I don't think anyone could be tricked into falling in love with a shrubbery or a pile of bugs.
since elves can have green hair, the problem ith dryads seems to have went away- because in previous edditions, dryads were too pretty. That is why they look like trees now. it is very imaginative...
:embarrass
Fey are amoral and dangerously so. Luring one to doom as a form of amusement hardly qualifies as nice. Designers please, Take a tip from Niel Gaiman and his graphic novels. Fey can look like us, fey can be hot, sexy even...
But the rules they follow, oh my...
seriously though. I do like the direction that 4e has taken with fey. but there can be so much more to it. why did I like planescape? because it was a whole other world in every respect. perhaps it is time to give the fey wild some more life, at least an isle or two with some detail.
but please not another "eladrin city of huaghtiness"
That said, when I think about it, I never actually included a nymph in a campaign. Hopefully Wizards decided to exclude the nymph simply because they didn't think it saw a lot of use in campaigns (the same reason they left metallic dragons out of the PHB1), rather than because of the complaints of prudes.
I remember with derision the ridiculous discussions that took place in the Wizards forums after the 3.5 nymph was released. Repressed people of the world, unite!
They're pretty.
And that's about it. Nymphs made extremely one-dimensional monsters. They had beauty, but that was their only defining feature. All else was borrowed; using the druid's spellcasting list or similar fey features. Or they had incredibly silly powers like Blinding Beauty, killing or maiming everyone who looked at them with their amazing strength of smoking hotness.
For an NPC nymph, all you need to do is describe a magnificently beautiful being.
For a monster stat block.....they need far more to be interesting, or just use a dryad.
In 3.5e, I ran a nymph paladin. She was awesome.
Eladrin are those enchanting, glamorous, and hazardous fey. Just because the player version doesn't get a bonus to Charisma doesn't make the race uncharismatic (PC/NPC racial characteristics =/= characteristics of the race as a whole, just the adventurers). The only thing that really makes them different are that they are now distant relatives of elves and drow, and that they are a standard PC race.
Be happy. Your nymph is right there in the PH1.
Or racial feats for Feyblood/touched.
such as the ones I made.
Nymphs are a feat package or template, not really a monster.
I know many of you guys may have never actually been with a woman, but relax. Stop being such misogynistic nerds and it may happen. :P
Or, in the non-sarcastic mode: Will you ever really need to fight a nymph? Probably not. So not in MM.
What is it with this community and the fascination with half/full naked fey women to beat up on?
I know many of you guys may have never actually been with a woman, but relax. Stop being such misogynistic nerds and it may happen. :P
Or, in the non-sarcastic mode: Will you ever really need to fight a nymph? Probably not. So not in MM.
Were you being sarcastic, or facetious?
By the way, although I can buy the argument that the nymph isn't a particularly important race to have a stat block for, I don't think the above line of reasoning really works. Will you ever really need the stats for a hobgoblin? You could always upgrade and re-fluff one of their smaller cousins, after all. Of course anyone would reply: "well sure, you don't need it, but it's still going to be really useful!" but that's my point. The issue isn't whether you need it at all - it's about how much use you'll get out of it. And perhaps the nymph does fall behind most or all MM2 monsters in that regard.
I don't think it really makes a lot of sense to use an eladrin's stats for a nymph. They have pointy ears, that's about where the similarity ends. If I was playing a PC nymph and was told that I couldn't start with 20 charisma, I'd be pretty miffed. Sure, charisma isn't JUST good looks, but even still, of course nymphs of all races would get that +2 to charisma! Proficiency with a longsword? I can't really see that either. I think the idea of using another race or a template as a substitute is a good one for the time being but I'm not really sure the eladrin cuts the mustard. Maybe with a bit of tweaking (replace longsword proficiency with something more charm or diplomacy oriented or maybe a re-fluffed nimble reaction, and swap the bonus to int or dex with charisma), the eladrin race could work.
