Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 3898134" data-attributes="member: 2067">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.</blockquote>