# Are Drow considered "Fey".....? Why or why not?



## Tuzenbach (Jul 27, 2015)

I always assumed that Drow were "Fey" simply because they possessed innate magical abilities (Darkness & Faerie Fire). However, this list of "Fey" creatures omits the Drow......


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fey_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)


Is this merely an oversight, or am I the only one here who believes Drow should be "Fey".....?






PS: On a side note, it's intriguing to me that the Kenku, clearly derived from "Tengu", have simply been described & statted as "Crow people". Meanwhile, the creature from which the Kenku originated (Tengu) are CLEARLY "Fey", yet nobody in all the years of D&D has bothered to give the Tengu a proper write-up. Shame.....


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 27, 2015)

Tuzenbach said:


> I always assumed that Drow were "Fey" simply because they possessed innate magical abilities (Darkness & Faerie Fire).[/URL]




Tolkien desired to divorce the notion of an elf, from the Victorian notions of diminutive and comical creatures and return to the idea something of the stature of a mythic being.  The elves of D&D (and virtually every RGP) follow on the Tolkien conception of elves as a mystical humanoid race, kindred to and peer of humanity.  Since Drow are conceived as being an alternate form of such an elf, they are also not described as being 'fey'.  The 'fey' in the game do draw their notions from post-medieval fairy tales and various modern stories and conceits, and are thus generally the small mischievous figures associated with being 'fairy'.

Plenty things in the game have natural spell abilities without being 'fey'.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 27, 2015)

Tuzenbach said:


> ...yet nobody in all the years of D&D has bothered to give the Tengu a proper write-up. Shame.....




"Ecology of the Tengu" from Kobold Quarterly #14.


----------



## Zinnger (Jul 27, 2015)

As I understand it, all types of elves are humanoid and none are Fey.  In 5e they have "Fey Ancestry" which is how they resist charm and sleep so they do have a Fey connection but are not themselves a Fey creature.  Drow are simply a type of elf, much like Moon, High, Wood, etc.  All of them are simply Humanoid (elf).


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 27, 2015)

As an aside, I would not consider Wikipedia authorative on D&D matters. 

If you can't find an actual official source (as something published by TSR or Wotc etc), go for specialized wikis like the Forgotten Realms wiki.


----------



## Wik (Jul 27, 2015)

Well, in my own games, I've based the elves more off the elves of Tad Williams' style of "Sidhe".  In short, the drow are definitely "fey".  

Basically, when the elves screwed up and destroyed the land, they decided to flee to the feywild.  Those that remained on the material plane were elves, but those who fled became "Seelie" or "Unseelie", based on their political leanings in the Twilight Court.  So, there were two political factions, and depending on your faction, you became either an Eladrin ("Seelie"), or Drow ("Unseelie").  The Eladrin sought to grow the empire through trade and military assistance with the non-feywild races, while the drow sought to become pure isolationists and to destroy any who dare intruded (and occasionally go forth into the material plane to hunt mortals for sport, because it'd foster fear).  Eladrin who didn't act appropriately would become Drow, and vice versa.  

Of course, PCs came along, and things have changed.  There are now SIX political factions in the court, each with its own seperate "race".  The drow are now more fierce isolationists without all the violence, and the eladrin are more scholars as well as merchants and diplomats.  Then there's the Zahariim (named after a PC, the first of the "race") who act as tinkerers and alchemists, the Luscarites (named after a bad guy mercenary Eladrin NPC) who are money-crazed mercenaries who believe "might makes right", the Selvarine - druids who seek to destroy the "unnatural" feywild and return to the material plane, and the Aquatic Elves, who are similar to the Selvarine crossed with the drow.  

In short, the feywild elves are unpredictable and completely fey-like in manner, and a LOT more fun to my players over the usual D&D style "I'm better than you" elves.


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jul 27, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> "Ecology of the Tengu" from Kobold Quarterly #14.




I'll attempt to find this & read it. However, it it goes on about "crow people" with no discernible innate, magical ability, I'll not consider it a proper write-up of the Tengu. I've recently read too many legend/lore thingies from Japanese mythology to believe the Tengu are only silly bird-men without inborn magic.....


----------



## pemerton (Jul 27, 2015)

Tuzenbach said:


> I always assumed that Drow were "Fey" simply because they possessed innate magical abilities (Darkness & Faerie Fire). However, this list of "Fey" creatures omits the Drow......
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fey_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)
> ...



Drow in 4e are _fey_, just as other elves are.


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jul 27, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> As an aside, I would not consider Wikipedia authorative on D&D matters.
> 
> If you can't find an actual official source (as something published by TSR or Wotc etc), go for specialized wikis like the Forgotten Realms wiki.






I see. If you could, could you please provide me with an "official" definition of what D&D considers to be "Fey"....???  


Thank You!!!!


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jul 27, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Drow in 4e are _fey_, just as other elves are.





Now I'm just confused. I'm thinking "Fey" have to be 1) Humanoidish, and 2) possess innate magical ability  ........I mean, at birth.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 27, 2015)

Tuzenbach said:


> Now I'm just confused. I'm thinking "Fey" have to be 1) Humanoidish, and 2) possess innate magical ability  ........I mean, at birth.



I'm not sure what you're confused by/about.

Here is the 4e definition of _fey_ (MM p 281): Fey creatures are native to the Feywild.

Here is the relevant entry from the drow PC race description (FRPG p 8; the same wording is found in the PHB in relation to Eladrin and Elves): Your ancestors were native to the Feywild, so you are considered a fey creature for the purpose of effects that relate to creature origin.

I'm not sure about the significance of "innate magical ability", but in 4e drow have innate magical ability (faerie fire or cloud of darkness), eladrin have innate magical ability (fey step) and elves are preternaturally stealthy and accurate (elven accuracy).


