Quote from: VisionStorm;1115313That's the thing about D&D and modern kitchen sink fantasy stuff--it tends to get built around "It's a game!" or "It's Fantasyyyyyy (don't over think it too much)!" assumptions and watered down self-referential fantasy tropes, rather than solid, internally consistent ideas with a deeper symbolic meaning. It's like a copy of a copy of a forgery of a cheap knockoff that got distilled into some generic idea of what "fantasy" is that refuses to take itself too seriously.

Even so, the extremely derivative fantasy introduces fascinating ideas every once in a while.

For example:

• dungeons being alive or managed by dungeon lords, as seen in dungeon management simulators
• monsters being summoned from nowhere by portals or spawned by spawning pits, also seen in dungeon management simulators
• monsters transforming into more power monsters, like holometabolous insects or japanese monster catcher games

Quote from: VisionStorm;1115313Real world mysticism, religion and mythology tends to be richer because it has layers of archetypal meaning and cultural significance that speak to the human condition and a symbolic view of the world. This is not say that everything has to be based 1/1 on real world mythology, but rather that using that as basis before going off in your wild tangent tends to produce more authentic and inspiring results than going with stale, prepackaged templates that have already been so over used they lost all semblance of their original meaning and became "just fantasy".

A 1:1 basis isn't feasible anyway because mythology varies dramatically by culture and a key definition of it is the inconsistencies caused by branching oral storytelling. The Lovecraft mythos is considered literal mythology because so many other authors have built upon it without trying to maintain any illusion of consistency.

When I tried adapting mythology to produce a generic Indo-European/Flat Earth setting for the D&D rules, inspired by Roman syncretism, I based my ideas more on comparative mythology than a specific cultural mythology. I've been brainstorming on-and-off for a while now. I haven't really settled on a name yet, but as a placeholder and in-joke I'm currently using Ümläütiä as the name. (My planned fantasy space opera campaign settings would have different names. Yes, plural, because I'm distinguishing between settings with different space travel physics. Aristotelia would use celestial spheres, whereas Alhazenia would use outer space.)

As I said earlier, I found that burrowing a descending planar model a la Kabbalah is extremely helpful when trying to make sense of the idiosyncrasies of the 5e D&D rules and implied kitchen sink setting.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1115709Even so, the extremely derivative fantasy introduces fascinating ideas every once in a while.

Oh, yeah. Sometimes derivative, kitchen sink fantasy can include some nice ideas, but it's usually when they step outside the box and add their own unique touch, spin or flavor that sets it apart from the generic haphazard stuff. The idea of druids using constructs recently came up in another thread, and I thought that druids building constructs (rather than calling on Nature Spirits or some such) was sort of a gamey idea that didn't fit how druids normally operate, but someone mentioned that druids in an Iron Kingdoms supplement had constructs, and they looked really cool. But Iron Kingdoms is a very specific steampunk-sword and sorcery setting with steampunk robots, where the idea of druids building constructs that could face the robots fits, and they made them using stones connected by wood, which fit the druid theme.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1115709A 1:1 basis isn't feasible anyway because mythology varies dramatically by culture and a key definition of it is the inconsistencies caused by branching oral storytelling. The Lovecraft mythos is considered literal mythology because so many other authors have built upon it without trying to maintain any illusion of consistency.

It's also hard to account for regional variants and changes to a culture's pantheon throughout its history, as new gods come along and older gods lose favor while others gain on it, or become merged with new gods or altered over time in relevance or meaning. I've read that Odin was a later development in Nordic mythology, for example, yet he became king of the gods and father of a bunch of older deities. If you're building upon real life mythology how do you determine which gods to include, which aspects to highlight or what period to use?

I also tend to make up original worlds, so sticking in a real life pantheon wouldn't work. Best I can do in those cases is study existing pantheons to get a feel for how myths are constructed and what different gods tend to represent so I can adapt that to original pantheons, which I've been doing lately with a setting idea I've been revisiting after a conversation in another thread rekindled my interest in it.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1115721Oh, yeah. Sometimes derivative, kitchen sink fantasy can include some nice ideas, but it's usually when they step outside the box and add their own unique touch, spin or flavor that sets it apart from the generic haphazard stuff. The idea of druids using constructs recently came up in another thread, and I thought that druids building constructs (rather than calling on Nature Spirits or some such) was sort of a gamey idea that didn't fit how druids normally operate, but someone mentioned that druids in an Iron Kingdoms supplement had constructs, and they looked really cool. But Iron Kingdoms is a very specific steampunk-sword and sorcery setting with steampunk robots, where the idea of druids building constructs that could face the robots fits, and they made them using stones connected by wood, which fit the druid theme.

