Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6060204" data-attributes="member: 95493">I was only wondering on the reason why they are associated with elementals over fae (or fey if you prefer) if in folklore they hold a place similar to faeries. If there were a category of dark energy elemental, that was let's say incorporeal and evil and was the soul of a dead creature warped and unable to properly move on, I'd ask why it wasn't considered undead, instead of elemental. I don't see why this is such an issue.I don't see any reason for them to be fey either, but I don't see a reason for them to be elemental.I have done research on genies (specifically jinn/djinn) as well as a wide variety of other creatures that show up in DnD. Jinn from the best sources I could find were defined as fiery. Don't see that parallel in DnD, but that isn't really important. The problem is many, many times DnD has become the default, while relying on a minor telling from another source. That is fine, as I said, I have no problem with monsters as races, DnD does that at large. Genies of all stripes are and can continue to be a race. I was just wondering where the specifics of culture associated with the DnD versions came from. If it is made up that is fine, it would just be nice to get that kind of distinction. Especially since I don't see this happening to the same extent with many other creatures in DnD. I mentioned minotaurs before, but we don't have much information on Centaurs and their relations with other fey, or their relations to others on a planar scale. Mummies are relatively ignored too. Mummies might be from a vaguely Egyptian society but rarely do I see them being defined by their relation to other undead, or to other societies on the planes. Genies seem to be an exception without a cause as far as I can see. That sometimes happens, which I said, but I just didn't understand why.I want to make clear I was talking about the split between devils and demons. And I was saying how I understood that DnD makes up these distinctions, often without real cause or root.With that said, DnD has gone to great lengths to further define those factions in the Blood War. On top of that most of the defining of demon lords comes from mythology to one extent or another. Much of the defining of archdevils comes from myth too. Less so for the mindsets, powers and specifics of fiendkind but once again, I understand that split. However, I didn't say it made sense, nor did I say it was the only way or best way to do things. How many DnD cosmologies have you seen that lump all fiends together? When that happens, I feel sorry at the loss of such great and rich history, but I don't in any way feel that they are being lumped together unfairly. So I just feel that isn't the greatest parallel to run there.Right, a lot of creatures have similar powers and hold similar roles in myth. But for some reason DnD defines them as being part of the "creatures with severe elemental powers" instead of the "tricksy and michevious" fey. As you said, their role is closer to fey, but they are not aligned that way in DnD. Something I find odd, but not overly disturbing.First, imitating real folklore has pretty much defined almost all creatures used by WotC and TSR in DnD. We would never have encountered minotaurs, medusa, succubi, devils, demons, angels, dragons, faeries, elves, dwarves, dark elves (drow), hippogriffs, centaurs, sphynx, zombies, vampires, and countless others.In fact there are remarkably few creatures that are entirely created by or for DnD without a direct folklore counterpart. Constructs probably fall into that category, but they did exist in scifi and fantasy for some time before DnD if not folklore directly. Some oozes are completely new, the rust monster too if I recall correctly. Um.. there are plenty I'm sure. But hardly a majority of material.Second, I do enjoy the vast majority of monsters that have been produced in one form or another. Those that I don't I have no problem refluffing or altering for my uses. Trust me.Third, my questions have very little to do with my unwillingness to change things on my own. It had to do with a lack of understanding of what the base material is predicated upon. Also, why genies, in my experience, have been fairly one shot and related only to "granting wishes" whereas there seems to be much much more that I feel was kind of just made up in order to give a relatively bland monster more to do on the planes. That is fine, that is how we get gith monks in limbo, but that is entirely made up to my knowledge and not based on any real world myth to back it up. Unless I'm VERY mistaken.What I want is simple, I want understanding.I'm confused by certain decisions about how genies have been presented. Why they are categorized the way they are.You say that the folklore gives genies an established hierarchy right in the tales, that is cool, it is possible and even probable that I haven't read that mythology. I just don't understand it as it has been presented in DnD. I think also that if I don't understand it after several years of learning and getting used to the way that DnD operates as far as monsters, races, the planes and the game as a whole; that perhaps people who are just approaching the game may have problems understanding too. I may be wrong, maybe I'm just thick on this one subject. It seems unlikely that after this much time that is the only case, but it is possible I suppose.As far as the giants comments, that is another area where I don't see why they are getting more and more aligned with elementals. Giants seem to me to harness elements to their purposes, as most outsiders do. Demons use fire, perhaps angels use lightning. I always understood that there WERE two examples in real myth that had "elemental"giants. The both of which are from Norse myth and both of which make perfect sense based on the fables they represent. Frost giants are the typical giants that great warriors fought against, they come with snow and blizzards. The other is fire giants that come at the end of the world; where the world at large is burning. I don't know that they are both made of fire/ice, or that they have burning/freezing skin. They may but I don't know based on the myths that exist. I don't get why giants are starting to become more and more elementally in that way. I get big, dumb or smart, "people" who do things that regular folk could never perform. They do these things because they are big and have the power to do it. It just has to do with a certain amount of infusing of elements and thereby magic into creatures that don't necessarily have that quality already. Giants, to me, are best defined by their large size. Not by their elemental powers.Again, that isn't the point. I was just confused and sought explanations. If you don't want to provide them that is fine. But unfortunately I can't really bring it up with the now dead creator of DnD.</blockquote>

Verification