----------



## GreenTengu (Jul 27, 2015)

I think elves in general are considered fey-descendants, but no longer true fey.

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.

In fact, from the beginning things whose original myths would never classify them as fey such as Satyrs somehow got grouped in there simply because they weren't evil-aligned. They didn't even really consistently have magical powers in their original myths.

They kind of just hung out in the woods, got drunk all the time and had sex with everything that moved.


----------



## Herobizkit (Jul 27, 2015)

From a D&D 4e wiki:

Fey is a creature origin describing creatures from the Feywild. It is also a keyword in some effects. A few fey creatures (of the many) are drow, and eladrin. All elves are said to have come from the Feywild.

From RPG Stackexchange:

There are items that have powers and properties that look for fey origin:

Cold Iron Bracers grant a defense bonus against fey creature's attacks.
Cold Iron Weapons' immobilization daily power damages fey creatures.
Fey Slaughter Weapons deal extra critical damage against fey creatures.

and a Forgotten Relams wikia:

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Fey


----------



## GreenTengu (Jul 27, 2015)

Herobizkit said:


> and a Forgotten Relams wikia:
> 
> http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Fey




hmmmm... interesting bit on that page.

"Gnomes enjoy making light of supposedly serious things, and this unites them with fey as well, though only in attitude."

and then

"the term "fey" seems to simply mean any creature whose origins are tied to the Feywild. Fomorians, Gnomes, Hags, Faerie dragons, and Mirage dragons are all examples of fey"

Also, relevant to this discussion,
"However, perhaps the best known examples of fey are the Tel-quessir."

Tel-quessir are elves including eladrin and drow.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 27, 2015)

Tuzenbach said:


> Now I'm just confused. I'm thinking "Fey" have to be 1) Humanoidish, and 2) possess innate magical ability  ........I mean, at birth.




I don't think either is necessarily required.  I think you could reasonably have fey that were not particularly humanoid in form and did not possess any notable innate spell ability.  

In general, D&D never really defined 'fey' or 'fairy'.  The notion began to take shape when 3e began to distinctly classify monsters as 'animal', 'beast', 'dragon', 'aberration', etc.  However, to my knowledge, 3e didn't attempt to provide any coherent single mythic basis for each of these categories, leaving that up to the individual DM.   Fey in my campaign therefore retained their homebrew origin as the 'small gods' of the fern and flower that predated the later gods that were born from the fruit of Yggdrasil (a conception that was independently created in parallel with that presented in 'The Book of the Righteous', probably with similar real world mythic inspiration).  Fey also provided the basic design template that the gods would later use to create the humanoids (so in fact, humanoids are vaguely feyish in my campaign world rather than fey being vaguely humanoidish).   Fey in my campaign world are basically close kindred to the elementals, and could be considered a sort of prime material elemental.  The close semblance between the fey and the elementals can be seen in elementals such as the sylph and nymphs, that share with fey both demeanor and natural form.  Fey are just prime material stuff that gained life and sentience at the same time the animals and plants were springing up, apparently through some basic chaotic principle of the universe (as in contrast to plants and animals, fey are overwhelmingly chaotic in nature).  Some of them later migrated into other areas of the multiverse, particularly the far ethereal (now often called Fairie) and the near astral (the so called Dreamlands) and later the dominions of certain chaotic deities whose outlook they shared, but fundamentally they are simply the eldest and oldest incarnations of the material world.  Among the fey, there is a belief that the eldest of the fey on first awakening saw the Nameless Creator's back as he departed from the multiverse.  

So that is who the fey were and are for me, but when 4e came along they decided to give all of 3e's categories a definitive mythic explanation.  So, as pemerton pointed out, in 4e fey simply refers to denizens of the feywilde.  That is to say, "Fey are from fairy."  To me this rather reverses the story of my campaign world (and incidently, of the real myths of Earth as well), in that rather than having fey flee to fairy as they are pushed out by people gradually causing this world to fade somewhat, it has them invaders from some other world.   Ultimately, there is nothing wrong with that and the 4e world is interesting in its own right, but it always struck me that 4e's various canonical inventions were no more than some DM's homebrew being allowed to take canonical status.  This is particularly true of the areas where 4e departed canonically from what had been canonical myth and origin stories in prior editions.

All of this is just a long preamble for getting around to saying that ultimately, fey are simply whatever you decide is best for you own campaign.  By and large this isn't a settled question with a single canonical answer.  At best you could say, "What are fey in X edition?" or "What are fey in X campaign setting?"  There is no universally accepted definition of fairy.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 27, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> I don't think either is necessarily required.  I think you could reasonably have fey that were not particularly humanoid in form ...




I think the Hellboy movies and Pan's Labyrinth have examlpes of things we'd probably call "fey", but that aren't really very humanoid.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 27, 2015)

Tuzenbach said:


> I'll attempt to find this & read it. However, it it goes on about "crow people" with no discernible innate, magical ability, I'll not consider it a proper write-up of the Tengu. I've recently read too many legend/lore thingies from Japanese mythology to believe the Tengu are only silly bird-men without inborn magic.....




Well, following up on my prior post where I explained there is no single definition of fairy, if you actually go back to the myth what you'll find is that there is no single definition of Tengu either.   Just as the stories about fairies in the West evolved over the centuries, gradually changing what fairies were conceived to be and the roles that they had in the stories, stories about Tengu in the East likewise evolved over the centuries and the roles and origins that they had in the stories changed over time.   You could make a parallel and say that this means the Tengu are fairies of Eastern mythic origin, but to my mind that's inherently Eurocentric and is getting in the way of actually understanding the Tengu myths.  If you want to fit Tengu in to a D&D campaign that is Eurocentric, it's not at all clear to me where you end up fitting them and where you end up fitting them probably depends as much as anything on which Tengu stories from which era of history you end up counting as definitive.  If you go by the original Tengu stories, then the best fit for Tengu is as tempter deities which make them Outsiders (and probably demons) rather than Fey.   Tengu don't start to take on traits that parallel a part of the mythic evolution of fairies until relatively late.

