forms (combat or social) but take on some aspects of the other to make them more visually variable. So there is nothing odd in spying a dryad with bark for skin, she is just more attuned the wood than to you at the moment.

I see no conflict between the pretty and the monstrous dryad - its just a matter of mood. All fey are shape-changers, often instinctive ones that have no control over their changing appearance. They are spirits, after all. Perhaps they don't really HAVE an appearance, and its all in how we view them?