I've been wondering this for a while, why are the development teams for D&D so afraid of diversifying trolls? Also, why are they so afraid of Water/Sea and Earth themed Clerics? On that second note, why so afraid of Ocean Priests/Priestesses and Geomancers?
Trolls in Scandinavian lore have quite a bit of diversity to them. In the Fantasy space, especially D&D-type settings, trolls only exist in the hulking idiot that has regenerative abilities format. Basically a disservice to the real-world lore, in my opinion. Why can't we have the tricky trolls that can masquerade as enlightened races, and have offspring with them, in D&D? That would be a great way to throw everyone used to the default D&D troll for a loop or two. And notice how I mentioned having offspring with non-trolls? Swedish lore has a very special term for those with troll ancestry which roughly translates in English to "Trollblood" and that also means you have the potential for some powerful mystical shenanigans.
While would like to see Geomancer appear as its own Class, it has plenty of historical and cultural context for that sort of thing, I don't think that will be happening at any time in the foreseeable future. Geomancy also has a stereotype in the Fantasy space of just being a one-trick pony that exclusively does earth-based spells, which is a serious disservice to the IRL history of Geomancy; that all said, 5E currently has a very small pool of earth-themed spells to work with anyway. Ocean/Water domain Clerics would be fun to see, and they would fit in pretty well with a campaign that has a nautical or survival theme. Honestly, I don't know why an official or source or UA hasn't done a Water/Ocean domain for Clerics yet, as far as I know. Geomancers, if implemented properly, could be an interesting addition to the player and DM/GM arsenal. Back when I was in a class on Asian history in college, one of the chapters talked about Geomancy's practice in China and it mentioned communing the dead to find the most suitable burial site for the body of the deceased. So in a sense, Geomancers probably fit better as a Cleric subclass than a Druid one, if you have to make them a subclass. Personally, I think Geomancer should be its own full class (granted, most of the spells on the list would likely be a mix of earth and/or death in their theming), it would open up the opportunity for earth-themed spells to play around with.
I heard Geomancer was Prestige Class in the 3.5E era, don't recall seeing the article for that, but that still required you to be a good ways into being Druid, and in all likelihood barely touched on some of the real-world cultural markers of what Geomancy means.
We already have 11 different trolls. Seems plenty.
Tempest Clerics are a storm (water/air) based cleric, as is the Storm Sorcery sorcerer. There's also Tritons and Sea Elves for water-themed races. So we already have what you're asking for there.
There's multiple earth spells for making a sorcerer or cleric with an earthy / geomancer style. Admittedly no actual subclass as of yet. There was a Geomancer based subclass for the Sorcerer in Unearthed Arcana - but it was not made official because it was poorly received. So again, we've had some of what you're asking for, but the public said "nah we don't want this" so blame the general public, not WotC - they tried.
Have you considered actually checking D&D 5th Edition materials? Nearly the entirety of your post seems to be based on pure ignorance. I don't mean that offensively, just it seems you haven't checked anything and immediately ranted.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
You don't need rain, thunder, lightning, and cloud domains. The Tempest Domain is for water clerics. As for trolls, D&D trolls are not mythological trolls.
They may not be mythological trolls, but they take some of their cues and inspiration from them. And I was mainly using all that as examples, trolls in D&D, and other Fantasy settings, have practically no variation while the rest of the longstanding monsters, like dragons and ogres and demons and devils, have quite a few variations.
Last I checked, there's only one kind of troll in D&D. Unless I'm missing something. And even if I'm not, they all seem to fall into the archetype as described above, if there's so little variation in the monster that they all seem to blend together as the same monster.
Last I checked, there's only one kind of troll in D&D. Unless I'm missing something. And even I'm not, they all seem to fall into the archetype as described above, if there's so little variation in the monster that they all seem to blend together as the same monster.
There are like ten different troll variants in MToF plus normal trolls and Loathsome Limbs trolls.
True, but the Tempest archetype is more wind, Thunder, Lightning, and Ice. The Ice part is only vaguely part of the water motif, a Cleric that's more attuned elementally to Water could be interesting to see as a UA option at the very least.