And above all, when comparing Tengu to Elves, you can't ignore the role Tolkien has in the evolution of the terms Fairy and Elf.  Tolkien's legerdemain absolutely revolutionizes what people think of when they hear the world 'elf' so that the pre-Tolkien 'elf' has absolutely no relationship to a D&D elf at all.  By the same token, I don't think you can ignore the effect RPG's and Gygax have on how people think of all 'monsters'.  Gygax's elves are now more definitive in the popular imagination than even Tolkien's, so much so that Gygax's elves and what people know about them tend to make it difficult for readers to understand Tolkien's elves that actually inspired the Gygaxian PC race.  Quite a few monsters have been morphed by Gygaxian consensus fantasy, so you really can't grumble too much if a particular D&D monster has little to do with its mythic inspiration.  If you try to reconcile all the different mythic traditions, you'll inevitably end up losing nuances from some of them.  They only way to avoid that is play an RPG within a single mythic tradition from a single era.

But let me ask you this; why does it bother you that Elves and Tengu aren't fairies, when it apparently doesn't bother you that Orcs aren't fairies?


----------



## Shemeska (Jul 27, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> As an aside, I would not consider Wikipedia authorative on D&D matters.
> 
> If you can't find an actual official source (as something published by TSR or Wotc etc), go for specialized wikis like the Forgotten Realms wiki.




I wouldn't place a ton of trust in the FR wiki unless the wiki itself sources information to a published book. There was an image of a Pathfinder astradaemon in place for around a year and a half being used as the sample illustration for a baernaloth before it was changed. On top of that, the FR wiki has a ton of conflicting information in place from core 4e material that was never intended for FR specific use but ended up being inserted into the wiki anyway.


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jul 27, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure what you're confused by/about.
> 
> Here is the 4e definition of _fey_ .....





LoL, are you assuming I believe in the relevance of 4E?     


I'm confused that different peeps say Drow ARE 'Fey', while others are saying they are NOT 'Fey'. Further, I'm confused that Elves without inborn magical abilities are considered 'Fey'.....


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jul 27, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> But let me ask you this; *why does it bother you that Elves and Tengu aren't fairies*, when it apparently doesn't bother you that Orcs aren't fairies?






Excuse me? Please do explain to me where I said this. And please know that I consider "Drow" to be but one species of Elf, and certainly not all Elves.


Is the word "fairy" now taken to imply "fey"......???



Again, this is very, VERY confusing!!!! LoL, did Gygax realize back in the '70s that by 2015 there'd be a Tower of Babel surrounding D&D? I really do have to laugh......


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jul 27, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> In general, D&D never really defined 'fey' or 'fairy'.  The notion began to take shape when 3e began to distinctly classify monsters as 'animal', 'beast', 'dragon', 'aberration', etc.  However, to my knowledge, 3e didn't attempt to provide any coherent single mythic basis for each of these categories, leaving that up to the individual DM.   Fey in my campaign therefore retained their homebrew origin as the 'small gods' of the fern and flower that predated the later gods that were born from the fruit of Yggdrasil (a conception that was independently created in parallel with that presented in 'The Book of the Righteous', probably with similar real world mythic inspiration).  Fey also provided the basic design template that the gods would later use to create the humanoids (so in fact, humanoids are vaguely feyish in my campaign world rather than fey being vaguely humanoidish).   Fey in my campaign world are basically close kindred to the elementals, and could be considered a sort of prime material elemental.  The close semblance between the fey and the elementals can be seen in elementals such as the sylph and nymphs, that share with fey both demeanor and natural form.  Fey are just prime material stuff that gained life and sentience at the same time the animals and plants were springing up, apparently through some basic chaotic principle of the universe (as in contrast to plants and animals, fey are overwhelmingly chaotic in nature).  Some of them later migrated into other areas of the multiverse, particularly the far ethereal (now often called Fairie) and the near astral (the so called Dreamlands) and later the dominions of certain chaotic deities whose outlook they shared, but fundamentally they are simply the eldest and oldest incarnations of the material world.  Among the fey, there is a belief that the eldest of the fey on first awakening saw the Nameless Creator's back as he departed from the multiverse.





OK, from this I'm getting that 'Fey' doesn't possess a proper definition. You then go on to attempt a definition. I know not whether your definition is right or wrong, I just wish there was a universally accepted definition of "Fey". I have a scientific mind and tend towards compartmentalization of things. To understand a thing, a thing must first be defined. I cannot, at this point, understand what is "Fey", for there is the distinct absence of a universally accepted definition. This really, REALLY irritates me. LoL, it's not your fault, though.








Celebrim said:


> So that is who the fey were and are for me, but when 4e came along they decided to give all of 3e's categories a definitive mythic explanation.  So, as pemerton pointed out, in 4e fey simply refers to denizens of the feywilde.  That is to say, "Fey are from fairy."  To me this rather reverses the story of my campaign world (and incidently, of the real myths of Earth as well), in that rather than having fey flee to fairy as they are pushed out by people gradually causing this world to fade somewhat, it has them invaders from some other world.   Ultimately, there is nothing wrong with that and the 4e world is interesting in its own right, but it always struck me that 4e's various canonical inventions were no more than some DM's homebrew being allowed to take canonical status.  This is particularly true of the areas where 4e departed canonically from what had been canonical myth and origin stories in prior editions.