I never said that Eladrin made good PC Nymphs. We don't play PC Monsters. We're heroes. Not evil demons. Not amoral nature spirits (lest you be a really ambiguous Eladrin...). Not undead. Heroes. We fight monsters, not play as them. The MM Races are NPC Races.
I thought you meant building an NPC Nymph using the PC eladrin racial modifiers. (just like if you were building a hobgoblin NPC from scratch you'd use the hobgoblin modifiers in the back of the MM).
No nymphs, but you can see what we do get here.
Is that list serious? Black Pudding? There's a monster in D&D called Black Pudding? I'm not sure whether you guys in the US call what we call Black Pudding, Black Pudding.
Is that list serious? Black Pudding? There's a monster in D&D called Black Pudding? I'm not sure whether you guys in the US call what we call Black Pudding, Black Pudding.
The Black Pudding isn't new to this edition but I get your reaction. Mine was pretty much the same the first time I came across it in 3.x (can't remember which MM it was in).
For those who don't know what we're refering to: Black Pudding
Since it's always amused me I'm glad to see it return.
The Black Pudding isn't new to this edition but I get your reaction. Mine was pretty much the same the first time I came across it in 3.x (can't remember which MM it was in).
For those who don't know what we're refering to: Black Pudding
I'm never eating in England
I'm never eating in England
Or anywhere else in Europe, presumably? Black pudding is not unique to England, by any means. Anyway, it's delicious. You should really try it some time. :D
Back at the topic, I suspect WotC are reluctant to include the nymph in any MM primarily because 4th edition focuses on the 'heroic' aspects of heroic fantasy more than previous editions. Slaughtering naked young ladies might appeal to certain people, but it's not really 'heroic'.
Most 'heroic' characters are never going to want to fight a nymph. Playing villainous characters is discouraged in 4th edition and requires DM approval and a certain amount of house-ruling anyway (e.g. for evil Channel Divinity feats), so requiring DMs to homebrew things like nymphs for evil characters to merrily butcher makes more sense than wasting space in the MM (and for the vast majority of parties, it would be a waste).
There's also the issue that a nymph is basically helpless (and therefore not a combat challenge at all) without her ability to blind or kill anyone who looks at her. A creature with a save-or-die attack and no other significant combat abilities just doesn't work in 4th edition.
If you want a suitable monstrous antagonist with some of the flavour of a nymph, I suggest you use the vampire muse from Open Grave. She's a level 10 elite controller with the fey origin. There's nothing (other than good taste) actually stopping you from describing her as stark naked and dripping wet if you really want a 'nymph'.
Nymphs play several roles in the stories of the Greek pantheon, subtly using those stories in my adventures is a favorite past time of mine.
those who may not know about nymphs.
Do such people actually exist, though? I mean, really, would any of your players not know what you meant if you told them "this is a nymph"?
But they would make an awesome PC race.
Fey type, +Dex, +Cha, Racial attack that deals Psychic damage and blindness, and we're done.
You know what? Nymphs would make terrible enemies.
But they would make an awesome PC race.
Fey type, +Dex, +Cha, Racial attack that deals Psychic damage and blindness, and we're done.
My only issue with that is the fact that they are only female; the only other single-sex race we have is warforged, and they are genderless. Of course, we could just have Satyrs and Nymphs, say they were the male and female of the same race, and, it would work.... Just have two separate entries, related solely by fluff.
EDIT: Actually, after having looked over the Satyr entry in the MM, I could see a +2 to Dexterity and Charisma for them, as well; maybe give Nymphs a bonus to Nature and Diplomacy, and Satyrs a bonus to Nature and Intimidate. Then, just give Nymphs that whole "Stunning Beauty" power, and give the Satyrs some sort of cannibalized Infernal Wrath.
EDIT2: Also, after having to deal with accusagtions of being prejudiced towards woman for the "my only issue with that is the fact that they are only female" bit, I would just like to point out: I would be just as irritated if they released a male-only race. Releasing a race that only has one gender (and isn't gender-neutral) is unfair for those who don't feel comfortable roleplaying the opposite sex, such as myself, if it isn't of their gender.