They may not be mythological trolls, but they take some of their cues and inspiration from them. And I was mainly using all that as examples, trolls in D&D, and other Fantasy settings, have practically no variation while the rest of the longstanding monsters, like dragons and ogres and demons and devils, have quite a few variations.
They're based off of the trolls from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions.
Last I checked, there's only one kind of troll in D&D. Unless I'm missing something. And even I'm not, they all seem to fall into the archetype as described above, if there's so little variation in the monster that they all seem to blend together as the same monster.
There are like ten different troll variants in MToF plus normal trolls and Loathsome Limbs trolls.
You forget the ID:RotF Ice Troll - there's two types of Ice Troll
Last I checked, there's only one kind of troll in D&D. Unless I'm missing something. And even I'm not, they all seem to fall into the archetype as described above, if there's so little variation in the monster that they all seem to blend together as the same monster.
There are like ten different troll variants in MToF plus normal trolls and Loathsome Limbs trolls.
You forget the ID:RotF Ice Troll - there's two types of Ice Troll
Last I checked, there's only one kind of troll in D&D. Unless I'm missing something. And even I'm not, they all seem to fall into the archetype as described above, if there's so little variation in the monster that they all seem to blend together as the same monster.
And that's just by putting "troll" in the Monster search.
Note that the base troll details state: "Troll Freaks. Their regenerative capabilities make trolls especially susceptible to mutation. Although uncommon, such transformations can result from what the troll has done or what has been done to it. A decapitated troll might grow two heads from the stump of its neck, while a troll that eats a fey creature might gain one or more of that creature’s traits."
This is an encouragement for the DM to diversify the troll and make their own versions that fit their narratives without it being fully homebrew - and thus representing the diversifying/variable nature of the troll you wished to see. Which you didn't see, only because you weren't paying enough attention.
Clearly WotC has no "fear" of this, as you claim, when they do present a multitude of variants and encourage DMs to make their own.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Would I like more variations on the same base creature? No.
I would LOVE for there to be some elemental themes for classes that don't have them yet. Separate from a nature-themed subclass. That being said, I would also much rather have unique and interesting subclasses than have explorations of variations on a single theme, for example, I like the idea of the clockwork sorcerer more than I like the idea of a sorcerer for each element.
In the same vein, I would much rather have new creatures based around a specific theme than to add another variation of something we have already. I am tired of "It's a bandit but this one has a longbow, this one has a scimitar, and this one has a shield" and having those be 3 distinct creatures even though they are almost the exact same plus or minus some HP and some stats depending on what weapon they use. "Oh, this one is the captain? What does he get? A shield and 50 more HP." That is boring to me. I would much rather have an entire faction of interesting creatures added like if the bandits were also a cult and each stat block was unique from each other and other creatures in the game. Frankly a subtype of the creature having more creatures within its type then some full types of creatures (I'm looking at you Celestials and Oozes) seems unreasonable to me without explicate lore reasons IE fiends and devils.
Alright, I can see your point. But the fact that all of them seem to be brutes with Int as a dump stat still stands. There does seem to be some variation with the troll but they all still don't move out of the brutish moron archetype, and they seem to have limited magical ability, for the most part.
I can see where you're coming from. And looking through some of the monsters in world mythology has given some ideas that I might make suggestions next time I do a survey for a UA, assuming they seem to fit that.
Examples of creatures from world Mythology yet to be seen D&D yet:
Vritra: a serpentine demonic dragon from Vedic and Hindu mythology that is basically the embodiment of Gluttony with a body so massive it can coil itself around whole mountains and so dangerous that the story about fighting it involves a literal party of gods being unable to kill it after seriously weakening it, so it's so powerful that even in a weakened state it makes the Tarasque look like a mid-boss. Although, to be fair, this one does technically count as a dragon and a fiend at the same time but I have yet to come across the Fiend Dragon category when it comes to monster types. Still, the idea of a creature so powerful and dangerous that even demons and devils would consider it basically Mutually Assured Destruction for all of creaton if the creature were to set free does sound like something that could be the center of a campaign could prove interesting if it's handled properly.