Don't constructs already involve binding a spirit to animate it? I remember reading the Creature Collection books and they included several constructs created by druids, like golems made of live snakes.

Nature spirits aren't even a recognized monster in D&D. There's no spirit monster type and never has been, even though it would have been really useful to have. The closest might be elementals and fey, but their definition has never been clear or consistent. (Paracelsus, the guy who effectively invented elementals, described them as synonymous with fairies.)

Tangent: Am I the only person who finds it weird that D&D uses "golem" in an extremely restricted sense for higher level constructs immune to most magic, a definition that isn't used by fiction outside of D&D?

I suspect some of this goes back to D&D having weird definitions for its taxonomy. For example, I don't understand the distinction between constructs, generic elementals, and corporeal undead that D&D imposes. They're all collections of base matter animated by bound spirits or something. I've seen several monsters that straddle the distinction between them, like elementals made out of human society's junk, the animated last breath of a dying person, and execution devices like wicker-men and gallows that spontaneously animate as golems due to the emotional resonance.

4e introduced the most sensible taxonomy mechanic they ever presented (constructs and undead were both subcategories of "animates"), but unfortunately it got thrown out in 5e along with numerous other genuine improvements because WotC desperately wanted to attract the OSR and PF crowd.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1115795Don't constructs already involve binding a spirit to animate it? I remember reading the Creature Collection books and they included several constructs created by druids, like golems made of live snakes.

I don't remember them mentioning spirits in regards to golems, and that sort goes against their "mindless automaton" schtick. In the Iron Kingdoms source I mentioned they powered them with Ley Lines, which at least sounded druidic. But golems as mythological beings are rabbinic in nature and aren't part of real life druidism, and building artificial constructs IMO seems to go against the druid's "nature priest" schtick used in modern fantasy.

Also, mythological golems were made out of clay--other types are D&D-isms. A "golem" made out of living snakes sounds like a fantasy kitchen sink invention made to stretch the number of things constructs can be made out of and add more gimmicky encounters to sell books. Though, I suppose you could work out an angle to make it cool, like maybe include a Conan-esque snakemen cult in your campaign capable of shaping a bunch of snakes into a "golem" to fight off invaders to their camp.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1115795Nature spirits aren't even a recognized monster in D&D. There's no spirit monster type and never has been, even though it would have been really useful to have. The closest might be elementals and fey, but their definition has never been clear or consistent. (Paracelsus, the guy who effectively invented elementals, described them as synonymous with fairies.)

Yeah, they include a bunch of things that are supposed to be Nature Spirits (like Nymphs and Dryads), but always handled them as just another random type of creature found in the world, like almost everything else they include from mythology, and never actually defined Nature Spirits or Fey (till 4e for Fey).

I always hated the way they always seemed to gloss over Fey as a class of entities and the elves' relationship with the Fey world--treating them just as one more fantasy "species", while simultaneously implying that they go to the (totally undefined and mentioned only in passing) fey realm when they "die" or "retreat from the world" rather than actually dying from old age. I've always thought of elves as being basically a type of fey--hankering back to mythology.

If/when I ever get around making my own D&D-esque classic fantasy setting I'm making elves 100% fey and native to the Otherworld (and using that thing I wrote about the Otherworld for handling otherworldly creatures and realms), taking inspiration from a combination of Celtic and Nordic mythology. In an improvised setting I collaboratively made a while back I made the setting's main group of elves sort of like fey royalty, and all fey in the forest region where the elven city is hidden answer to the Elf Queen as the ruling monarch of all fey. They also have an Elf King as a dual monarch in charge of their nation's security and military, who acts more as a military leader who can overrule the Elf Queen on military or national security matters.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1115795Tangent: Am I the only person who finds it weird that D&D uses "golem" in an extremely restricted sense for higher level constructs immune to most magic, a definition that isn't used by fiction outside of D&D?

Yeah, I always felt that golems were immune/resistant to magic "because reasons". I can sort of get their immunity to mind affecting spells because "mindless automatons", but I always felt like there should still be magic that lets you control animated beings--just not manipulate their minds per se.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1115795For example, I don't understand the distinction between constructs, generic elementals, and corporeal undead that D&D imposes. They're all collections of base matter animated by bound spirits or something.