Thing is, what exactly do you need to run a nymph?
They're pretty.
And that's about it. Nymphs made extremely one-dimensional monsters. They had beauty, but that was their only defining feature. All else was borrowed; using the druid's spellcasting list or similar fey features. Or they had incredibly silly powers like Blinding Beauty, killing or maiming everyone who looked at them with their amazing strength of smoking hotness.
For an NPC nymph, all you need to do is describe a magnificently beautiful being.
For a monster stat block.....they need far more to be interesting, or just use a dryad.
Another Green Dragon lover...We're everywhere
My only issue with that is the fact that they are only female
Is this really a problem? It's not like there are trillions of little Y chromosome nymph sex-cells to take offense from all this horrible prejudice or anything.
Is this really a problem? It's not like there are trillions of little Y chromosome nymph sex-cells to take offense from all this horrible prejudice or anything.
Not necessarily, and I wasn't trying to be prejudiced; are you honestly saying that a male-only race wouldn't generate a
storm over in Astrid's? Because if you are, I'm afraid you're mistaken.If WotC WERE to make Nymphs as a Monster, and, possibly, a PC Race, and they kept the female-only bit, I wouldn't get angry. I would just overlook them, since I'm not interested in playing a PC of a different gender than my own. Not out of any prejudice, but simply because I doubt I could play a female in a realistic manner. If I tried, I'd probably either end up in stereotype-land, or just play her as a guy with alternate reproductive organs, and neither of those are okay, in my opinion.
So, yeah. Just because I would prefer WotC release races that have at least two genders or are non-gendered, doesn't mean I'm prejudiced against women. I'd be just as irritated if they released a male-only race, both because it's unfair to people who play exclusively female characters, and because of all of the "WotC are a bunch of Chauvinist Pigs" threads that would result.
EDIT: Also, it probably would have been helpful if you had read the rest of the post, instead of just quoting me out of context. I realize I could have worded it better, but it wasn't nearly as prejudiced as you painted it to be.
Not necessarily, and I wasn't trying to be prejudiced; are you honestly saying that a male-only race wouldn't generate a
If WotC WERE to make Nymphs as a Monster, and, possibly, a PC Race, and they kept the female-only bit, I wouldn't get angry. I would just overlook them, since I'm not interested in playing a PC of a different gender than my own. Not out of any prejudice, but simply because I doubt I could play a female in a realistic manner. If I tried, I'd probably either end up in stereotype-land, or just play her as a guy with alternate reproductive organs, and neither of those are okay, in my opinion.
So, yeah. Just because I would prefer WotC release races that have at least two genders or are non-gendered, doesn't mean I'm prejudiced against women. I'd be just as irritated if they released a male-only race, both because it's unfair to people who play exclusively female characters, and because of all of the "WotC are a bunch of Chauvinist Pigs" threads that would result.
EDIT: Also, it probably would have been helpful if you had read the rest of the post, instead of just quoting me out of context. I realize I could have worded it better, but it wasn't nearly as prejudiced as you painted it to be.
Hmm, I think you might have misunderstood me. My point was (supposed to be) that nobody should feel that they are being sexist for inventing a fantastical species that has only one gender. You're not being sexist, wizards aren't being sexist, none of this issue actually has any relevance to the issue of sexism. The reason why: no harm, no foul. Nonexistent male nymphs aren't harmed by Wizards' decision to leave them out. I don't think anybody in real life is harmed by the decision either. My previous post was expressed in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek way, and I'm sorry if I offended you.
And yes, I'm sure some (not all, mind you) people in Astrid's would have a huge issue with a male-only, or a female-only race. Those individuals would be wrong to be offended though -that's the point I was trying to get across.
You're not being sexist, wizards aren't being sexist, none of this issue actually has any relevance to the issue of sexism. The reason why: no harm, no foul. Nonexistent male nymphs aren't harmed by Wizards' decision to leave them out. I don't think anybody in real life is harmed by the decision either.