Leishe: Forest spirits from Slavic folklore that generally hate mortals, are master shapeshifters, are nearly impossible to spot or notice, can make themselves as big as the forest's tallest tree or small enough to hide behind a blade of grass, and require some odd rituals to just get that can get you odd looks from everyone around you (leaving an offering of a pancake out in the middle of the woods or literally stripping off your clothes in the middle of the woods just to put them all on backwards). And that's not getting into some of the things they are known to have actually changed into, they're also known to despise mortals so much you're lucky if they don't decide to just kill you the moment you're in reach.
Nuckalavee: a Celtic monster who has stories that originate from the Orkney Isles that has the nickname "devil of the sea" and looks likes a human torso fused to a horse without skin with proportions in the human parts all wrong, the horse part has the ability to belch out a fetid black smoke that causes a disease that cause extreme sickness, wither crops, and even kill small children outright. Thankfully, running freshwater can keep it at bay but only because it usually dwells in the sea. The mither of the sea keeps it at by during summer and warmer times of the year but when winter comes it will emerge from the sea to wreck havoc and fear.
And that's just some of the more intriguing monsters I've come across as references to in my looks through world mythology.
I can see where you're coming from. And looking through some of the monsters in world mythology has given some ideas that I might make suggestions next time I do a survey for a UA, assuming they seem to fit that.
Examples of creatures from world Mythology yet to be seen D&D yet:
Vritra: a serpentine demonic dragon from Vedic and Hindu mythology that is basically the embodiment of Gluttony with a body so massive it can coil itself around whole mountains and so dangerous that the story about fighting it involves a literal party of gods being unable to kill it after seriously weakening it, so it's so powerful that even in a weakened state it makes the Tarasque look like a mid-boss. Although, to be fair, this one does technically count as a dragon and a fiend at the same time but I have yet to come across the Fiend Dragon category when it comes to monster types. Still, the idea of a creature so powerful and dangerous that even demons and devils would consider it basically Mutually Assured Destruction for all of creaton if the creature were to set free does sound like something that could be the center of a campaign could prove interesting if it's handled properly.
Leishe: Forest spirits from Slavic folklore that generally hate mortals, are master shapeshifters, are nearly impossible to spot or notice, can make themselves as big as the forest's tallest tree or small enough to hide behind a blade of grass, and require some odd rituals to just get that can get you odd looks from everyone around you (leaving an offering of a pancake out in the middle of the woods or literally stripping off your clothes in the middle of the woods just to put them all on backwards). And that's not getting into some of the things they are known to have actually changed into, they're also known to despise mortals so much you're lucky if they don't decide to just kill you the moment you're in reach.
Nuckalavee: a Celtic monster who has stories that originate from the Orkney Isles that has the nickname "devil of the sea" and looks likes a human torso fused to a horse without skin with proportions in the human parts all wrong, the horse part has the ability to belch out a fetid black smoke that causes a disease that cause extreme sickness, wither crops, and even kill small children outright. Thankfully, running freshwater can keep it at bay but only because it usually dwells in the sea. The mither of the sea keeps it at by during summer and warmer times of the year but when winter comes it will emerge from the sea to wreck havoc and fear.
And that's just some of the more intriguing monsters I've come across as references to in my looks through world mythology.
There's so many options... I wouldn't limit it to just those three. What about the iron toothed vampires, etc? Anyway, they have said they won't hear your suggestions, so just hope they have the same idea themselves.
Edits: It was brought to my attention that my original phrasing of this post broke forum guidelines. As such, in an attempt to comply with the house rules of our hosts, some minor revisions have been made.
A lot of the “trolls” from Scandinavian Lore that you mentioned are described the way they are because the term “troll” was used more broadly to describe creatures that other cultures called “goblins,” “hobgoblins,” “orcs,” “ogres,” “gnomes,” and a whole host of other names. In some places “goblin” was the catch-all term. In some lore “gnomes” were sortakinda described like a D&D gnome, but in other places “gnomes” were described more like trolls or goblins.
In the UK “elves” were creatures like Dobby, not like Legolas. But in Iceland, “Elves” were very muck like Legolas until Christianity swept across Europe like a wildfire. (And as a point of historical accuracy, and in no way “expressing any opinions or value judgements,” people who resisted were occasionally burned at the stake.) As part of Europe’s conversion to Christianity, all of the pagan creatures that did not fit the Christian narrative were redefined as physically very tiny, so Scandinavian Elves shrunk down to Keebler sized and went and hid “under hill.”