I would treat constructs and undead as separate things because undead deal with death and necromancy, while constructs are more like enchanted creations. Even interpreting it as spirit-binding, I would treat them as separate because they're different types of spirits. Undead are dead spirits or shades, while constructs would probably involve elemental spirits or something to that effect.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1115808I don't remember them mentioning spirits in regards to golems, and that sort goes against their "mindless automaton" schtick. In the Iron Kingdoms source I mentioned they powered them with Ley Lines, which at least sounded druidic. But golems as mythological beings are rabbinic in nature and aren't part of real life druidism, and building artificial constructs IMO seems to go against the druid's "nature priest" schtick used in modern fantasy.

According to this source, golems are created by binding an elemental spirit to animate it.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1115808Also, mythological golems were made out of clay--other types are D&D-isms.

Yes, golems by definition are made of clay. An animated figure of another substances would have a different name:

• The homunculus, an artificial little man created by an alchemist with blood, sperm, herbs, feces, and so forth.
• The Galatea, a stone statue of a woman created by Pygmalion and animated by the gods.
• The automaton, a metal figure forged and animated by Hephaestus.
• The Nephele, a nymph shaped from a cloud by Zeus.
• The Pinocchio, a boy made of wood and animated by the Blue Fairy.
• The Moowis, a man made of snow by an Algonquin wizard.
• The Frankenstein's monster, a variant of the homunculus that in movies is depicted as stitched together from corpses and animated by electricity.
• The Osiris, a man stitched together from dismembered body parts and resurrected as king of the dead.
• And so on.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1115808A "golem" made out of living snakes sounds like a fantasy kitchen sink invention made to stretch the number of things constructs can be made out of and add more gimmicky encounters to sell books. Though, I suppose you could work out an angle to make it cool, like maybe include a Conan-esque snakemen cult in your campaign capable of shaping a bunch of snakes into a "golem" to fight off invaders to their camp.

IIRC that was exactly the idea. The CC series included plenty of gimmick golems.

The serpent golems were created by druids of the titaness Mormo, mother of serpents and several races of serpentfolk. It's no stranger than the D&D flesh golem.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1115808Yeah, they include a bunch of things that are supposed to be Nature Spirits (like Nymphs and Dryads), but always handled them as just another random type of creature found in the world, like almost everything else they include from mythology, and never actually defined Nature Spirits or Fey (till 4e for Fey).

I always hated the way they always seemed to gloss over Fey as a class of entities and the elves' relationship with the Fey world--treating them just as one more fantasy "species", while simultaneously implying that they go to the (totally undefined and mentioned only in passing) fey realm when they "die" or "retreat from the world" rather than actually dying from old age. I've always thought of elves as being basically a type of fey--hankering back to mythology.

The thing about fairies is that they're a product of pre-Christian folklore surviving through Christianization. The fairies are adapted from the beliefs in pre-Christian gods, demons, and other monsters. The Greek nymph and satyr, the Norse valkyrie, the Arabic genie, etc are all fairies by the standards of comparative mythology. Folklore in general is vague and lacking in distinction. You could argue that fairies generally fall into two groups: nature spirits/gods and hidden folk, but that's not a hard and fast distinction.

I too have struggled long and hard with defining fey in D&D settings. My idea for fey has changed over time and taken inspiration from a variety of OGL books, such as The Complete Guide to Fey and The Faerie Ring. Plus some White Wolf books on fey, like Exalted and Changeling: The Lost.

In order to make sense of the fey you first need to define things that D&D doesn't define like nature spirits, theology, and such. Are nature spirits synonymous with elementals or fey? Something else? How do you reconcile fey as nature spirits and fey as extraplanar aliens? What about the primal spirits from 4e?

I took the idea from The Faerie Ring that the transitive planes and material echoes form a collection of planes known as the preternatural planes. These are alternatives to the prime, worlds that could have been the prime but are not. Or something, it's vague. Anyway, the fey are natives of these planes and somehow the prime sometimes too.

I took the idea from The Complete Guide to Fey that the fey are materialized spirits of sorts. While alive, they don't have any internal anatomy like mortals but operate on some bizarre magical processes. In a manner loosely similar to AD&D elves or Tolkien's elves, their souls are different from mortals: in this case, their souls are semi-physical objects that survive their bodily death. These are their souls originally, either: every fey is reincarnated from the soul of a mortal or an immaterial spirit like an elemental or a ghost.