So Wizards creates a female-only race whose sole-defining attribute is they're universally beauitful. And you honestly don't see where that might be considered objectifying women? Really?
So Wizards creates a female-only race whose sole-defining attribute is they're universally beauitful. And you honestly don't see where that might be considered objectifying women? Really?
You got it first time. I don't think it's even remotely objectifying.
Do you have a problem with the hag monster too? They eat babies, therefore all women do. Obviously, right?
Do you have a problem with the hag monster too? They eat babies, therefore all women do. Obviously, right?
Wow. This quote truly reveals you have absolutely no idea why someone might be offended by WotC creating an entire female-only race whose sole reason for existing is to be universally beautiful.
Also in this specific example the sole extent of hags isn't to eat babies (I can't find even find a reference to baby eating in the Monster Manual). They are evil creatures who instead of acting for personal power, exist to ensure those who are content in life become miserable. Although even in the lore-light monster manual they don't even just do that. They also act as advisors and soothsayers.
Hags aren't defined by 1 attribute like nymphs are (at least the nymphs being described in this thread).
Also if nymphs were statted up as a player-race, why wouldn't they be able to have males as part of their race as well? Why must they only be females?
But (1) Hags aren't actually beautiful
EDIT: looks like you've edited the post that I'm responding to here. But I'll leave my initial reply up as maybe it will clarify things for you.
I never said hags were beautiful. I thought my point was fairly self-explanatory, but as with many discussions on the internet, it turns out I didn't explain myself sufficiently :P
My point was that hags are basically just "evil crones". Does this mean that real life crones should be offended? Having your demographic portrayed as downright evil (not to mention hideous) seems far more offensive to me than having your demographic (females) portrayed as beautiful (as with nymphs).
Let's not get into an argument about the "defining features" of fantasy creatures. It will prove extremely unproductive. But at the risk of unpolitely ninjaing the last word, nymphs do have other features (I don't know about "defining", I don't know what that would mean in this context), such as being associated with water.
My point is that just because a fictional creature has two traits doesn't mean that anybody thinks, or could reasonably infer, that those two traits are correlated in real life human beings. Usually, D&D players are pretty good at keeping fantasy and reality seperate in their minds.
Also if nymphs were statted up as a player-race, why wouldn't they be able to have males as part of their race as well? Why must they only be females (besides the whole male teens who want to oggle fictional characters)?
There's no reason why they wouldn't be able to have males, apart from the fact that nymphs have been females in lore going back to classical times. Given that "nymph" has a recognised application already, it doesn't really make a lot of sense to change that unless a good reason for doing so can be given. I don't consider the "objectification" arguments to be good reasons.
Changing nymphs in such a dramatic way because of prudes or the pathologically offended would irritate me, not because I'm all that into nymphs, per se, but because of the principle of the thing.
That said, I can accept the other reason given - that they just aren't interesting enough and won't be used often enough by DMs, to be worth the paper they are written on.
Wow. This quote truly reveals you have absolutely no idea why someone might be offended by WotC creating an entire female-only race whose sole reason for existing is to be universally beautiful.
Oh, I have an idea. It involves the person being misguided, and not having really thought things through for themselves.
If that wasn't the psychological explanation of the offense reaction that you had in mind, then perhaps you could "enlighten" me? Considering how indignant and surprised your coming across as, I'm quite amazed that you haven't yet explained why the existence of a female-only, universally beautiful non-human race in a fantasy game is objectifying of human females.
Lastly, do you think that the argument "hags don't eat babies, they exist to spread evil" serves to weaken the point that I was making? If so, how?
Cheers.
Wow. This quote truly reveals you have absolutely no idea why someone might be offended by WotC creating an entire female-only race whose sole reason for existing is to be universally beautiful.