Similarly, the Leprechauns of Ireland who were originally powerful godlike beings part of a pantheon known as the Tuath(a) Dé Danann who overthrew the former “dark gods” known as Fomorians. (Much the same way that the Olympians overthrew the Titans.) But again came Christianity and next thing anyone knew, the Tuath Dé were in turn “overthrown” by the Christian God, and their once mighty King Lugh of the Tuath Dé who could literally interact with the sun itself was somehow cursed at the behest of a mere human priest. He was struck down to a hapless lunatic known as Mad Sweeney, before eventually they were all reduced to tiny little wish granters and poor Sweeney got further belittled and is now little more than a breakfast cereal mascot. (From God savior of all Ireland to cartoon in three easy steps.) That same human priest was canonized as a Saint and is celebrated annually for driving the snakes out of Ireland.
The former “dark gods” from antiquity now appear in D&D named as themselves, but much less powerful, and those once mighty enough to save the world from them are no longer even mentioned. 🤷♂️
I've been wondering this for a while, why are the development teams for D&D so afraid of diversifying trolls? Also, why are they so afraid of Water/Sea and Earth themed Clerics? On that second note, why so afraid of Ocean Priests/Priestesses and Geomancers?
Trolls in Scandinavian lore have quite a bit of diversity to them. In the Fantasy space, especially D&D-type settings, trolls only exist in the hulking idiot that has regenerative abilities format. Basically a disservice to the real-world lore, in my opinion. Why can't we have the tricky trolls that can masquerade as enlightened races, and have offspring with them, in D&D? That would be a great way to throw everyone used to the default D&D troll for a loop or two. And notice how I mentioned having offspring with non-trolls? Swedish lore has a very special term for those with troll ancestry which roughly translates in English to "Trollblood" and that also means you have the potential for some powerful mystical shenanigans.
While would like to see Geomancer appear as its own Class, it has plenty of historical and cultural context for that sort of thing, I don't think that will be happening at any time in the foreseeable future. Geomancy also has a stereotype in the Fantasy space of just being a one-trick pony that exclusively does earth-based spells, which is a serious disservice to the IRL history of Geomancy; that all said, 5E currently has a very small pool of earth-themed spells to work with anyway. Ocean/Water domain Clerics would be fun to see, and they would fit in pretty well with a campaign that has a nautical or survival theme. Honestly, I don't know why an official or source or UA hasn't done a Water/Ocean domain for Clerics yet, as far as I know. Geomancers, if implemented properly, could be an interesting addition to the player and DM/GM arsenal. Back when I was in a class on Asian history in college, one of the chapters talked about Geomancy's practice in China and it mentioned communing the dead to find the most suitable burial site for the body of the deceased. So in a sense, Geomancers probably fit better as a Cleric subclass than a Druid one, if you have to make them a subclass. Personally, I think Geomancer should be its own full class (granted, most of the spells on the list would likely be a mix of earth and/or death in their theming), it would open up the opportunity for earth-themed spells to play around with.
I heard Geomancer was Prestige Class in the 3.5E era, don't recall seeing the article for that, but that still required you to be a good ways into being Druid, and in all likelihood barely touched on some of the real-world cultural markers of what Geomancy means.
We already have 11 different trolls. Seems plenty.
Tempest Clerics are a storm (water/air) based cleric, as is the Storm Sorcery sorcerer. There's also Tritons and Sea Elves for water-themed races. So we already have what you're asking for there.
There's multiple earth spells for making a sorcerer or cleric with an earthy / geomancer style. Admittedly no actual subclass as of yet. There was a Geomancer based subclass for the Sorcerer in Unearthed Arcana - but it was not made official because it was poorly received. So again, we've had some of what you're asking for, but the public said "nah we don't want this" so blame the general public, not WotC - they tried.