I've never been exposed to anything 4e. Therefore, I'm not inclined to place any credence upon anything that originated from the realm of the 4e rules set.







Celebrim said:


> All of this is just a long preamble for getting around to saying that ultimately, fey are simply whatever you decide is best for you own campaign.  By and large this isn't a settled question with a single canonical answer.  *At best you could say, "What are fey in X edition?" or "What are fey in X campaign setting?"  There is no universally accepted definition of fairy.*





OK. From this I'm getting that you absolutely and unequivocally equate the word "fey" with the word "fairy". I don't know if that's right or wrong. Hence, I remain confused. It's an interesting topic, though.......





PS: I really should have started a separate thread for the whole "Tengu should be written-up as 'Fey' ...." topic. Hindsight is 20/20.......


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jul 27, 2015)

TheHobgoblin said:


> hmmmm... interesting bit on that page.
> 
> *"Gnomes enjoy making light of supposedly serious things, and this unites them with fey as well, though only in attitude."*
> 
> and then.......






See...... this, to me, is a bunch of crap. To me, Gnomes are definitely NOT "Fey". However, Spriggans ARE "Fey".


Everybody knows that Gnomes are demi-humans......


----------



## Cleon (Jul 27, 2015)

Tuzenbach said:


> I'll attempt to find this & read it. However, it it goes on about "crow people" with no discernible innate, magical ability, I'll not consider it a proper write-up of the Tengu. I've recently read too many legend/lore thingies from Japanese mythology to believe the Tengu are only silly bird-men without inborn magic.....




Tengu have been innately magical beings ever since they first appeared in the 1E AD&D _Oriental Adventures_ (1985), which gave them spell-like abilities that remained pretty much the same for their subsequent appearances in the 2E AD&D _Kara-Tur Monstrous Compendium_ (1990) and the 3E D&D _Oriental Adventures_ (2001).

The problematic "silly bird-men without inborn magic" referred to above is the _Pathfinder_ Tengu, not the D&D one. It's pretty obvious the creature's been "stripped down" to make it a more easily balanced PC race.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 27, 2015)

Tuzenbach said:


> Is the word "fairy" now taken to imply "fey"......???




Outside of the context of an RPG, would there be a universally accepted way of distinguishing the concepts?  If you look up 'fey' in a dictionary, it will read, "Fairy".  You might also get "Obsolete: Feral or dangerous" or "Obsolete: Enchanted or magical" depending on which obsolete period of the English language we are talking about, but that doesn't help you because if you trace the words back they are all the same thing: fay, fae, fey, fairy, fairie are just variant spellings.  Technically, 'fairy' means 'land of the feys' and properly refers to a place and not the denizens thereof, but over time fairy itself also came to mean well... fairies.  So, yes, fey = fairy.

For me, even without resorting to lexicography and etymology and philology, in D&D this is easy to work out by working backward from the end result.  All the things that ended up being categorized as 'fey' in 3e, when the term first began to have real currency in the system, were things which fell easily into the category of 'fairy'.   And conversely, none of the things that are in Western European myth of the same category as 'fairies' or are in fact subcategories of 'fairy', such as gnomes, dwarves, orcs, goblins, elves, and trolls, which had post D&D non-fairy traditions were classified as fey, even though a gnome or a goblin is every bit as much a fairy as a pixie or sprite is.  



> Again, this is very, VERY confusing!!!!




Only if you are trying to be Socratic about it.  But D&D didn't start out with a Socratic approach.  D&D started out with an Aristotelian approach - these things are fey because there are in my list of things that are fey - and only retroactively tried to create Socratic definitions of the term.  

If you trace Drow's history in the game, it's very clear why they aren't fey in the game, for the same reasons its clear why Orcs aren't fey in the game.


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jul 27, 2015)

Cleon said:


> Tengu have been innately magical beings ever since they first appeared in the 1E AD&D _Oriental Adventures_ (1985)......





You know what? I actually have that book but haven't opened it since probably the 1990's!!! Ha! I also have the 1E Fiend Folio with the "Kenku". That I skim through every 2-3 years. The biggest reason why I don't skim through the Oriental Adventures book is because the PAGES ARE LOOSE!!!!


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 27, 2015)

Tuzenbach said:


> Everybody knows that Gnomes are demi-humans......




Ahh... but Tolkien knew that Gnomes were a sort of elf.  In fact, it may only be an accident of history that when we see the word Gnome in an RPG, we think little bearded guy with a pointed cap and not fair faced powerful elven wizards and alchemists.  

You see, when Tolkien was composing the background of Middle Earth, for the longest while he considered using the word Gnome to mean 'High Elves'.  Eventually, he translated the word Gnome into its elvish equivalent - Noldor - and decided to use that word in his stories.  But in point of fact, Noldor means Gnome.   Which is as much to say that Elrond and Galadriel are Gnomes.

At roughly the same time Tolkien was writing, the Gartenzwerge statue was introduced to England.  Gartenzwerge translates as 'Garden Drawf' in German, and this sort of fairy creature caught on as lawn decoration.  Because Gartenzwerge is a mouthful in English, the little guys quickly adopted the preferred term 'Garden Gnomes' or just 'gnomes', and its from there we get RPG gnomes.   Even further complicating the story, the appearance of the thing we think of as a Gnome is in fact inspired by the drawings of Disney's 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarves'.  

But if you go back into the myth on Gnomes, which really only goes back to the 16th century, they are in fact elemental earth spirits - but this doesn't mean that they come from D&D's 'elemental plane of Earth'.  The term was actually made up as a classification of all the diverse chthonic fairies of myth, such as well, Dwarves.


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jul 27, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> Only if you are trying to be Socratic about it.





Yes. Yes I am. And so should all of us!!! Otherwise, there'd be chaos. Oh .....wait a minute...... there already is. Ooops!!! 






Celebrim said:


> But D&D didn't start out with a Socratic approach.





It should have?






Celebrim said:


> D&D started out with an Aristotelian approach - these things are fey because there are in my list of things that are fey - and only retroactively tried to create Socratic definitions of the term.





D&D needs to be pushed towards what you're calling "the Socratic approach" (what I'm thinking is a "Scientific approach"). To not do so, IMHO, results in the "dumbing down" of the D&D culture. Just a bunch of nonsensical debates moving backwards and forwards without any substantial outcome. Much time and productivity tends to be wasted on confusion. There needs to be order made out of chaos.







Celebrim said:


> If you trace Drow's history in the game, it's very clear why they aren't fey in the game, for the same reasons its clear why Orcs aren't fey in the game.





Dude, Orcs aren't "Fey" 'cuz they aren't born with innate magical powers.


----------



## Zinnger (Jul 27, 2015)

Tuzenbach said:


> OK, from this I'm getting that 'Fey' doesn't possess a proper definition. You then go on to attempt a definition. I know not whether your definition is right or wrong, I just wish there was a universally accepted definition of "Fey". I have a scientific mind and tend towards compartmentalization of things. To understand a thing, a thing must first be defined. I cannot, at this point, understand what is "Fey", for there is the distinct absence of a universally accepted definition. This really, REALLY irritates me. LoL, it's not your fault, though.
> 
> 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."
> 
> ...


----------



## Herobizkit (Jul 27, 2015)

It seems like the OP has their mind made up on what they feel is 'Fey', so the easiest answer is 'Fey are whatever you feel Fey should be in your game'.

I mean, if you (the OP) really care, start digging through Grimm's Fairy Tales and other fantastic works, especially works that cite the Seelie/Unseelie Court for examples.

If you like, you can aslo check out Pathfinder's fey bestiary here: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/fey


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jul 27, 2015)

Zinnger said:


> Tuzenbach said:
> 
> 
> > OK, from this I'm getting that 'Fey' doesn't possess a proper definition. You then go on to attempt a definition. I know not whether your definition is right or wrong, I just wish there was a universally accepted definition of "Fey". I have a scientific mind and tend towards compartmentalization of things. To understand a thing, a thing must first be defined. I cannot, at this point, understand what is "Fey", for there is the distinct absence of a universally accepted definition. This really, REALLY irritates me. LoL, it's not your fault, though.
> ...


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jul 27, 2015)

Herobizkit said:


> It seems like the OP has their mind made up on what they feel is 'Fey'......





Nope. Still confused and seeking answers. Sorry.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 27, 2015)

Tuzenbach said:


> D&D needs to be pushed towards what you're calling "the Socratic approach" (what I'm thinking is a "Scientific approach"). To not do so, IMHO, results in the "dumbing down" of the D&D culture. Just a bunch of nonsensical debates moving backwards and forwards without any substantial outcome. Much time and productivity tends to be wasted on confusion. There needs to be order made out of chaos.




Well, I have two responses for that.

The first is, "It's too late for that."  You see, in the mean time while D&D was waiting around for its designers to start adopting a more scientific mindset, those of us with more scientific mindsets went ahead and made up our own definitions that depended on the particular backstories we imagined for or fiction.  Of course, all of those different separate fictional world building events were as personal and diverse as could be imagined, so many of us have our own incompatible definitions that we don't desire to give up.

And the proof that it is too late for that was 4e.  Fourth edition tried to do exactly as you suggest, and create a single coherent world myth that would be the default in play.  The trouble is, it was just one guys take on that, and the rest of us that cared - being the arrogant nerdy DMs that we are - said, "You don't get to go redefining what 'fairy' means in my campaign world.   Even Gygax didn't have that authority, and you sir are not Gygax."

And the second thing is, "This is a good thing." 

You see, the goal of an RPG is not to have us all playing D&D in the same fictional universe.  The goal of an RPG is to empower creative collaborative story telling.   If D&D had only one fiction, then it would be ill suited to creating fiction in any universe but its own.  Because D&D is largely setting agnostic, you can create all sorts of fictions with it that the designers never intended and couldn't imagine.   All this chaos is in fact good.  It is only through the blending of the order of rules and the chaos of imagination that we create great role playing games.

Can you tell that if I thought alignments were real, I'd consider myself a follower of, "Neutral Good"?



> Dude, Orcs aren't "Fey" 'cuz they aren't born with innate magical powers.




Dude. Orcs are born with innate magical powers.

You see, Orcs are simply one of Tolkien's words for 'goblin' (proof is in 'The Hobbit'), and goblins as we know are actually a sort of fairy.  

Indeed, Goblins in Tolkien's works do have innate magical powers, but before you can understand that you first have to understand 'magic'.

Do you know what 'magic' is?  Tolkien did.  Or at least, Tolkien knew what it wasn't and therefore what it had to be.  And once you understand what Tolkien knew about magic you'll understand that the following statements are both true: "There is no magic in Tolkien's 'The Lord of the Rings'" and "Everything in Tolkien's 'The Lord of the Rings' is magic."   

But I'll give you a few clues.  In the beginning of 'The Hobbit', Tolkien says of the Hobbits: "There is little or no magic about them, except the ordinary everyday sort which helps them to disappear quietly and quickly when large stupid folk like you and me come blundering along, making a noise like elephants which they can hear a mile off."  Or in other words, the Hobbits ability to be stealthy is 'magical', but of an 'ordinary everyday sort'.  What does he mean by that?

I put it to you that he Goblins of The Hobbit and the Orcs of The Lord of the Rings have just as much magic and of a less ordinary and everyday sort.  And for that matter, they are just as magical as Galadriel.