Also in this specific example the sole extent of hags isn't to eat babies (I can't find even find a reference to baby eating in the Monster Manual). They are evil creatures who instead of acting for personal power, exist to ensure those who are content in life become miserable. Although even in the lore-light monster manual they don't even just do that. They also act as advisors and soothsayers.
Hags aren't defined by 1 attribute like nymphs are (at least the nymphs being described in this thread).
Also if nymphs were statted up as a player-race, why wouldn't they be able to have males as part of their race as well? Why must they only be females?
Correct me if I'm wrong but, when did WotC create something that is common in mythology?
in our campaign nymphs appeared as friendly forest spirits, who provided some help from time to time, with comedic potential. same for the sartyrs, i mean they have been essentially the greatest party animals in the world and made kick-ass side characters for a session or two.
i can understand, why the monsters manual 1 didnt contain any good aligned creatures. the main priority was to provide the heroes with different foes to challenge on every level. but im still disappointed, that the mm2 doesnt seem to contain at least some good aligned creatures. dnd is still a roleplaying game and not all about dungeon crawling and hack&slay. i mean not even unicorns are good anymore. of course there is allways the possibility of ignoring the alignement in the monster description, since it has no influence on the game mechanics anymore, you can just say dryads or any other creature is good in your game.
Correct me if I'm wrong but, when did WotC create something that is common in mythology?
You're not really using the argument that its in mythology therefore it should be the same in D&D are you? Because I can point to a whole swathe of races WotC has changed from common mythology.
My point was that hags are basically just "evil crones". Does this mean that real life crones should be offended?
I don't know how many people would describe themselves as crones. They might be offended simply by being called crones :P
at the risk of unpolitely ninjaing the last word, nymphs do have other features (I don't know about "defining", I don't know what that would mean in this context), such as being associated with water.
Knowing more about them I'd totally reconsider my opinion. I felt you were responding to my comment
So Wizards creates a female-only race whose sole-defining attribute is they're universally beauitful. And you honestly don't see where that might be considered objectifying women? Really?
in the affirmative. If you're instead saying that nymphs do have attributes beyond being "universally beautiful" then that's certainly another story by all means.
Although given the posts in this thread I have seen absolutely no indication that they have anything special about them besides being universally beautiful ;)
I'll respond to your second post with the assumption that nymphs are one-dimensional. Its the mindset in which I made my original comments so I'll continue that with my replies (rather then ignore your points). However if you're saying nymphs aren't one-dimensional as they've been represented in the thread, then there isn't any real reason for you to respond unless you wish to
Oh, I have an idea. It involves the person being misguided, and not having really thought things through for themselves.
It very well may in some cases. Although its hardly the case for all people who might be offended by nymphs as they've been represented in this thread.
Considering how indignant and surprised your coming across as, I'm quite amazed that you haven't yet explained why the existence of a female-only, universally beautiful non-human race in a fantasy game is objectifying of human females.
Because women in the past have been stereotyped as nice things to look at which should only speak when spoken to. We've got entire mainstream religions which for centuries if not millennia preached that women should be subservient to men.
By having a race whose sole trait is that they're universally beautiful you're permitting the idea to exist that women should be stunningly beautiful and little else. It takes a lot of examples of strong women to undo this, and to be honest 4th ed D&D is hardly a paragon of sexual equality. The most famous matriarchal society (and AFAIK the only example of a matriarchal society in mainstream D&D) have a bondage-fetish.
Funny how the only example of a matriarch in D&D is evil, whereas we have plenty of examples of both evil, good and neutral patriarchal societies. Guess we shouldn't read too much into that though.
And if you think everything I've said is ancient history, it doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. There's also the fact that the mere name brings up connotations of nymphomaniacs which are funnily enough, always female. That isn't a coincidence by the way and is probably why modern psychologists have distanced themselves from the term. Although I will mention as a sidenote I do love that modern society looks down on women for acting in a certain way while men who do the same thing are heralded as studs and congratulated. The worst a male faces is a head shake and someone saying "boys will be boys."
If you truly think there's nothing wrong with nymphs as they've been portrayed in this thread then I'm sure you wouldn't mind a slave race that looked exactly like black humans. Except they have pointy ears so everyone is clear we're not talking about african-americans. We could also make them an evil race and have their slave-masters be unaligned (perhaps eladrin just to make sure no parallels are drawn between american humans and a fictional race).
Lastly, do you think that the argument "hags don't eat babies, they exist to spread evil" serves to weaken the point that I was making? If so, how?
Hags aren't one-dimensional caricatures that nymphs are being represented as in this thread. They're also an evil aligned race, rather then a perfectly acceptable race.
You should note I also haven't made mention of succubbi. If I was truly a prude as you say, I'd be outraged at the mere idea of succubbi. And yet I'm not. Its largely because succubbi aren't being presented as a player race and in fact are quite evil. They're a foe to be vanquished rather then a stereotype to welcome and embrace in your campaign.
I'll also note I don't expect everyone to agree with me. What I take issue with is people dismissing anyone who would be offended by the nymphs as described in this thread as an unthinking prude. In fact looking back at the posts in this thread your dismissive nature is prevalent from the get-go.
As such I don't know if I'll bother talking to you. Dismissing anyone's opinion which doesn't coincide with your own is the hallmark of a close-minded person. And while talking at a close-minded person for hours on end might eventually get them to change their ways, I don't have the energy for it.
You're not really using the argument that its in mythology therefore it should be the same in D&D are you? Because I can point to a whole swathe of races WotC has changed from common mythology.
No what I meant to say is, if peopel are gonna get all offended because they actually kept to the mythology then they should have a go at folk lore
Hmm, I think you might have misunderstood me. My point was (supposed to be) that nobody should feel that they are being sexist for inventing a fantastical species that has only one gender. You're not being sexist, wizards aren't being sexist, none of this issue actually has any relevance to the issue of sexism. The reason why: no harm, no foul. Nonexistent male nymphs aren't harmed by Wizards' decision to leave them out. I don't think anybody in real life is harmed by the decision either. My previous post was expressed in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek way, and I'm sorry if I offended you.
And yes, I'm sure some (not all, mind you) people in Astrid's would have a huge issue with a male-only, or a female-only race. Those individuals would be wrong to be offended though -that's the point I was trying to get across.
Oh. All right, then. I suppose that makes a hell of a lot more sense than my rant. Sorry, psk.
The important part, imo, is to show the fey as different. Whether they look beautiful or hideous, male or female, I want to have them shown as fundamentally alien, in mind if not in body, closer to the elementals that their nature link them to than to the humanoids whose bodies they approximate.
Should I then, as a male, be offended because there's a all-male race of fey described as "self-centered, greedy, and decadent creatures"?
By having a race whose sole trait is that they're universally beautiful you're permitting the idea to exist that women should be stunningly beautiful and little else.
Wow. I thought we'd be permitting the idea that "Women can kick your ass regardless of how they look".
Funny how the only example of a matriarch in D&D is evil
Yes, funny how a slavery-driven society built around the worship of the god of betrayal could be evil.
whereas we have plenty of examples of both evil, good and neutral patriarchal societies.
... Where?
By having a race whose sole trait is that they're universally beautiful you're permitting the idea to exist that women should be stunningly beautiful and little else.
its just the description of the racial traits and has nothing to do with the possible character of the nymph itself.
by your logic all orcs are big green brutish guys and nothing else, all eladrin are feyish magic focused humanoids and nothing else...
you can still provide the individual nymph, sartyr, orc, eladrin or any other creature with a deep character that defines the individual person without being sexist.
it just would be nice to have the possibility of friendly/helpful/funny monsters as side characters to add a bit more live to your campaign. nymphs for example could provide an interesting possibility for a multiclass warlock to form a feypact as real part of the story. not just: "hooray, i took the multiclass feat for the warlock, im now assumed to have formed a pact with the ghosts of the feywild to grant me their power". it would be interesting to introduce a real person and bargain partner for the pact to be formed with, uincluding an appropriate sidestory and lots of questhooks. also the decription of the ritual itself and what it would look like. thats just one example, how additional humanoid and friendly monsters can add flavour to your campaign world.
since with the first two monster mauals we now have a lot of baddies to fight, i hope the next mm will contain at least a fiew good fey and/or celestial monsters.
