Tuzenbach
First Post
Can you clarify the difference between a "humanoid" and a "demi-human"?
Do you mean "humanoidish".....? IIRC, I've taken great pains to specifically NOT use the word "humanoid", but instead use "humanoidish".
Can you clarify the difference between a "humanoid" and a "demi-human"?
Can you clarify the difference between a "humanoid" and a "demi-human"?
To be honest though, I feel like your pursuit of one, universal, definitive answer which applies to all players of D&D everywhere is...unreasonable? The game changes far too much, simply from one table to another, to say nothing of one edition to another or even other systems (e.g. retroclones). DMs should have the freedom to call their game "D&D" as long as they play by more-or-less the same rules, even if it means that there cannot be a universal taxonomy of races. I say, if you'd prefer to have Drow be fey, declare them fey, and see to it that they have the necessary qualifications (fiction is creationist, after all). If you'd prefer that they not be fey, then I recommend you declare them so and ensure they fail to meet the requirements in some way. If you truly have no opinion yourself, and would prefer to hear the community's opinions...debate seems, to me, like an inefficient way to gather those opinions.
And if you're seeking a discussion to determine a definitive answer, I don't think you're going to have much luck, since there are definitely some people whose favorite way of doing things is one you consider anathema.
In AD&D humanoids were evil man-like things and demi-humans were from man-like races not inimical to humans. So goblins and orcs and gnolls are humanoids while dwarves, elves, and halflings (and gnomes) are demihumans.
How quanitly humanocentric.
I know this wasn't pointed at me, but when i use the term humanocentric (as I did in my last post), I mean "human only".
You're the one who tagged your thread "all D&D". What edition are you asking about?LoL, are you assuming I believe in the relevance of 4E?
What you have quoted is more-or-less identical to the 4e definition: fey are fairies, ie spirits of faerie.There actually IS a definition for Fey. It is in the MM P. 6. "Fey are magical creatures closely tied to the forces of nature. They dwell in twilight groves and misty forests. In some worlds, they are closely tied to the Feywild, also called the Plane of Faerie. Some are also found in the Outer Planes, particularly the planes of Arborea and the Beastlands. Fey include dryads, pixies, and satyrs."
From the reading of the full entry of Fey and the lack of an entry for Fairy, I would consider Fairy in the category of Fey. I agree that if 4e has some other definition for Fey then it really may depend on the version of D&D that is being played.
In 4e there are evil/wicked fey (eg gremlins, boggarts). Some of these creatures go back to AD&D 1st ed.It often seems like "fey" in D&D is just short-hand for "good-aligned monster with magical powers". There are very few hostile or wicked ones.
Various posters - [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] in most detail - have pointed to cross-edition conceptions of what sorts of creatures are fey in D&D over the years. No one has yet mentioned the Faerie/Sylvan encounter table in the 1st ed DMG, but if you look at it you'll see many of the same creatures (elves, gnomes, dwarves, pixies, dryads, satyrs, etc - interestingly ogres and trolls but no orcs or goblins).I'm looking for a Universal definition of "Fey" which is applicable to ALL editions, not just what is considered the "current" standard
In 4e there are evil/wicked fey (eg gremlins, boggarts). Some of these creatures go back to AD&D 1st ed.
BINGO!!!!!!!
IMHO, it's the constant, "throw everything out every seven years and have all players buy more stuff & have more arguments" that is ........"unreasonable"......
Do you mean "humanoidish".....? IIRC, I've taken great pains to specifically NOT use the word "humanoid", but instead use "humanoidish".