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jul 27, 2015)

I'll tell you who's NOT "Fey" ...... The blue goblins, or 'Blues' from 3e. They are born with innate PSIONIC ability. And in my mind PSIONICS ARE NOT MAGIC!!! Therefore, 'Blues' should not be considered "Fey".....


Is there a word out there that describes a being born with innate Psionic Ability? Wait a minute..... Don't answer that. That should probably be a different thread.


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jul 27, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> Dude. Orcs are born with innate magical powers.






I just realized!!! I might be attempting to reason with the wrong person!!!!


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jul 27, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> But I'll give you a few clues.  In the beginning of 'The Hobbit', Tolkien says of the Hobbits: "There is little or no magic about them, except the ordinary everyday sort which *helps them to disappear quietly and quickly* when large stupid folk like you and me come blundering along, making a noise like elephants which they can hear a mile off."  Or in other words, the Hobbits ability to be stealthy is 'magical', but of an 'ordinary everyday sort'.  What does he mean by that?





Yeah. I specifically remember reading this quote over the phone to a fellow D&Der ...... when we were both TWELVE years old ...... in an effort to justify my belief that Hobbits could turn invisible at will. Then I grew up.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 27, 2015)

Tuzenbach said:


> I just realized!!! I might be attempting to reason with the wrong person!!!!




The same thought just occurred to me as well.


----------



## Voadam (Jul 27, 2015)

Tuzenbach said:


> I'll attempt to find this & read it. However, it it goes on about "crow people" with no discernible innate, magical ability, I'll not consider it a proper write-up of the Tengu. I've recently read too many legend/lore thingies from Japanese mythology to believe the Tengu are only silly bird-men without inborn magic.....




Kobold Quarterly 14. It is an ecology article for them specific to two game worlds, Golarion and Midgard.


----------



## Voadam (Jul 27, 2015)

Tuzenbach said:


> Zinnger said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, I'm looking for a Universal definition of "Fey" which is applicable to ALL editions, not just what is considered the "current" standard (5e for some peeps). From what I'm being exposed to, it's looking like there isn't one. IMHO, that has to change ..... and invariably WILL change!!!
> ...


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jul 27, 2015)

Here's a VERY insightful list:  http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?215694-All-the-Different-Types-of-Fey



Mind you, it omits both Drow and Tengu, but it's nonetheless insightful!!!!


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jul 27, 2015)

Voadam said:


> Elves (including drow) are not fey in those. Gnomes are not either. In Pathfinder gnomes have a background of having originated as fey but having moved to the world and being classified as humanoid gnomes now.....





Voadam, how are we defining "supernatural abilities".....? Is that akin to innate (inborn) spell abilities? If so, that's my argument for why the Drow might be considered "Fey".....


Thank You!!!


----------



## Voadam (Jul 27, 2015)

Tuzenbach said:


> Voadam, how are we defining "supernatural abilities".....? Is that akin to innate (inborn) spell abilities? If so, that's my argument for why the Drow might be considered "Fey".....
> 
> 
> Thank You!!!




In d20 supernatural has a specific meaning for monster powers, they are denoted with a (Su), do not provoke Attacks of Opportunity, and cannot be dispelled by dispel magic unlike spells or spellike abilities. This definition is not strictly enforced for classifying creatures as fey though. There are fey such as the nixie which have spell like and extraordinary abilities but no technically supernatural abilities. Fey is mostly a term for fairies and such (including some nature spirits like nymphs and dryads and satyrs). Elves and dwarves are classified as humanoids under a more Tolkien view of them than a fairy tale one.

Drow could have been classified as fey easily, many creatures could fit into multiple categories under the creature type classifications or through a change or choice in background stories.

I ran a 3e game where I houseruled all elves and gnomes to be fey and not humanoid for creature type.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 27, 2015)

Tuzenbach said:


> Voadam, how are we defining "supernatural abilities".....? Is that akin to innate (inborn) spell abilities? If so, that's my argument for why the Drow might be considered "Fey".....
> 
> 
> Thank You!!!




Whether or not a creature has innate spell like abilities varies from edition to edition.   Gnomes, for example, which you insist are humanoids, have spell like abilities in 3e and deep gnomes have always had these abilities since their introduction in 1e.   Yet you seem to insist that Gnomes are humanoids.

Additionally, an ability can be supernatural but not be a spell-like ability.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 27, 2015)

Tuzenbach said:


> On a side note, it's intriguing to me that the Kenku, clearly derived from "Tengu", have simply been described & statted as "Crow people". Meanwhile, the creature from which the Kenku originated (Tengu) are CLEARLY "Fey", yet nobody in all the years of D&D has bothered to give the Tengu a proper write-up. Shame.....




Sure there is, called Rite Publishing *In the Company of Tengu*, which is completely written from translated Japanese folklore resources directly, completely excising all wrong interpretations in the D&D Monster Manual and Oriental Adventures of every edition of D&D. As a half-Japanese, amateur historian and amateur folklorist, and the creator and primary developer/technical advisor for the *Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG)* - being more authentic and putting concepts back into their original folklore context was one of the primary motivations in its development.

Of couse fey is not its racial background, rather being one of the_ yokai _(and in Kaidan _yokai_ is a monstrous humanoid subtype), or from the Japanese point of view - _what the heck is a fey?_ (_answer: another European concept that has no place in Japanese folklore_...)


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jul 28, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> Yet you seem to insist that Gnomes are humanoids.





I distinctly remember using the expression "demi-human" in reference to Gnomes, though I could have used the phrase "humanoidish" (which I'm taking to mean "roughly human-shaped, though not necessarily human-sized"......). 


Do you know who you are? You're one of these individuals.....