I took from Exalted the idea that fey are spirits of the primordial chaos, similar to how 5e defines aberrations. Some fey were trapped in Creation when it formed, becoming the Jadeborn (basically dwarves, or maybe Tolkien's nameless gnawing things). The fey who remained in primordial chaos are able to enter orderly reality, but doing so forces their undefined chaotic essence to assumed a fixed physical form, similar to abominations from Legends & Lairs: Darkness & Dread or Tolkien's Ungoliant.

I took from Kabbalah the idea that the planes are a series of successive emanations, tracing the descent of energy from the wholly immaterial upper planes, through the material middle planes, and finally ending at the aborted lower planes. Each taxonomy is associated with a particular level: aberrations and celestials with the primordial planes, elementals and giants with the elemental planes, beasts and humanoids with the prime plane, fiends and undead with the aborted planes.

I combined these ideas. In my setting so far, the fey encompass both the nature spirits of the prime plane and the alien visitors from the preternatural planes. All fey are reincarnated from other souls and spirits, such as aberrations, elementals, and ghosts. Their souls are bound to the world and don't pass to any afterlife like mortals do, only be revived in new bodies should there be anyone to rescue their soul after death.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1115808I would treat constructs and undead as separate things because undead deal with death and necromancy, while constructs are more like enchanted creations. Even interpreting it as spirit-binding, I would treat them as separate because they're different types of spirits. Undead are dead spirits or shades, while constructs would probably involve elemental spirits or something to that effect.

This is more an artifact of D&D's hierarchical taxonomy mechanic. There's no reason why a monster can't have multiple types: a junk elemental would be [construct/elemental], a last breath [elemental/undead], a spontaneous golem [construct/undead], etc.

One of the frustrating aspects of D&D's taxonomy is that it is very narrow and doesn't include "nature spirits", "materialized tulpas", "gigeresque biomechanoids", "native of a transitive plane", "native of a neutral outer plane", or anything like that (those are all types I've seen introduced in OGL products). The taxonomy mechanic can't even be extended to handle things like that except maybe in 4e.

As much as I praise 4e's taxonomy mechanic as one of the best (besides a wholly non-hierarchical taxonomy like Rules Cyclopedia or Fantasy Craft), it still has flaws of its own. I don't see the point of the magical beast type, and I really wish there was a spirit type.

I don't know if anyone else agrees, but in my currently informed opinion all monsters should be able to fall into one of the categories of animates, beasts, folks, or spirits. Unless you use a less arbitrary scheme like having different types for vitality (alive, undead, nonliving, etc), anatomy (meat/bone, homogeneous substance, clockwork, etc), psychology (mindless, bestial, civilized, AI, etc), and soul (mortal, spirit, damned, undead, etc).

Although that still feels a little OCD. D&D has made elementals immune to poison in several editions, supposedly on the pseudo-scientific basis that an animated mass of elemental material would be immune to poison... why, exactly? Because it has no circulatory system? It's magic! Why can't an elemental be poisoned? Poison isn't represented realistically in the rules (as of 5e it's a damage type), so why make an exception here? Elementals aren't realistic to begin with! Claiming that an air elemental is immune to suffocation in a vacuum or in quicksand because it has no lungs is absurd. Claiming a fire elemental can't drown is absurd. If you're going to be consistent about the classical elements, then an elemental should be injured or killed by their opposite. An air elemental will suffocate and disperse entombed in quicksand or floating in a vacuum. A fire elemental will be extinguished by a pool of water, and a water elemental will be boiled away by a fire pit. An earth elemental might not need to breath you think, but maybe it needs to maintain contact with the earth that bore it and would asphyxiate in air (outside a dust storm) or drown in (non-muddy) water.

That sounds like a much better way to distinguish constructs and elementals than the current way that treats them as largely identical. Elementals are alive and thus may die of deprivation or exposure regardless of whether they have any kind of anatomy, whereas constructs aren't alive and can't die that way.

What do you think?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1115833According to this source, golems are created by binding an elemental spirit to animate it.

Ah, missed that! I found a 2e Monstrous Manual entry that mentions the spirit, but it's very cryptic and vague about what these spirits are, stating: "The nature of this spirit is unknown, and so far eluded the grasp of all researchers."