Talks about religion
Let's not get started on that one.
I've been reported and given a warning by Wizards in this last week for speaking out against religion (I didn't bring it up in that thread either).By having a race whose sole trait is that they're universally beautiful you're permitting the idea to exist that women should be stunningly beautiful and little else. ((then goes on to talk at length about stereotypes))
I don't usually agree with negative portrayals of women, and of course I don't agree with the nymph stereotype. When asked whether they'd agree to sex with an attractive confederate on a college campus (a relatively liberal sector of society), over 70% of men said yes, but none of the women did (Clark and Hatfield, 1989). So the stereotype couldn't be further from the truth. But that's beside the point. I don't think that this degree of censorship is an appropriate way to fight for women's right to be respected and treated equal. Ideas like this should be allowed to be floated in the marketplace of ideas. Nobody in their right mind will actually come to the conclusion that because nymphs are one dimensional sexual creatures that therefore women are. Anybody who does draw that moral can be ridiculed, just as the fundamentalists that believed that because D&D players roleplayed scenes involving demon worshippers that somehow they must identify with or even practice demon worshipping themselves.
There's plenty of sexual prejudice out there even today, I agree. But things HAVE changed drastically. One example: on a whole population level (rather than focusing solely on women's shelters, which makes for a biased sample), women are approximately as likely to beat their partner as men are - if anything, slightly more likely (Archer, 1999). Men ARE more likely to brutalise or kill their partners, but that's a fraction of a percent of the cases - looking at normal couple violence, there isn't a big sex difference. What's my explanation for this? Although men have evolved to be proprietarial and jealous of women, which can sometimes even lead to outbursts of violence, social norms today make violence by men towards women absolutely unacceptable, while violence towards men by women is generally not as frowned upon. My point isn't that women have it easier than men or that all the old prejudices have been forgotten about, but merely that norms do change, and that they have changed markedly, even if not as much as most of us would hope.
Regarding nymphomania, well as I pointed out above, most men and women vary somewhat dramatically in their attitudes towards casual sex. Thus, it may be that even with perfectly egalitarian norms surrounding what amount of sexual permissiveness is appropriate, women might still end up being relatively more coy than men. This wouldn't be surprising when you think about it - women have to worry about the possibility of pregnancy, while men don't (well if they want to be nice people they should, but that's not quite the same thing). Moreover, I'd argue that permissive women would have more reasons to worry about their physical safety than men. Thus, there's a bit more reason to be concerned about a woman who puts herself in that kind of situation than a man. That said, I don't think it's a mental disorder (except in the absolute extreme cases, and this would apply to men too).
If you truly think there's nothing wrong with nymphs as they've been portrayed in this thread then I'm sure you wouldn't mind a slave race that looked exactly like black humans. Except they have pointy ears so everyone is clear we're not talking about african-americans. We could also make them an evil race and have their slave-masters be unaligned (perhaps eladrin just to make sure no parallels are drawn between american humans and a fictional race).
I wouldn't have a problem with a black slave race existing in a campaign setting. I'd have a problem with the game setting describing their slavery as non-evil (surely it would be evil), and I'd have a problem with the game setting describing the slave race as evil unless they were. I don't think your analogy really works. I'm willing to 'bite the bullet' with a better analogy (a black fey race that are slaves exists in the world), but then you go ahead and add a whole lot of stuff that isn't analogous but that I do disagree with (slave-masters not being evil, slaves being evil without explanation of why this is so).
I'll also note I don't expect everyone to agree with me. What I take issue with is people dismissing anyone who would be offended by the nymphs as described in this thread as an unthinking prude. In fact looking back at the posts in this thread your dismissive nature is prevalent from the get-go.