*Mod Edit:*  Folks, don't make it personal.  Don't be insulting.  ~Umbran


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jul 28, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> Sure there is, called Rite Publishing *In the Company of Tengu*, which is completely written from translated Japanese folklore resources directly, completely excising all wrong interpretations in the D&D Monster Manual and Oriental Adventures of every edition of D&D. As a half-Japanese, amateur historian and amateur folklorist, and the creator and primary developer/technical advisor for the *Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG)* - being more authentic and putting concepts back into their original folklore context was one of the primary motivations in its development.
> 
> Of couse fey is not its racial background, rather being one of the_ yokai _(and in Kaidan _yokai_ is a monstrous humanoid subtype), or from the Japanese point of view - _what the heck is a fey?_ (_answer: another European concept that has no place in Japanese folklore_...)





Are you saying you wrote it, or am I assuming too much?


Thanks!!!!


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 28, 2015)

Tuzenbach said:


> Are you saying you wrote it, or am I assuming too much?
> 
> 
> Thanks!!!!




Jonathan McAnulty wrote it, I was developer/technical advisor (I share copyright and own the IP, as Kaidan is my homebrew, published as an imprint under Rite Publishing).


----------



## GreenTengu (Jul 28, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> Sure there is, called Rite Publishing *In the Company of Tengu*, which is completely written from translated Japanese folklore resources directly, completely excising all wrong interpretations in the D&D Monster Manual and Oriental Adventures of every edition of D&D. As a half-Japanese, amateur historian and amateur folklorist, and the creator and primary developer/technical advisor for the *Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG)* - being more authentic and putting concepts back into their original folklore context was one of the primary motivations in its development.
> 
> Of couse fey is not its racial background, rather being one of the_ yokai _(and in Kaidan _yokai_ is a monstrous humanoid subtype), or from the Japanese point of view - _what the heck is a fey?_ (_answer: another European concept that has no place in Japanese folklore_...)




???
So then why is the one on the cover on a red-skinned humanoid with a long rounded nose, a tall hair with yukata, geta and a big fan like all Japanese depictions of the creatures I have ever seen?
Its that same crow furry that is in pathfinder. I have almost never seen that depiction used by Japanese people.

If you couldn't be bothered fixing that, I have to be skeptical about what you did fix.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 28, 2015)

TheHobgoblin said:


> ???
> So then why is the one on the cover on a red-skinned humanoid with a long rounded nose, a tall hair with yukata, geta and a big fan like all Japanese depictions of the creatures I have ever seen?
> Its that same crow furry that is in pathfinder. I have almost never seen that depiction used by Japanese people.
> 
> If you couldn't be bothered fixing that, I have to be skeptical about what you did fix.




That long nosed human version of the tengu is an Edo Period derivation (post 1600), sometimes attributed to a daitengu (tengu king), while the original tengu was a crow based humanoid. The folklore used by Kaidan is generally the older, original traditions from the start of the feudal period up to the Sengoku Period (1185 - 1590) retold in hyakumonogatari kaidan kai - a ghost story-telling game from the 15th century. I've been to Japan on more than one vacation (visiting family) and I've always been a tengu fan. Strictly speaking the tengu tradition has always been popular, and artists depictions of the human-looking tengu was a modern derivation to modernize the concept, first appearing in Japanese folk art in 1700's (so very late in cultural development). Tengu were often considered fallen monks, who reincarnate into the crow version of tengu in the next life as a kind of social punishment.

Actually the modern humanoid tengu (red faced man with long nose) came from their use for Noh dance theater, which was an 18th century invention.

Doing tengu as the more humanoid version is a step away from its Japanese folklore origins. The crow based tengu, is the truer form by tradition, sometimes called karasu tengu - karasu literally means "crow".


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Jul 28, 2015)

Tuzenbach said:


> I distinctly remember using the expression "demi-human" in reference to Gnomes, though I could have used the phrase "humanoidish" (which I'm taking to mean "roughly human-shaped, though not necessarily human-sized"......).




Can you clarify the difference between a "humanoid" and a "demi-human"?

Also, that distinction aside, what is the difference between a "demi-human" with innate spell abilities, such as gnomes (in at least some editions), and a "fey"? Does this mean there is more to the "fey" definition than simply being "humanoidish" and having innate spell abilities, since gnomes (apparently) meet both conditions but fail to be "fey" in your eyes?

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.


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jul 28, 2015)

EzekielRaiden said:


> 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*........







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"......


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jul 28, 2015)

EzekielRaiden said:


> 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".


----------



## Voadam (Jul 28, 2015)

EzekielRaiden said:


> Can you clarify the difference between a "humanoid" and a "demi-human"?




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. Evil subraces of, and evil individuals of, demi-human races are still possible and do not change their classification. Same with non-evil humanoids.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 28, 2015)

EzekielRaiden said:


> 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.




Consider that I am developing a setting for Pathfinder built upon an alternate American Old West called Gothic Western and it is humano-centric, that is the only player race you can be is human. There are no demi-human races. There are some humanoids, mostly monstrous humanoids, but not that many. Of course there are many alternate human racial traits - farm grown, city born, plains raised, desert dwelling, etc.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 28, 2015)

Voadam said:


> 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.

Consider that, really, they may all instead be demignomes and gnomoids.  Or koboldoids and "those big hairy guys we poke with sticks".


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 28, 2015)

Umbran said:


> 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".


----------



## Umbran (Jul 28, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> 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".




Technically, it means "centered on humans".  I was merely pointing out that the term "humanoid" only makes sense from a human's point of view.  No gnome or elf would refer to them as "humanoids", except maybe as a racial slur.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 28, 2015)

Well to me humanoid is a meta term used by players and GMs, not any kind of description that any race would refer to itself, or perhaps what one race might call another, but certainly not something they call themselves.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 28, 2015)

Tuzenbach said:


> LoL, are you assuming I believe in the relevance of 4E?



You're the one who tagged your thread "all D&D". What edition are you asking about?



Zinnger said:


> 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.



What you have quoted is more-or-less identical to the 4e definition: _fey_ are fairies, ie spirits of faerie.



TheHobgoblin said:


> 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.



In 4e there are evil/wicked fey (eg gremlins, boggarts). Some of these creatures go back to AD&D 1st ed.



Tuzenbach said:


> I'm looking for a Universal definition of "Fey" which is applicable to ALL editions, not just what is considered the "current" standard



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 remain confused about the source of your confusion.


----------



## GreenTengu (Jul 28, 2015)

pemerton said:


> In 4e there are evil/wicked fey (eg gremlins, boggarts). Some of these creatures go back to AD&D 1st ed.




Some, yes, because the monster manual is primarily designed for presenting foes for you to combat.

But if you had to just sort of estimate raw percentages....

About what percentage of monsters labeled "fey" would you suppose were aligned evil?
And about roughly what percentage of things that appeared in monster manuals that were aligned good were fey?

My estimation is that the answer to the first is less than 25% and the answer to the second is probably above 50%-- but only because of all the various metallic dragons and the 4 good-aligned demi-human races making up a lot of those.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Jul 29, 2015)

Tuzenbach said:


> 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"......




Well, it helps if you don't cut out the extremely critical second half of that sentence, where I specifically talk about it changing _from table to table._ Yes, I allowed for variations from edition to edition (or even between different systems entirely), but the main point was that two different DMs can both "run D&D" while having vastly different cosmological, "biological," and theological elements in their games. There's also a wide variety of well-loved campaign settings, each with its own particular spin on things. Consider Dark Sun, where Halflings are, or at least may be, the only "original/native" species of Athas, and there are insectoids as well as atypical hybrids like mul.

When it is perfectly, 100% accurate to say "I am playing D&D" to describe playing in Oerth, Krynn, Mystara, Athas, Toril, Azeroth, Iomandra, Planescape, Ravenloft, the world of Nerath, and the innumerable homebrew worlds/campaign settings DMs come up with (such as  @_*gamerprinter*_'s setting-in-development)...coupled with the fact that D&D has always re-molded mythology, history, fantasy, and sci-fi to fit its own tastes (one level of Castle Greyhawk had Martian white apes!)...it just seems silly to expect anything remotely like "universal" or even "consensus" definitions for anything.

Heck, in some settings, humans are what you get when an elf and an orc have a kid! And that's still just as D&D as Greyhawk or Blackmoor or Khorvaire or Nentir Vale.



Tuzenbach said:


> Do you mean "humanoidish".....? IIRC, I've taken great pains to specifically NOT use the word "humanoid", but instead use "humanoidish".




The question was asked as intended. When you responded to statements about the term "humanoid," you made it clear that Gnomes qualify as "humanoidish" because they have a roughly human body plan but do not necessarily conform to the proportions of real-world humans. Thus, unless there are additional requirements you did not state, "humanoidish" was sufficiently well-defined for me to not have any questions about it.

That and other posts of yours, however, make it clear that you see a very sharp distinction between "humanoid" and "demi-human." Thus, I am curious what qualities (whether presence or absence thereof) distinguish "humanoid" from "demi-human" as you would define the terms. I appreciate  @_*Voadam*_'s response, as it is straightforward enough, but it is heavily subjective. You have professed a desire for "scientific" terms, by which I assume you mean something primarily objective, so I wanted to hear directly from you what differences you see between the "humanoid" and "demi-human" classifications.

(Though I have to admit, I find the term "humanoidish" somewhat...well, silly. "Humanlikelike," or "having the characteristics of having the characteristics of humans." It's similar to having a genre called "roguelike"--how do you describe a game which has just a _few_ characteristics of a roguelike? A roguelike-ish game? A roguelite? A rogueoid--no, I can't even stomach that quadruple vowel. A roguesque? Actually that last one isn't so bad-sounding, though technically that should be the narrower rather than broader category, linguistically speaking! )

Edit:
Also, Tuzenbach, you never really answered the question I asked.

If Gnomes are "humanoidish" beings who have had, in several editions, innate magical abilities, are they fey? And if they are not fey, what disqualifies them?


----------



## Greenfield (Jul 30, 2015)

On the original topic:  Drow are listed as Humanoid (Elf) subtypes.

Fey are listed as, well, Fey.  It's like asking why a pebble isn't an ocean.  

One player in my game is running a Spirit Shaman (D&D 3.5).  One class ability allows him to do some general damage to "Spirits" in the area.  "Spirits" in this case are defined as non-corporeal undead, Ethereal creatures, creatures with the Spirit subtype, and Fey.

I'm running an Elf, and last weekend he was worried that if my character was nearby he'd be hurt.  The power is non-selective, after all.

It took a few minutes, and several instances of pointing to the Monster Manual to get the difference clear in his mind.  Elves are not Fey.  Neither are Drow, nor any other Elven sub-races, whether they possess spell-like abilities or not.

The fact that it include corporeal creatures like Sprites and Dryads, but nor corporeal undead kind of threw him.


----------



## diaglo (Jul 30, 2015)

Tuzenbach said:


> I always assumed that Drow were "Fey" simply because they possessed innate magical abilities (Darkness & Faerie Fire). However, this list of "Fey" creatures omits the Drow......
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fey_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)
> ...




for decades i have treated drow as faeries. i use Chainmail(1971) and OD&D(1974) as the references.
elves, dwarves, and halflings are the civilized races that hang with mankind.
faeries, gnomes, and hobbits are the ones with little exposure to humans.
they can be brutual when encountered or they can be pleasant as the interaction dictates.


----------