So basically they don't tells us WTF they are. We just need to bind them "against their will" and "enslave" them to their creators, cuz apparently making golems is nasty business. And the nature of these spirits may have eluded researchers, yet they somehow still known how to find them and bind them into an artificial host body (which would imply that they would know something about them--but the authors have no clue about mythology or how spirits work in their own game, so they tell you they "eluded researchers" to sound mysterious).

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1115833The thing about fairies is that they're a product of pre-Christian folklore surviving through Christianization. The fairies are adapted from the beliefs in pre-Christian gods, demons, and other monsters. The Greek nymph and satyr, the Norse valkyrie, the Arabic genie, etc are all fairies by the standards of comparative mythology. Folklore in general is vague and lacking in distinction. You could argue that fairies generally fall into two groups: nature spirits/gods and hidden folk, but that's not a hard and fast distinction.

Yeah, part of the problem is that a lot of these classifications are kind of modern conventions that have been brought about by different authors or researchers and mystical systems, and there isn't any single commonly accepted category for spirits or fairies and stuff. Plus there also seems to be a lot of overlap conceptually between different types of entities. Fairies, for example, have been classified as both, Nature Spirits and Elemental Spirits (based around the four classical elements), depending on what source you use, or may also have a Seelie/Light (Helpful) or Unseelie/Dark (Unhelpful/Mischievous or Dangerous). They have also been proposed to be demoted pagan gods whose full function and scope became lost to the ages and barely half-remembered in fairy-tales and folklore passed down through oral traditions and re-written by Christians till they lost all original meaning. Though, such classifications are sometimes necessary when working with them in RPGs or as part of a coherent fantasy world, but even then some overlap may occur (like when dealing with Fey that are also strongly associated with one or more classical elements, assuming you want to treat Fey and Elementals as separate categories).

My general take is that Fey are a class of beings that are otherworldly in nature and belong to a race of beings similar to (or perhaps identical in some cases) to the race of beings Gods belong to. They are basically magical beings that belong to a world beyond the world of mortals, and are in many ways, as you refer to them "extraplanar aliens". Though, they can still have some degree of overlap with Nature Spirits and Elements, in that some of their characteristics are similar, but I would probably keep them separate for game purposes, as well as for purposes of constructing a coherent world. Much the same way that some humans may have an affinity for animals, for example, fey may also have an affinity for certain elements or aspects of the natural world, and since their nature is inherently magical, this affinity is reflected in a stronger capacity than humans simply having an easier time interacting with some animals.

For purposes of "It's a game!" I would classify spirits and otherworldly entities as follows:

• Ancestral Spirits--Deified spirits of the dead that may take the role of guardian spirits or intermediaries between mortals and the gods. Since ancestral spirits can sometimes become abstracted, I don't see these as being necessarily the actual spirit or soul of a dead person, but an idealization of them that resides in the Heavenly realms (as opposed to the Underworld).
  
• Fey--Extraplanar aliens and beings of magic, sometimes related to the gods or a race of otherworldly beings, generally taking humanoid form and often displaying magical abilities.
  
• Elementals--Beings of pure elemental substance, energy or mater, somewhat akin to D&D "elementals".
  
• Gods--Supreme beings that archetypically embody and may have influence over different aspects of the world and human experience, and may belong to a race of otherworldly magical beings (like Fey) or humans ascended through heroic deeds and/or spiritual enlightenment. They differ from Nature Spirits in that Nature Spirits are a direct personification of the aspect of the natural world they embody, while Gods are more like their own personalities, who happen to possess a deep connection and perhaps influence over such elements.
  
• Nature Spirits--Animistic spirits that embody or are a personification of different aspects of the natural world, such as animals, terrain (woodland, desert, arctic, plains, etc.), weather (rain, storms), etc. In the case of Animal Spirits, they usually take the form of idealized forms of a specific animal type, often presented as white (such as a White Stag) in mythology.
  
• Specters--Shades and spirits of the dead or the Underworld. Also, I tend to use the term "shades" to mean spectral constructs of the world of the dead that might not be the actual spirit or soul of a dead person, but more of a reflection of that state of being, the feeling of dread and being lost in the Netherworld, etc., which may feed on negative emotion of people trapped in that world. Though, perhaps another term might be more appropriate.
  