Have you considered actually checking D&D 5th Edition materials? Nearly the entirety of your post seems to be based on pure ignorance. I don't mean that offensively, just it seems you haven't checked anything and immediately ranted.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
No class has more subclasses than Cleric, and as Cyb3rM1nd notes there's quite a lot of Troll variety as well.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yep, Tempest Cleric is your choice for gods of the sea. Not everything needs to be super specific.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
You don't need rain, thunder, lightning, and cloud domains. The Tempest Domain is for water clerics. As for trolls, D&D trolls are not mythological trolls.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
Storm sorcerer is elemental air based. Tempest cleric does seem like it has a bit of water theming, but is mainly leaning towards air.
DnD has fire, earth, air, and water. I find it odd how people will always try to just lump air and water together.
Still want an elemental paladin or ranger.
They may not be mythological trolls, but they take some of their cues and inspiration from them. And I was mainly using all that as examples, trolls in D&D, and other Fantasy settings, have practically no variation while the rest of the longstanding monsters, like dragons and ogres and demons and devils, have quite a few variations.
Last I checked, there's only one kind of troll in D&D. Unless I'm missing something. And even if I'm not, they all seem to fall into the archetype as described above, if there's so little variation in the monster that they all seem to blend together as the same monster.
There are like ten different troll variants in MToF plus normal trolls and Loathsome Limbs trolls.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
True, but the Tempest archetype is more wind, Thunder, Lightning, and Ice. The Ice part is only vaguely part of the water motif, a Cleric that's more attuned elementally to Water could be interesting to see as a UA option at the very least.
They're based off of the trolls from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
You forget the ID:RotF Ice Troll - there's two types of Ice Troll
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
And that.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
Here is every troll in D&D 5e, unless I missed some.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
And this is why you should check more thoroughly.
Troll (Basic Rules / Monster Manual)
Troll (variant) (Monster Manual)
Two-Headed Troll (Out of the Abyss)
Venom Troll (Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes)
Troll (Ice Troll variant) (Rise of Tiamat)
Spirit Troll (Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes)
Rot Troll (Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes)
Ice Troll (Icewind Dale: Rime of the Frostmaiden)
Four-Armed Troll (Hoard of the Dragon Queen)
Five-Armed Troll (Waterdeep: Dungeon of the Mad Mage)
Dire Troll (Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes)
And that's just by putting "troll" in the Monster search.
Note that the base troll details state: "Troll Freaks. Their regenerative capabilities make trolls especially susceptible to mutation. Although uncommon, such transformations can result from what the troll has done or what has been done to it. A decapitated troll might grow two heads from the stump of its neck, while a troll that eats a fey creature might gain one or more of that creature’s traits."
This is an encouragement for the DM to diversify the troll and make their own versions that fit their narratives without it being fully homebrew - and thus representing the diversifying/variable nature of the troll you wished to see. Which you didn't see, only because you weren't paying enough attention.
Clearly WotC has no "fear" of this, as you claim, when they do present a multitude of variants and encourage DMs to make their own.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Would I like more elemental subclasses? Yes.
Would I like more variations on the same base creature? No.
I would LOVE for there to be some elemental themes for classes that don't have them yet. Separate from a nature-themed subclass. That being said, I would also much rather have unique and interesting subclasses than have explorations of variations on a single theme, for example, I like the idea of the clockwork sorcerer more than I like the idea of a sorcerer for each element.
In the same vein, I would much rather have new creatures based around a specific theme than to add another variation of something we have already. I am tired of "It's a bandit but this one has a longbow, this one has a scimitar, and this one has a shield" and having those be 3 distinct creatures even though they are almost the exact same plus or minus some HP and some stats depending on what weapon they use. "Oh, this one is the captain? What does he get? A shield and 50 more HP." That is boring to me. I would much rather have an entire faction of interesting creatures added like if the bandits were also a cult and each stat block was unique from each other and other creatures in the game. Frankly a subtype of the creature having more creatures within its type then some full types of creatures (I'm looking at you Celestials and Oozes) seems unreasonable to me without explicate lore reasons IE fiends and devils.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
Alright, I can see your point. But the fact that all of them seem to be brutes with Int as a dump stat still stands. There does seem to be some variation with the troll but they all still don't move out of the brutish moron archetype, and they seem to have limited magical ability, for the most part.
I can see where you're coming from. And looking through some of the monsters in world mythology has given some ideas that I might make suggestions next time I do a survey for a UA, assuming they seem to fit that.
