DRAGON #360 Art Gallery: Dryad

[I'm A Banana]

Dryads become a whole lot creepier if the 4E look is their 'natural' form and the hawt elf chick is just an illusion. Kind of like sailors seeing manatees and thinking they were mermaids.

Yeah, and that's the problem for me.

It removes a lot of the MAGIC from a mermaid to say that it's some ugly sea cow. What was once an alluring allegory of temptation and danger, vivid mythopoetics of virgin wilderness, and beautiful unknown to boot, becomes simple. Ugly. Fragile. Capable of getting bonked on the head by motorboats.

This is friggin' D&D, mang. When a sailor sees a mermaid, it's a FRIGGIN' MERMAID, not some beached dewgong. When you see a beautiful woman amidst the autumn trees, that is what it is, and there's no reason it couldn't be able to kick your butt and mess with your mind and give you a two-by-four enema if you look at it funny.

I don't see a reason why this would need to be the "natural form" of the true dryad when the other one still works just fine, and contains all the richness of the mythic history to boot. Why change it, when you loose something in the change, and gain nothing by it?

Well, this is fantasy, where appearances match the metaphor. (Also, I like the idea of darker, more elemental, more alien fey. Ever see Pan's Labyrinth? )

I don't mind or begrudge the existence of this particular twig-beast as a fey. What I've got a problem grokking is, if it is The True Druid, what part of the imagination failed over there at WotC that they couldn't imagine a sexy arse-beating (or mind-bending) tree-nymph, like the original myths imply?

Again, if I have a problem concieving of a deity lustily chasing one through the forest, I'm loosing something from the game in that change.

 

[Kintara]

Yeah, and that's the problem for me.

It removes a lot of the MAGIC from a mermaid to say that it's some ugly sea cow.

That doesn't have anything to do with magic, as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't make your preference less valid, but I don't see the magic thing in the least. Again, I go straight to Pan's Labyrinth (rent it if you haven't seen it, a great movie). I could see a female "fierce forest protector" dryad with some of the demeanor of the Faun. The fact that such a role might seem more fitting for a woman makes it all the better, in my opinion.

 

[Testament]

Which was bad enough...

Ah, I get it. Every race must fit into the stereotypical roles or the world will stop spinning and we'll be flung into space.

I really don't see the issue. D&D has pretty much become its own genre, why is there some ingrained need for it to cleave to external prior traditions? Nor am I seeing any boilerplate on the images warning about the WotC Gestapo kicking your door down if you dare deviate from their published material.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yeah, and that's the problem for me.

It removes a lot of the MAGIC from a mermaid to say that it's some ugly sea cow. What was once an alluring allegory of temptation and danger, vivid mythopoetics of virgin wilderness, and beautiful unknown to boot, becomes simple. Ugly. Fragile. Capable of getting bonked on the head by motorboats.

This is friggin' D&D, mang. When a sailor sees a mermaid, it's a FRIGGIN' MERMAID, not some beached dewgong. When you see a beautiful woman amidst the autumn trees, that is what it is, and there's no reason it couldn't be able to kick your butt and mess with your mind and give you a two-by-four enema if you look at it funny.

I don't see a reason why this would need to be the "natural form" of the true dryad when the other one still works just fine, and contains all the richness of the mythic history to boot. Why change it, when you loose something in the change, and gain nothing by it?



I don't mind or begrudge the existence of this particular twig-beast as a fey. What I've got a problem grokking is, if it is The True Druid, what part of the imagination failed over there at WotC that they couldn't imagine a sexy arse-beating (or mind-bending) tree-nymph, like the original myths imply?

Again, if I have a problem concieving of a deity lustily chasing one through the forest, I'm loosing something from the game in that change.

The Sirens tempt the sailors of Oddyseus ship. They look and sound beautiful, but in truth, they lead you in a deadly trap.

Nymphs, Dryads, Sirens, Mermaids and Succubi, they follow one theme - they are a temptation man has to resist. If they are just hot-looking women with some powers, there is no real reason to resist their temptation, at least no more reason then to resist the average bar maid or village's beauty. Every forest dweller can happily fall in love and marry his favorite Dryad or Nymph, and sailors might have one mermaid per ocean they travel, in addition to one maid in every port.
If they don't have an inherent danger, they don't suit their mythological backgrounds.
And D&D might not always care much about the mythological background, but usually, it does (with bending and breaking a few things, for sure).