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1115833Although that still feels a little OCD. D&D has made elementals immune to poison in several editions, supposedly on the pseudo-scientific basis that an animated mass of elemental material would be immune to poison... why, exactly? Because it has no circulatory system? It's magic! Why can't an elemental be poisoned? Poison isn't represented realistically in the rules (as of 5e it's a damage type), so why make an exception here? Elementals aren't realistic to begin with! Claiming that an air elemental is immune to suffocation in a vacuum or in quicksand because it has no lungs is absurd. Claiming a fire elemental can't drown is absurd. If you're going to be consistent about the classical elements, then an elemental should be injured or killed by their opposite. An air elemental will suffocate and disperse entombed in quicksand or floating in a vacuum. A fire elemental will be extinguished by a pool of water, and a water elemental will be boiled away by a fire pit. An earth elemental might not need to breath you think, but maybe it needs to maintain contact with the earth that bore it and would asphyxiate in air (outside a dust storm) or drown in (non-muddy) water.

I don't know about that. My general take is that beings need to be Organic at least in order to be affected by poison, disease or even suffocation. Granted, the case could be made for Elementals to be able to suffocate (or experience something similar) if submerged in their opposing element, but poison is a stretch, unless its some substance specifically poisonous to elementals (such as being injected with their opposing element or a substance made up of it). Even if D&D doesn't represent things realistically, I would still treat poison as affecting "Organic" beings generically (technically, not all things are 'poisonous' to all organic beings, but things classified as 'poison' could be treated as such vs all Organic beings in a RPG for "It's a game!" purposes).

I tend to separate beings into Constructs (purely artificial non-organic beings--Golems, Robots, even non-thinking objects or machines, etc.), Organic (Plants and Animals) and Ethereal (Spirits, Specters), with a possible 4th Undead category, though, that last one is probably more of a subtype, since some undead are "Constructs" (Zombies, Skeletons) and others are "Ethereal" (Specters, Ghosts), though, some more like death-defying (Vampires). I would probably need to spend more time developing these categories, and working out which subcategories could exist.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1115929I don't know about that. My general take is that beings need to be Organic at least in order to be affected by poison, disease or even suffocation. Granted, the case could be made for Elementals to be able to suffocate (or experience something similar) if submerged in their opposing element, but poison is a stretch, unless its some substance specifically poisonous to elementals (such as being injected with their opposing element or a substance made up of it). Even if D&D doesn't represent things realistically, I would still treat poison as affecting "Organic" beings generically (technically, not all things are 'poisonous' to all organic beings, but things classified as 'poison' could be treated as such vs all Organic beings in a RPG for "It's a game!" purposes).

Elementals only exist as a game convention anyway, so whether they're organic or not is entirely arbitrary. D&D seems to have invented the idea of animated masses of stuff that they're depicted as, anyway. Most other fiction depicts them as far less boring, like salamanders, sylphs, nymphs, gnomes, Pokemon, etc.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1116047Elementals only exist as a game convention anyway, so whether they're organic or not is entirely arbitrary.

It isn't if we're using the word "Elemental" to mean beings of raw energy or mater, or "animated masses of stuff". Then they can't be organic.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1116047D&D seems to have invented the idea of animated masses of stuff that they're depicted as, anyway. Most other fiction depicts them as far less boring, like salamanders, sylphs, nymphs, gnomes, Pokemon, etc.

The idea of animated masses of stuff still works conceptually speaking, even if limited to a wizard just animating stuff to turn it into a magic pet. It might also work if you want to illustrate a type of nature spirit that's the embodiment of an element itself, rather than a type of being that dwells in it.

I would tend to classify stuff like nymph and sylphs as a type of Fey rather than an elemental, and have seen them classified as fey before, as well as 'elemental' fey in systems that break fey down by elements (though, elemental classifications don't always work well and tend to be arbitrary). A lot of this depends on what type of naming conventions you used and how far you stretch the word "Fey" (which in my case it can be a lot). And it can vary by setting a lot, depending on how things are classified in any given world. A world with fey-elementals would definitely work.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1116100It isn't if we're using the word "Elemental" to mean beings of raw energy or mater, or "animated masses of stuff". Then they can't be organic.

As of 5e, "elemental" is used both for any creature from the elemental planes (e.g. genies, xorns, azer, salamanders, etc) as well as the specific family of animated masses of elemental matter. I find this usage pointlessly confusing.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1116100The idea of animated masses of stuff still works conceptually speaking, even if limited to a wizard just animating stuff to turn it into a magic pet. It might also work if you want to illustrate a type of nature spirit that's the embodiment of an element itself, rather than a type of being that dwells in it.

Firstly, a wizard's animated elemental object should be considered a construct just like any other animated object. Secondly, a nature spirit that embodies an element has no reason to appear as a mass of homogeneous substance; that's extremely boring and was invented by D&D to begin with. Every real world myth and religion that came up with elemental spirits prior to D&D generally depicted them as looking like people, animals, or acid trip nightmares rather than masses of a homogeneous substance.

Compare the French RPG Nephilim. It depicts its elementals as fantastical beasts: basilisks, gorgons, dragons, griffins, etc. Elementals only look like homogeneous masses of their element when they die.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1116100I would tend to classify stuff like nymph and sylphs as a type of Fey rather than an elemental, and have seen them classified as fey before, as well as 'elemental' fey in systems that break fey down by elements (though, elemental classifications don't always work well and tend to be arbitrary). A lot of this depends on what type of naming conventions you used and how far you stretch the word "Fey" (which in my case it can be a lot). And it can vary by setting a lot, depending on how things are classified in any given world. A world with fey-elementals would definitely work.

This is another nonsensical D&Dism. No real world myth or religion ever distinguished elementals and fey.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1116113As of 5e, "elemental" is used both for any creature from the elemental planes (e.g. genies, xorns, azer, salamanders, etc) as well as the specific family of animated masses of elemental matter. I find this usage pointlessly confusing.

Yet you later complained that no myth ever distinguished elementals and fey (more on that later), so which one is it? Are we supposed to distinguish things that are magical humanoids (i.e. "fey") from raw elementals or keep things pointlessly confusing by lumping them all together?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1116113Firstly, a wizard's animated elemental object should be considered a construct just like any other animated object. Secondly, a nature spirit that embodies an element has no reason to appear as a mass of homogeneous substance; that's extremely boring and was invented by D&D to begin with. Every real world myth and religion that came up with elemental spirits prior to D&D generally depicted them as looking like people, animals, or acid trip nightmares rather than masses of a homogeneous substance.

That's not necessarily the case and just because an elemental nature spirit doesn't have to be a mass of homogeneous substance and you find that 'boring' that doesn't mean that they can't be depicted as such or that such a depiction wouldn't work for that purpose. This just throws the idea of animism out the window, which isn't about weird otherworldly beings or personifications of natural phenomena, but about features of the natural world themselves--like mountains, fire and rocks--having souls.

If I want to portray the element of fire itself as a life-like being (not in the organic sense, but in the sense that literal fire has a conscious will or spirit behind it) turning it into a salamander doesn't convey that sense like making fire itself come "alive".

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1116113No real world myth or religion ever distinguished elementals and fey.

Because they didn't even have those classifications to begin with and the idea of lumping fey and elementals together didn't start till alchemists made it up during the Renaissance, centuries after the cultures and religions those types of beings originated from had died out. Then people kept building upon those ideas till modern times, through various mystical systems and pagan religious revivals that were often based more on New Age wishful thinking than historical accuracy. But there's no inherent reason fey have to be classified by element, and elemental classifications don't universally work when dealing with fey cuz not all fey have a clearly associated element and the idea of classifying fey by element was a largely arbitrary convention to begin with.

Again, this is largely about name conventions, which can be highly setting-specific. It also relates to whether you want to use the term "elementals" as a class of being or as a special quality or subtype possessed by certain beings. But refusing to distinguish between "Fey" and "Elementals" when using the terms as classes of being (as opposed to qualities) only makes things more confusing, not less so.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1116113No real world myth or religion ever distinguished elementals and fey.

Come on, BoxCrayonTales.  DnD is just a valid source for real world myths and religion as well, any other story that some old guy made up to pass the time.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1116155Yet you later complained that no myth ever distinguished elementals and fey (more on that later), so which one is it? Are we supposed to distinguish things that are magical humanoids (i.e. "fey") from raw elementals or keep things pointlessly confusing by lumping them all together?

Those are two different subjects I was talking about in distinct but related contexts.

In isolation, it isn't sensible for D&D 5e to use the name "elemental" for both the monster type and a specific family within that type. The latter should have a specific qualifier, like primordials, furies, atronaches, daedra, reactionals, eternals, or hipsters.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1116155That's not necessarily the case and just because an elemental nature spirit doesn't have to be a mass of homogeneous substance and you find that 'boring' that doesn't mean that they can't be depicted as such or that such a depiction wouldn't work for that purpose. This just throws the idea of animism out the window, which isn't about weird otherworldly beings or personifications of natural phenomena, but about features of the natural world themselves--like mountains, fire and rocks--having souls.