As such I don't know if I'll bother talking to you. Dismissing anyone's opinion which doesn't coincide with your own is the hallmark of a close-minded person. And while talking at a close-minded person for hours on end might eventually get them to change their ways, I don't have the energy for it.
You've introduced the "as described in this thread" distinction since my last post. I haven't really had an opportunity to respond to it yet. But for the record, I don't think it's morally relevant whether a fantastical race that conforms to a stereotype also has other traits or not. Sometimes, it's the addition of traits to a race that makes things worse. I honestly don't see how saying "Hey! Hags aren't just evil old ladies, they also play a masterful game of bridge!" would really make any difference here or there. I don't think even the austere characterisation of nymphs, portraying them solely as female objects of lust, should be personally offensive to real life women, because they aren't intended to portray real life women. If Wizards went further and said something like "Just like women in the real world, nymphs are beauty personified and exist purely for the titilation of teenage boys" then I'd have a problem.
Dismissing somebody's opinion that doesn't agree with you IS the hallmark of a closed-minded person, that is correct. But it isn't restricted solely to closed-minded people. At the outset, I'll accept that I can be dismissive at times, but I'm not closed-minded. Your mention of closed-mindedness reminds me of a song by Tim Minchin "If you open your mind too much, your brains will fall out". I consider myself very liberal, and pretty open-minded. That doesn't mean that I give everything I hear equal credit. I'm dismissive of the notion that made-up races that are no longer intended to map onto real human beings in a meaningful way are likely to nevertheless taken as normative by a reasonable reader. And for the record, you came in by expressing disbelief and bewilderment that I could even have the beliefs I have - the obvious connotation being that this is because my beliefs are outlandish, morally pernicious, and/or irrational. You didn't exactly portray yourself as a bastion of open-mindedness. Can you really be surprised that I reacted dismissively?
Anyway, I'm happy to cease the discussion and agree to disagree. You vote that nymphs, as portrayed in this thread, are inherently offensive to women (and, if I understand you correctly are a pernicious idea that should be censored) and I vote that they are not.
its just the description of the racial traits and has nothing to do with the possible character of the nymph itself.
As I said I was going off the impression based on the posts before I made my post. Such posts as
Thing is, what exactly do you need to run a nymph?
They're pretty.
And that's about it. Nymphs made extremely one-dimensional monsters. They had beauty, but that was their only defining feature. All else was borrowed; using the druid's spellcasting list or similar fey features. Or they had incredibly silly powers like Blinding Beauty, killing or maiming everyone who looked at them with their amazing strength of smoking hotness.
For an NPC nymph, all you need to do is describe a magnificently beautiful being.
For a monster stat block.....they need far more to be interesting, or just use a dryad.
If that was incorrectly characterising nymphs then you can pretty much ignore everything I've said
2) If they made a nymph race they could really only do it by creating a new name for the race with two sets of stats based on gender. The satyr/faun is the male counterpart to the female nymph so there's the two genders of the race. They would just look different and have different mechanics. There is greek lore out there that talks about the children of either a faun/saty or a nymph would be a faun/satyr if male and a nymph if female.
3) Male medusa exist because there's no mythological race of medusa so WotC didn't have many limits. They took a singular person with a unique appearance and turned it into a full race. Also in older editions the male medusa were called maedar which seem to have no historal origin and looked very different from medusa. On a similar note in certain old bestiaries the cockatrice and basilisk were the male and female (respectively) genders of one species of animal.
If that was incorrectly characterising nymphs then you can pretty much ignore everything I've said
Sure it's accurate. In the same way dwarves are sturdy, and orcs are savage.
Accurate, but in no way telling the whole story.
Having nymphs be supernaturally attractive is required for them to be nymphs. Other than that, thier fluff is completely open for the developers to play with.
If nymphs are universally good and non-combat oriented then why have stat blocks for them.
Good that they're not universally good and non-combat oriented then.