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

its not that a dryads can beat u to a pulp u fear... its the fact shes something not human ..to her u are a plaything,a toy something to amuse herself with..to be used and enjoyed and then left to wonder lost in the woods alone and confused missing weeks ,months or even years of time.. lost to something far more alien then most mortals would ever dream.you do not keep a dryad as a pet ...she keeps u as one for as long as she wants..you a helpless mortal vs.. something far older then you. that sees u as but a fletting day to its unknown sesons, that my friends is why u fear the dryad

 

[Reynard]

its not that a dryads can beat u to a pulp u fear... its the fact shes something not human ..to her u are a plaything,a toy something to amuse herself with..to be used and enjoyed and then left to wonder lost in the woods alone and confused missing weeks ,months or even years of time.. lost to something far more alien then most mortals would ever dream.you do not keep a dryad as a pet ...she keeps u as one for as long as she wants..you a helpless mortal vs.. something far older then you. that sees u as but a fletting day to its unknown sesons, that my friends is why u fear the dryad

Some grammar, some spelling and this could easily be the flavor text in the MM on the dryad and it'd be perfect.

Fey don't have to be "combat scary" any more than undead do -- they are scary because they are alien and powerful and care not what mortals want or need. "What do I care of mortal hearts? they are soft and [something] like porridge. Faerie hearts beat strong."

 

[grimslade]

Yeah, and that's the problem for me.

It removes a lot of the MAGIC from a mermaid to say that it's some ugly sea cow. What was once an alluring allegory of temptation and danger, vivid mythopoetics of virgin wilderness, and beautiful unknown to boot, becomes simple. Ugly. Fragile. Capable of getting bonked on the head by motorboats.

This is friggin' D&D, mang. When a sailor sees a mermaid, it's a FRIGGIN' MERMAID, not some beached dewgong. When you see a beautiful woman amidst the autumn trees, that is what it is, and there's no reason it couldn't be able to kick your butt and mess with your mind and give you a two-by-four enema if you look at it funny.

I don't see a reason why this would need to be the "natural form" of the true dryad when the other one still works just fine, and contains all the richness of the mythic history to boot. Why change it, when you loose something in the change, and gain nothing by it?



I don't mind or begrudge the existence of this particular twig-beast as a fey. What I've got a problem grokking is, if it is The True Druid, what part of the imagination failed over there at WotC that they couldn't imagine a sexy arse-beating (or mind-bending) tree-nymph, like the original myths imply?

Again, if I have a problem concieving of a deity lustily chasing one through the forest, I'm loosing something from the game in that change.

I have no problem with the beautiful maiden in the forest who beguiles mortals. The fact that the dryad in 4E really looks like her tree but projects an image of an elf-like beauty does not negate this to me. As for having trouble seeing a god lusting after a barkskinned dryad, Zeus with his loving menagerie prove that the gods are into far more kink than mortals can divine. ;P

 

[Aeolius]

...Zeus with his loving menagerie prove that the gods are into far more kink than mortals can divine.

And the fact that night hags breed with humans to beget greenhags, who then provide annis daughters to ogre and/or hill giant fathers, has provided the cornerstone to my campaigns for over a decade.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Fey don't have to be "combat scary" any more than undead do -- they are scary because they are alien and powerful and care not what mortals want or need. "What do I care of mortal hearts? they are soft and [something] like porridge. Faerie hearts beat strong."

Which doesnt rule out that they can have a more combat oriented form if one of their past toys decides they want to take an axe to them, does it?

They can still have the traditional guile, enchantment, and other fey tricks. It's just that now they have more built in muscle if they need it. It doesnt necessarily mean they use it at the drop of the hat. They dont even particularly have to LIKE using it, it's just an option.

 

[Clavis]

Ah, I get it. Every race must fit into the stereotypical roles or the world will stop spinning and we'll be flung into space.

I really don't see the issue. D&D has pretty much become its own genre, why is there some ingrained need for it to cleave to external prior traditions? Nor am I seeing any boilerplate on the images warning about the WotC Gestapo kicking your door down if you dare deviate from their published material.

Not stereotypical, but archetypal. That's the real problem with WOTC's design philosophy with regard to D&D: they seem not to understand that the game was about assuming archetypal roles and engaging in archetypal activities. The great advantage of using archetypes is that they aid game role-playing, and speed up character creation. If everyone already knows how a Dwarf is supposed to behave, and what a thief can do (for example), then new players can start adventuring in minutes, rather than hours. A player doesn't have to read the official WOTC material in order to know how to role-play their elf, if elves are anything like elves in fairy and fantasy tales.

The dilution of the archetypal nature of the classes and races in the recent editions of D&D is one of the reasons why D&D's creator has essentially disowned the 3.x edition game.

Perhaps you only play with longstanding players who already know all the rules. I frequently introduce new players to roleplaying. The ability to call upon shared cultural experience to explain game elements (Rangers are like Aragorn in LOTR, etc.) means new players can "get" the game more easily. The more proprietary game elements are, the more esoteric the game will remain. I know some people want it that way. I don't, and WOTC claims they don't either.