If I want to portray the element of fire itself as a life-like being (not in the organic sense, but in the sense that literal fire has a conscious will or spirit behind it) turning it into a salamander doesn't convey that sense like making fire itself come "alive".

That isn't the context I was referring to. I was criticizing the D&Dism of elementals being fairly boring animated objects, when this isn't the case in pre-D&D myth and fantasy fiction.

It's false to say that the D&Dism is similar to how real world animism personified terrain and natural phenomena. While animism and plenty of fairytales personify these things, the personification generally is more colorful than "an animated blob with vaguely formed features that exists for game convention."

Right now I can only give more recent example, but it should be somewhat illustrative. In Anderson's The Snow Queen, the titular queen is the personification of winter but appears as the perfect woman and the river that helps Girda is an ordinary river with agency. In Howl's Moving Castle, the fire demon Calcifer is a hearth fire with a massively expressive face and personality unknown to D&D elementals.

Also, Pokemon.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1116155Again, this is largely about name conventions, which can be highly setting-specific. It also relates to whether you want to use the term "elementals" as a class of being or as a special quality or subtype possessed by certain beings. But refusing to distinguish between "Fey" and "Elementals" when using the terms as classes of being (as opposed to qualities) only makes things more confusing, not less so.

What I mean is that no cosmology invented in history by people who believed it true included fey and elementals as distinct classes of being. They were, as you say, more qualities anyway.

In anthropology and comparative mythology, stories are described in terms of archetypes. So beings like the Greek satyr and nymph, Norse elf and valkyrie, and Arabic genie all fulfill the fairy archetype. If the peoples who told these stories met in history, then they would have seen these as part of the same class rather than arbitrarily divide them into wholly different taxonomy the way that D&D does.

Quote from: Shasarak;1116164Come on, BoxCrayonTales.  DnD is just a valid source for real world myths and religion as well, any other story that some old guy made up to pass the time.

There is a clear difference. The D&D cosmology and taxonomy is known fiction and written by people who aren't the best world builders. Historical beliefs were invented by people who believed them true and were refined through millennia. The D&Disms are far more overly complicated and unwieldy than the equally fictional real world myth. Others have written at length about the oddities of the cosmology, which is why I personally focus on the taxonomy.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1116199What I mean is that no cosmology invented in history by people who believed it true included fey and elementals as distinct classes of being.

And what I mean is what I said in the paragraph before the one you quoted, which is that those cultures didn't necessarily see fey as "elementals" either, because that classification wasn't invented until thousands of years later and most of its refinement came from people who didn't necessarily even believe in such beings, or had their own takes (informed by different believe systems) that may have differed from what actual ancient people thought. The ancient Greeks didn't see Nymphs as "water elementals", they were just nymphs. But if the Greeks have had an elemental classification system they might have seen them as part of that category, or they might have just seen them simply as supernatural women who happened to live in water. The idea of "elemental spirits" as a distinct class of beings didn't come till later, and doesn't always work with fey.

But you seem to be pushing a very narrow interpretation of what these types of being are/should be, based on a very selective definition of them taken from sources speculating about their nature centuries after the cultures that originated them died out. And then extrapolating that interpretation into the entire gamma of supernatural entities that could be classed as Fey, Nature Spirits or Elementals, and saying they should all be treated as the same thing. And while I might be inclined to agree that some of these beings fall essentially within the same general category (Jinn, for example, are basically Arabian elves, and Oni are essentially Japanese ogres) that doesn't mean that therefore every supernatural being is a fey or that we can no longer treat natural spirits as manifestations of raw elements or natural forces, cuz now every supernatural being needs to look like an elf or have wings or something.

Not to mention that "fey" is a no longer a useful classification if we start calling everything a fey. I would at least try to limit it to just supernatural humanoids, then break them down into specific types or subclasses of fey (which might be setting-specific), and use different terms for other types of supernatural beings, like "magical beasts" for things like unicorns and griffons, "dragon-kin" for things like wyverns, hydras, sea serpents and actual dragons, and "nature spirits" for animal spirits and immaterial spirits that embody natural phenomena. And would probably use "elementals" (as a class of being) to refer to the subclass of nature spirits that embody raw elements, while possibly also using "elemental" as a quality that might be possessed by other supernatural beings.

Also, stop it with the Pokemon.

They're just a bunch of gimmicky made up animals without substance constantly churned out to sell more cards, merchandise or games. They're the embodiment of a gamey creation.