Examples of creatures from world Mythology yet to be seen D&D yet:
Vritra: a serpentine demonic dragon from Vedic and Hindu mythology that is basically the embodiment of Gluttony with a body so massive it can coil itself around whole mountains and so dangerous that the story about fighting it involves a literal party of gods being unable to kill it after seriously weakening it, so it's so powerful that even in a weakened state it makes the Tarasque look like a mid-boss. Although, to be fair, this one does technically count as a dragon and a fiend at the same time but I have yet to come across the Fiend Dragon category when it comes to monster types. Still, the idea of a creature so powerful and dangerous that even demons and devils would consider it basically Mutually Assured Destruction for all of creaton if the creature were to set free does sound like something that could be the center of a campaign could prove interesting if it's handled properly.
Leishe: Forest spirits from Slavic folklore that generally hate mortals, are master shapeshifters, are nearly impossible to spot or notice, can make themselves as big as the forest's tallest tree or small enough to hide behind a blade of grass, and require some odd rituals to just get that can get you odd looks from everyone around you (leaving an offering of a pancake out in the middle of the woods or literally stripping off your clothes in the middle of the woods just to put them all on backwards). And that's not getting into some of the things they are known to have actually changed into, they're also known to despise mortals so much you're lucky if they don't decide to just kill you the moment you're in reach.
Nuckalavee: a Celtic monster who has stories that originate from the Orkney Isles that has the nickname "devil of the sea" and looks likes a human torso fused to a horse without skin with proportions in the human parts all wrong, the horse part has the ability to belch out a fetid black smoke that causes a disease that cause extreme sickness, wither crops, and even kill small children outright. Thankfully, running freshwater can keep it at bay but only because it usually dwells in the sea. The mither of the sea keeps it at by during summer and warmer times of the year but when winter comes it will emerge from the sea to wreck havoc and fear.
And that's just some of the more intriguing monsters I've come across as references to in my looks through world mythology.
There's so many options... I wouldn't limit it to just those three. What about the iron toothed vampires, etc? Anyway, they have said they won't hear your suggestions, so just hope they have the same idea themselves.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
Edits: It was brought to my attention that my original phrasing of this post broke forum guidelines. As such, in an attempt to comply with the house rules of our hosts, some minor revisions have been made.
A lot of the “trolls” from Scandinavian Lore that you mentioned are described the way they are because the term “troll” was used more broadly to describe creatures that other cultures called “goblins,” “hobgoblins,” “orcs,” “ogres,” “gnomes,” and a whole host of other names. In some places “goblin” was the catch-all term. In some lore “gnomes” were sortakinda described like a D&D gnome, but in other places “gnomes” were described more like trolls or goblins.
In the UK “elves” were creatures like Dobby, not like Legolas. But in Iceland, “Elves” were very muck like Legolas until Christianity swept across Europe like a wildfire. (And as a point of historical accuracy, and in no way “expressing any opinions or value judgements,” people who resisted were occasionally burned at the stake.) As part of Europe’s conversion to Christianity, all of the pagan creatures that did not fit the Christian narrative were redefined as physically very tiny, so Scandinavian Elves shrunk down to Keebler sized and went and hid “under hill.”
Similarly, the Leprechauns of Ireland who were originally powerful godlike beings part of a pantheon known as the Tuath(a) Dé Danann who overthrew the former “dark gods” known as Fomorians. (Much the same way that the Olympians overthrew the Titans.) But again came Christianity and next thing anyone knew, the Tuath Dé were in turn “overthrown” by the Christian God, and their once mighty King Lugh of the Tuath Dé who could literally interact with the sun itself was somehow cursed at the behest of a mere human priest. He was struck down to a hapless lunatic known as Mad Sweeney, before eventually they were all reduced to tiny little wish granters and poor Sweeney got further belittled and is now little more than a breakfast cereal mascot. (From God savior of all Ireland to cartoon in three easy steps.) That same human priest was canonized as a Saint and is celebrated annually for driving the snakes out of Ireland.
The former “dark gods” from antiquity now appear in D&D named as themselves, but much less powerful, and those once mighty enough to save the world from them are no longer even mentioned. 🤷♂️
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting