|
Post by Parduz on May 7, 2014 4:36:18 GMT -9
Wow... i'm bleeding from my nose by trying to follow all that serious post. I'm not even going to reply Aaron, for what it worths: - your creatures looked like centaurs to me, but i like the name you found - for the poor ppl not owning a cutting machine, i'd recommend to try to design your figures with less "holes" to be cut out. This is the only "glitch" i can see
|
|
|
Post by dungeonmistress on May 7, 2014 6:11:00 GMT -9
Thank you, Parduz, for thinking of us who work sans robo-cutter. But, truth-to-tell, the only thing about not having a robo-cutter is the extra time it takes and the numb and tingly fingertips afterward. A price I am willing to pay to have such wonderful creatures as aaron has created grace my table, and in between games they will have pride of place on my display shelf!
|
|
|
Post by Parduz on May 7, 2014 9:11:40 GMT -9
But, truth-to-tell, the only thing about not having a robo-cutter is the extra time it takes and the numb and tingly fingertips afterward. That's 'cause you have some talent, or at least working fingers About me, once i had neither the cutting machine, neither any skill in cutting tiny parts, i was more frustrated than pleased by the building processing. Now, since i can't buy a pair of decent hands, i bought a cutting machine Still, i emphatize with anyone finding the cutting process not fun, and so i "catch" what's difficult to cut out at first glance (now, this all make seems that i'm impaired, which i'm not. As i said when i was playing keyboards on live shows, the connection between my brain and my hands is lossy and lagging: i just don't have any ability in doing things which requires good manuality )
|
|
|
Post by mproteau (Paper Realms) on May 7, 2014 9:42:49 GMT -9
Amazon's got a deal running on the Cameo for $195 (that's the more expensive one). I think the cutter alone usually goes for $250-$300 US. Just a coincidence that I saw this deal on Amazon today. Not the first time I've seen the price cut on the Cameo.
|
|
|
Post by wyvern on May 7, 2014 11:43:53 GMT -9
I'm writhing this a second time as my first elaboration suffered a windows crash... Oddly so did I yesterday when typing my reply. Stereotype is about what people think/ belive and can be true or false. Which is how you were using the term archetype. "Cultural constructs" are exactly that, which can become stereotypes, which in turn can and do change over time. "Archetypes" are the earliest or original form, which may not be how people later come to view that thing. ...title was mistranslated to English as "Pan's labirynth" had nothing to do with that?... Actually, it didn't. I saw stills of the creature before I learnt what movie it was from, though the name probably reinforced it in my mind, and I then took it as having adopted one aspect of the Pan mythology. Gorgons/Medusa: The Harryhausen Medusa imagery which seems to upset you so much almost certainly derives from one of Medusa's mythological sisters Echidna, who was top half nymph, lower half speckled serpent (see Hesiod, Theogony, 295-305). She seems to have featured hardly at all in ancient Greek art, however. It's simply a modern interpretation to transfer the imagery over, exactly what the ancients did, changing and adapting myths to suit later times, which is why there are no single versions of most myths, just lots of - at least slightly - different ones. The popular Greek Medusa-Gorgon imagery showing the full face only, or a large-headed figure in her specific sort of open kneeling pose, seems to derive from ancient Mesopotamia, where a male figure, Sumerian Huwawa, Akkadian Humbaba, often appears in both forms, most famously nowadays from the Gilgamesh myths, where Gilgamesh, sometimes with his wild-man companion and/or servant Enkidu go on a long journey across the mountains to kill this monster. (Kneeling forms from cylinder seal rollings modernly into clay can be seen here and here - two versions on the latter page, with a Medusa-Gorgon for comparison. Several full-face forms are here, along with other depictions of a possible to probable Gilgamesh, certainly a human hero, figure. Most are uncaptioned, so the identification is often a modern hopeful guess. The two human heroes tackling the large-headed humanoid or the bull - sometimes human headed and/or winged, but often not - seem to fit surviving parts of the Gilgamesh epic, the Huwawa/Humbaba tale, and combating the Bull of Heaven. Some of these hero figures have a similar kneeling form to the "monster". By contrast, at least the first of the full-face images on this page is captioned as Humbaba on its reverse.) Perseus too seems to derive from possibly a Levantine source, given where some versions of his myths are set. Whether the Scythians already used the Medusa-Gorgon imagery before they had much contact with the Greeks is unclear, as they too may have adopted it from Mesopotamia. Whether the full face Gorgoneion motif alone should be classed as the Aegis is unclear. The Aegis as borne by Athena was a, usually fringed or tasselled, goat's skin in some form ( aig or aix = "goat"), to which she added Medusa's severed head as part of the Perseus myth. Greek images typically show this attachment in stylised form as the Gorgoneion, as if painted onto the skin or as something painted attached to it, though sculptures usually have it in low relief or stronger, while the Aegis in art sometimes takes the form of a shield as well. Hyginus ( Astronomica 2.13) gives the unusual variant that Zeus was the original owner of the Aegis, where it was the skin of the goat that nursed him when he was a baby in the cave on Crete, with the head of the Gorgon added to it, and used as charmed, protective clothing to let him defeat the Titans. The Gorgoneion can be taken as a shorthand version of Medusa's appearance on its own in art too, including as a protective charm. There's been much debate as to whether the Gorgoneion always represents the dead Medusa, because she and this full-face image also seem used in a living, mothering, form at times as well, quite at variance with the written myth texts we still have. The wide-spread snake legs on the Vix Crater type images are suggestive of fecundity/childbirth, for example, and while it's tempting to dismiss them as merely decorative designs without mythic resonance, that needn't have been how the ancients would have perceived them (given a sometimes Gorgon-headed, but otherwise fully human form in this kind of "childbirth" pose can be found in some Mesopotamian and nearby art as well). There are no single, simple answers to any of this, because there are no single, straightforward mythic stereotypes which persisted over these very long periods, and we can't often even be sure which connections came from where within a single culture. It's really important not to make judgements about mythology and mythological imagery based on simply a few, or even the commonest, surviving beliefs about creatures and things in this way. The earlier depictions of the Gorgons in Greek art, and some of the surviving myth-elements (such as the names of the three sisters, taking their meanings as epithets), suggest they may have started out associated with the Moon, and perhaps had Moon faces - the circa 700 BC vase on the first "centaur-Gorgon" link page in my earlier posting is suggestive of this too, for instance - and this in turn has links with water and fecundity (because the Moon was believed to help control rainfall, and as the bringer of dews overnight). That centaur-Gorgon design certainly includes elements from Syrian/North Mesopotamian art (especially the tree), yet the centaur is as the earlier Greek centaurs appear in art - a human attached to a horse's hindquarters by the backside - suggesting whatever its origins, it had been adapted into their mythos by the Greeks. This form of centaur does not seem to appear in Mesopotamian art at all, only variant types like the later Greek kinds, albeit from about the mid first millennium BC onwards, where they may be winged, and sometimes have a scorpion tail too. So Splinterwood Tiger can look like an elephant, and Splinterwood tiger should rather look more like a tiger? Why not? But for ease as an outsider, you could just call the second version a tiger (if you were from Splinterwood, the terms would be reversed of course, because that stripy orange-and-black creature definitely isn't a "normal" tiger!). Dragons: Not quite certain how you manage to reinterpret the OED dragon definition into quite so distinctly reptilian a form, given the general lack of consistency in how dragons have been portrayed in European art through time. Gustave Moreau's painting of St George killing the dragon (for example, on Wikimedia Commons) shows a serpent-tailed giant eagle with a lion's front legs and claws, which can really be classed as a dragon only because it's being killed by St George! This is a particularly extreme case, but if you hunt through as many artistic depictions of just Saints George and Michael as you can find (because both were dragon-slayers, so whatever the creature looks like, it's supposed to be a dragon), you'll find creatures with avian features - like feathered wings and body areas, legs, claws and beaks - canine heads and bodies, leonine heads, bodies legs and claws, serpentine heads, tails and bodies, lizard or crocodile-like heads, bodies, legs and claws, bat wings, and with no, two or four legs, as well as occasionally other features, sometimes not particularly definable. (Wikimedia Commons is a good starting place.) And that's only the European dragons connected to two saints! As you say though, this is getting us a long way from the topic in-hand, and perhaps if others beyond Cowboyleland (Shoutbox) aren't finding these discussions of interest (sorry Parduz), we should stop here, or switch to PMs. Maybe we need a "Dislike" button for such occasions
|
|
|
Post by mesper on May 7, 2014 13:00:00 GMT -9
As you say though, this is getting us a long way from the topic in-hand, and perhaps if others beyond Cowboyleland (Shoutbox) aren't finding these discussions of interest (sorry Parduz), we should stop here, or switch to PMs. Maybe we need a "Dislike" button for such occasions Ad. STOP / DISLIKEno, no, no way - not in this case - very interesting discussion and one of the most involving for me in fact! IMHO such discussions brings some additional flavour to our hobby and works as value-added advantage for the whole site. =>>>Perhaps squirmydad could in such cases remove some posts and create separate thread? BTW This newly-created/separate thread could be the one of the "pinned" threads, kinda "living" thread and good reading for both interested ones and newcomers - there was at least couple of similar discussions already (orcs, elven and dwarf-oriented discussion etc.) - but these are here and there split among many threads and so returning frequently. =>>>So maybe some sort of FANTASY CREATURES DISCUSSION sub-board? Just asking?
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 7, 2014 14:28:25 GMT -9
As much as it's hijacking my original thread I think what you guys are saying is worth reading and it's giving my all kinds of ideas for creatures that will inhabit both Splinterwood and Kell Fallien I will be sure to use as many Cliche stereotypes and give them all the wong names just to drive madarchitect crazy !! ok not really ... well maybe a little LOL
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 8, 2014 4:36:58 GMT -9
three down two to go
|
|
|
Post by dungeonmistress on May 8, 2014 6:50:32 GMT -9
Good Morning, aaron! I just love your Kl'cari, although; there is just one very minor change I'd make to the first one (what is her name? The one on one hoof), it appears that her navel is just a bit too high. If you place her navel one full space below where it is now and add a line of shading from her solar plexus down to her navel (new position), I think you'll see what I mean. That line of shading will emphasize her strength, making her look more formidable and at the same time more feminine. Other than that, I'd say she's perfect!
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 8, 2014 7:48:38 GMT -9
hummm well spotted I will give it a look see! in the mean time 4 down one to go !
|
|
|
Post by madarchitect on May 8, 2014 7:51:15 GMT -9
Encouraged by Aaron's, Cowboyleland's, Mesper's opinions I dare to continue . For Parduz and others of too fragile health to handle such brutal discussion I can offer only a virtual handkerchief (for nose blood) or a following warning: "Reading further can seriously damage your mental and physical health, is not advised for children under age of 65 and can hamper your ability of driving mechanical vehicles" Proceed at your own risk. Which is how you were using the term archetype. "Cultural constructs" are exactly that, which can become stereotypes, which in turn can and do change over time. "Archetypes" are the earliest or original form, which may not be how people later come to view that thing. Hmm. There must be a lexical diffrence... . How I understand (and use) it Archetype is a root-pattern or motif (more or less clear) for (sometimes copy-like or sometimes quite distant) derivatives that benefit (in a semiotic way) from reference to the source, not necessarily earliest or original. For stereotype it is not a mandatory condition, as the source for stereotype is (often biased) conviction, also stereotypes can refer to general convictions (E.G. "Black cats bring bad luck") while Archetypes don't. I'm not sure if I'm capable enough in my English do describe the difference as I see it. As original/ earliest form of most things is often elusive or obscure there must be very little cultural archetypes in English anthropology/ history of culture, apart of well documented so relatively young motifs? I think we should leave it here as it is actually offtopic to an offtopic. Actually, it didn't. I saw stills of the creature before I learnt what movie it was from, though the name probably reinforced it in my mind, and I then took it as having adopted one aspect of the Pan mythology. All fantastic creatures in this movie are creepy as they refer to an even creepier reality. I never thought that You were actually misled by the title - It was just a friendly taunt . Erudition sometimes play tricks on erudite. Gorgons/Medusa: The Harryhausen Medusa imagery which seems to upset you so much almost certainly derives from one of Medusa's mythological sisters Echidna, Yep. And Lamia is another possible source. I never questioned that you can't find inspiration for snake tailed monsters in classical mythology. I just believe that intentional confusing them (that is Medusa/Lamia/Echidna) further than they are confusing in source material is a bad thing. For you it can be OK, because you know the difference anyway, for most people who don't know or don't care Heracles looked (only) like Kevin Sorbo and wore trousers. Loosing mythology for pop culture IS a bad thing IMHO (it may even leads to Twilight:P ) Apart from that it changes little in question of Medusas tail, I can't disagree with the rest of what you wrote about Medusa/Gorgons. If I were to look for Mesopotamian source for Gergon/Medusa image I would think Pazuzu rather than Humbaba. Both (Gorgon/Pazuzu) are monsters/demons, looking a bit similar and both with certain "protection of childbearing" trait. As for Gorgoneion=Aegis I believe we will not solve that conclusively, as it seems wiser men can't agree on that . As for Vix crater we have three possibilities, a depiction of actual "complete" creature (unlikely IMO), grotesque decorative ornament with popular motif, alegorical/symbolical depiction of creature or some more abstract idea or force. I'm leaning to a mix of the latter two, but we will not solve this either. Why not? But for ease as an outsider, you could just call the second version a tiger (if you were from Splinterwood, the terms would be reversed of course, because that stripy orange-and-black creature definitely isn't a "normal" tiger!). Because it is confusing without any purpose. Folklore confusion you mentioned earlier usually had a certain reason, narrative, moralising (within narrative "not everything is what it seems"), apotropaic sometimes, and as such is usually justified or explained as "confusion in fact" -the audience is aware it has been confused. Confusion for the sake of confusion is pointless, it is not creative, it does not help the audience. Dragons: Not quite certain how you manage to reinterpret the OED dragon definition into quite so distinctly reptilian a form, given the general lack of consistency in how dragons have been portrayed in European art through time. Gustave Moreau's painting of St George killing the dragon (for example, on Wikimedia Commons) shows a serpent-tailed giant eagle with a lion's front legs and claws, which can really be classed as a dragon only because it's being killed by St George! This is a particularly extreme case, but if you hunt through as many artistic depictions of just Saints George and Michael as you can find (because both were dragon-slayers, so whatever the creature looks like, it's supposed to be a dragon), you'll find creatures with avian features - like feathered wings and body areas, legs, claws and beaks - canine heads and bodies, leonine heads, bodies legs and claws, serpentine heads, tails and bodies, lizard or crocodile-like heads, bodies, legs and claws, bat wings, and with no, two or four legs, as well as occasionally other features, sometimes not particularly definable. (Wikimedia Commons is a good starting place.) And that's only the European dragons connected to two saints! Actually I don't care much for definitions. It is just an attempt to synthesize somehow with words a rich and diverse deposit of imagery. As You often mention snake-Drakon as (one of) the source of dragon motif in general, I think you will agree than Snake of Eden (sometimes=Satan sometimes=other "general evil") is another pretty solid source for dragon motif especially in christian/religious imagery. St. George defeats dragon=evil, Archangel Michael defeats dragon=Lucifer/Satan, St. Mary stands on/ tramples dragon=Snake of Eden specifically=Original Sin ~=Satan. If you look through the images of Snake of Eden you will notice it is often depicted wit legs/claws of some kind (avian or mammalian). It was a common belief that snakes lost their legs as a punishment by God. Artists trying to imagine how these pre punishment proper snake legs should look like reached for various inspirations in world around them, genetic correlation between reptiles was not obvious so avian or mammalian legs were as good as any. Also medieval bestiaries depict sometimes quite common snakes or vipers with dog-like or avian-like heads. These snakes and these dragons are not so far apart. Modern stereotypical dragon is based on heraldic image - as heraldics has the property of keeping graphic motives pretty unchanged through centuries. If you compare some red pottery Greek Drakon with modern Smaug they may not be that similar but if you look for the big picture they all fit a certain pattern-archetype. aaronYou will not drive me crazy. I'm taking it cold as Yeti. However following this path you should expect thread hijacking and other acts of virtual terrorism:))
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 8, 2014 9:05:56 GMT -9
All fixed! Kl'cari names all mean something like sky or tree or emotions like happy or Joy that sort of thing. One hoof is the squad leader her name is Mk'ali it means Fierce. even as a little girl she had a propensity to pick fights and later to defend others from bullies. now that she's in her 4oth decade (Kl'cari)on average live for about 300 to 400 years so 40 is just a teenager as far as the Kl'Cari are concerned, she is the leader of a troop. they are charged with the protection of the sacred glade of Isuada (the Elder spirit of winter). Isuada doesn't commune with the Splinterwood elves like the other Elder spirits. She remains aloof and enigmatic but acts Harshly and without mercy on any attempting to enter her glade unbidden. She enacts her wrath upon all who enter and all who should have stopped them but didn't. so it is left to the glade guards to protect the forest from the wrath of Isuada. In a very strange moment Mk'ali found herself in the presence of Isuada somehow she was taken away from everyone. they spoke for what seemed like days but when she was returned no one knew she had ever gone. when anyone asks Mk'ali what Isuada told her she just smiles and walks away. Mk'ali , EllaSaph and two others are the only known Splinterwood residence to have seen Isuada and survived to tell about it. There are three other Elder Spirits Eldufice the hunter. he is the elder spirit of Summer. Unlike his aloof and dangerous sister he is often seen wandering the deepwoods well away from his protected glade. He holds an annual feast on the hill in his galde to which he invites all to attend. the party lasts three days starting on the summer solstice. the revelry and debauchery that is had in those three days is legendary across the continent and meriting an invitation to such an event is worth a kings ransom. Though Eldufice wanders the woods and is likely to speak to mortals he is not ever to be taken lightly. he is as cruel as he is benevolent and only one man can talk to him as a true friend king Tanelarell. They seem to have a kinship that goes beyond friends and enters into the idea that they might even be siblings on some level. the approach of Eldufice is Always heralded by his hounds. the mighty Baoui hounds come crashing out of the glade howling and snarling. If Eldufice is in a good mood his hounds will be playful and benevolent if Eldufice is on the hunt his hounds will be silent and focused on hunting down whatever it is Eldufice is after. when they find it Gods help them because no one else will. Loathill the Elder spirit of the spring is like her siblings a double edged presence. It is difficult to look at Loathill as she is beauty personified and though she can be full of mirth and life if she can bring storm crows and terror in it's most pure form. of the three Loathill is the most mysterious and moves through the forest out of her season. she has appeared in winter and even been seen helping Durinsill walk his lonely path. though much diminished in her appearance out of season she is no less deadly. Loathill has from time to time take a mortal lover though it is rare and when this happens that lover is never seen again. where they have gone to no one can say. it is clear that where ever it is they still grow old and die because there are three gravestones in the center of Loathill's glade that constantly bloom with bright yellow flowers that turn blue when it rains. Durinsill the Elder spirit of Autumn. He is the oldest of the 4 and quite possibly the first of the Elders. His mind is buried deep in the past and far into the future. he speaks in riddles and metaphors. he has the sole of a poet and a fierce love of the Splinterwood. Durinsill doesn't have a glade like the other he has the path. It starts in the deepwood and where it ends no one can say. any who have attempted to walk the path have visions so powerful they are driven to madness. Durinsill is sometimes seen as a young boy staring into the sky but most often he's seen as an old man bent over his walking stick and ambeling down his path to an unknown destination. there is a story about the elder days before the first age when the Ekudoamni attacked the forest and the Elder spirits were called upon to protect their children the Splinerwood elves. It is said that it took all three Isuada , Eldufice and loathil to focus the energy of Durinsill into a young warrior.In those days Loathill was fun and knew nothing of fear or terror, Isuada spoke freely with her children and Eldufice would dance. For the first time Durinsill left his path and took on the name Worldbreaker. The power he unleashed nearly killed every living thing and even today there are only a handful of Ekudoamni left in the world they are a scattered and cursed people. never again will they have an empire like they once held. Once the Elder spirits learned what they had done it took the combined power of all the splinterwood residence to release the energy of World Braker and where he stood in that moment there is still a crater that can not be completely filled. in a catastrophic flash World Breaker was again Durinsill, Old and broken and now lost. it was Loathill who returned him to his path and walked with him to it's end. She was never the same after that. when she returned she had a bleakness and carried with her storm crows that she now keeps with her at all times. It was shortly after that Isuada walked the path when she returned she spoke to no one and hid herself away for centuries now she is only wrath and cold. Eldufice has been invited to walk the path with Durinsill but he has refused. his love of the splinterwoods is to great and his love of life and mirth will not allow it. Eldufice can be seen speaking with Durinsill from time to time but always he refuses the path. this is Eldufice the others are coming ! madarchitect Bring on your terrorism I love it! you and Wyvern are quickly becoming some of my favorite people.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 8, 2014 11:05:45 GMT -9
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 8, 2014 11:40:44 GMT -9
pavaro sorry I didn't mention earlier I don't have any plans on doing any undead though the idea is intriguing, they have been done to death! ( get it ... done to DEATH ... ok ok it wasn't that funny. ) so unless I can find A way to make necromancy New and interesting I probably won't.
|
|
|
Post by dungeonmistress on May 8, 2014 12:37:40 GMT -9
Encouraged by Aaron's, Cowboyleland's, Mesper's opinions I dare to continue . For Parduz and others of too fragile health to handle such brutal discussion I can offer only a virtual handkerchief (for nose blood) or a following warning: "Reading further can seriously damage your mental and physical health, is not advised for children under age of 65 and can hamper your ability of driving mechanical vehicles" Proceed at your own risk. ...... aaronYou will not drive me crazy. I'm taking it cold as Yeti. However following this path you should expect thread hijacking and other acts of virtual terrorism:)) ROFL, madarchitect, or I would be if I didn't such a headache (not caused by this discussion - which I find interesting, educational and entertaining- what more could I want?). aaron, Good job with Mk'ali's navel (love her name), and the rest are beautiful, too. BTW: I love your stand! That is inspired! Will it work for all of your Splinterwood denizens thus far? Have you thought of some sort of tree spirit? with a forest so fiercely protected, it seems only natural to include some kind of tree creature (ent-like, but not ent, if you know what I mean), as a matter of fact I think someone else has already suggested something similar...Ah! Yes it was wildagreenbough. So it seems the throngs (both of us!) are demanding this from you, so you'd better get busy , my friend!
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 8, 2014 13:13:02 GMT -9
I'm all over it !! as soon as I finish the Dragon and the 4 Elder Spirits .... here's a quick preview of Eldufice and the sketch of Isuada
|
|
|
Post by dungeonmistress on May 8, 2014 13:21:44 GMT -9
All your Splinterwood weapons are fabulous, but that sword is...wow! can't wait to see more...
|
|
|
Post by wyvern on May 8, 2014 15:52:49 GMT -9
Madarchitect: Regarding archetype/stereotype, your confusion over the use of these terms isn't surprising, as in some modern English usage, there's become a tendency for the two to be regarded almost as synonyms. Part of the problem is as you identified - As original/ earliest form of most things is often elusive or obscure there must be very little cultural archetypes in English anthropology/ history of culture, apart of well documented so relatively young motifs? - that is, the effective debasement of "archetype" because tracing origins is so problematic. I think we should leave it here as it is actually offtopic to an offtopic. Indeed Gorgons/Medusa: ...Lamia is another possible source. Yes, this puzzles me rather, because Lamia only seems to have appeared in this form - female head, arms and torso on a serpent's tail - relatively recently. The earlier Greek myths don't seem to give such a description, and the one Greek source that is sometimes quoted in support, as also on the Lamia Wikipedia page, Antoninus Liberalis' Metamorphoses, actually describes her only as a "great and prodigious beast", although apparently one unable to defend herself against her eventual conqueror Eurybarus, who, without fighting her at all, was able to drag and carry her from her cave, and fling her down the hillside to her death (see pages 58-59 of Francis Celoria's English translation, published by Routledge in 1992, and also the notes on pages 128-130 - the book is freely available in PDF format here). Even John Keats' 1819 poem "Lamia" described her as a serpent with a woman's mouth and possibly eyes, albeit there she was a transformed nymph, yet this too is used on the Wikipedia page in support of her half serpent, half human form - the poem is available on the Bartleby website, for example. Echidna at least always seemed to have been given a demi-human/serpent-tailed appearance, and was immediately related mythologically to Medusa. I just believe that intentional confusing them (that is Medusa/Lamia/Echidna) further than they are confusing in source material is a bad thing. For you it can be OK, because you know the difference anyway, for most people who don't know or don't care Heracles looked (only) like Kevin Sorbo and wore trousers. Loosing mythology for pop culture IS a bad thing IMHO (it may even leads to Twilight:P ) Yes, I can sympathise, as I too used to get upset over this in my earlier dealings with various mythologies and how modern culture represented them, but eventually I came to the realisation that all myths are simply stories, and they change and adapt with every fresh generation, and always have, so there isn't one version which needs "protecting" over any other, because those who are really interested enough will always go back to the earlier source materials. For those who aren't so involved, at least this way, the myths continue to live on in a new form, and remain able to enthuse and excite many more people, some of whom may then decide to investigate further. This is how I started as a youngster, discovering photos of Greek and Roman mythological sculptures at about the time I first encountered C S Lewis' "Narnia" books, which included modified mythological creatures. So, it worked for me! I always thought Heracles (called Hercules there, of course) was Nigel Green (1924–1972) anyway ( Jason and the Argonauts movie from 1963; Wikipedia page here) If I were to look for Mesopotamian source for Gergon/Medusa image I would think Pazuzu rather than Humbaba. Both (Gorgon/Pazuzu) are monsters/demons, looking a bit similar and both with certain "protection of childbearing" trait. What little is known of the demonic god Pazuzu suggests few traits in common with Medusa, by comparison to Huwawa/Humbaba, either in terms of powers, mythology or iconography. A few modern commentators have suggested a possible link between some of the iconography of the evil goddess Lamashtu and Medusa (though I find this unconvincing), and it is in connection with Lamashtu that Pazuzu's protective powers towards pregnant women are most apparent, in the form of a bronze model of his head worn as an amulet. However, Pazuzu also seems to have been considered beneficial against diseases brought by Lamashtu. The stone or metal plaques showing such images have Pazuzu chasing Lamashtu back to the Underworld, but on these, the patient is a man on a bed in the surviving examples, not a woman in childbirth. Despite their brevity, the Wikipedia pages for Pazuzu and Lamashtu do cover most of what can be established, the Pazuzu page with a good photo of a cast bronze model of him from the Louvre, the Lamashtu page with three photos of a complete Lamashtu plaque, again cast bronze from the Louvre (although unfortunately, none - even the additional ones on Wikimedia Commons - show the reverse, where you could see the back of Pazuzu's body - as he holds up the plaque, his face and hand-paws peeping over the top). For a couple of examples of this back view, and other Pazuzu models/fragments, try this page instead. Confusion for the sake of confusion is pointless, it is not creative, it does not help the audience. But this is what happens in reality. People misinterpret or misunderstand something that is told to them, names and descriptions become attached to things regardless of their "true" ones. You only have to look at the medieval bestiaries to see that, so in this case confusion can be creative, particularly when used for gaming purposes. Dragons: Actually I don't care much for definitions. It is just an attempt to synthesize somehow with words a rich and diverse deposit of imagery. And yet you want to very tightly define and proscribe other mythological creatures and their appearances... As regards the Eden Serpent, there are certainly plenty of other dragons and draconic creatures you could examine. I featured the two saints in my comments simply because I used their iconography nearly twenty years ago when carrying out an analysis of what features had appeared in these definite dragons from medieval to modern times, and still have the statistics from the published article easily to-hand! And lastly, many thanks to everyone who expressed support and encouragement for our hijacking of Aaron's topic! It's great to know such discussions are of interest, and if you're enthused enough to go dragon-hunting across the Web (other monsters and mythological creatures are available too!), good luck. Maybe next time we should start a separate topic though
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 8, 2014 16:25:10 GMT -9
wip
|
|
|
Post by wildagreenbough on May 8, 2014 16:34:55 GMT -9
All your Splinterwood weapons are fabulous, but that sword is...wow! can't wait to see more... I completely agree Aaron, I love the 'fluff' you've written concerning the four nature spirits and I love the names you've chose for the Kl'cari. Will you be adding their names to their bases? Yay! - you're going to create artwork for Tree Spirit folk, - I just know that it's going to be fabulous. Yes the Undead have been pretty much done to death (love that pun). The only way to make them interesting is to theme them closely around a particular historical event such as the lost Ninth Legion returned to do battle, or the 300 Spartans or something similar. Egypt has been a bit too much worked over these days to be as interesting as it used to be unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 8, 2014 18:01:02 GMT -9
Thanks I'm glad you like it, I hadn't thought about putting their names on their basses but I suppose I can if you realllly want me to. here's a sketch of the Dryads ... I think I can use that name ....
|
|
|
Post by wildagreenbough on May 8, 2014 18:27:09 GMT -9
Wonderful, I love your Dryad sketch Female, but absolutely feral and wild.
|
|
|
Post by dungeonmistress on May 8, 2014 19:20:14 GMT -9
Oooooo! She's... wildagreenbough is right, she's feral! Very nice. Yes, please do put their names on the bases, that would be great! I noticed, aaron that you didn't answer my question about the base you show with the hero figure. I like it very much and wondered if that same base would work for your other Splinterwood creatures, or would you be making bases for each of them separately?
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 9, 2014 2:53:56 GMT -9
Sorry I missed that question let me address it now. yes it will work but it's to big I think, I can shrink it down and put it on a sheet so you can print 10 or so at a time. or you can use the ones I made for Temporum oblitus they are a bit more fiddly but they look nicer and have more weight in the center ... I don't have any grass ones but I can make some later here's the desert I did a while back.
|
|
|
Post by dungeonmistress on May 9, 2014 6:45:01 GMT -9
Thanks, aaron, those are great! Oh, my player's are in for a real treat, I can tell you that! And all because you lost a bet! One more item for your list of awesome Splinterwood goodies: Trees, actual trees, because: "You can have a forest with the what, Kowalski?" "Ah, the trees, coach?" May I suggest a variety of evergreens and deciduous trees, with areas in the branches for characters/creatures to hide/perch? I really hope to see you turn the whole Splinterwood world you are creating into a game of it's own, or at least a segment (complete with mini's), that can be dropped into almost any system. I think it will be a big hit! You know I will tell all my friends about it, if you market this. All this hard work shouldn't be for naught. Again, thank you, aaron.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 9, 2014 8:06:12 GMT -9
its not , im making good on a bet and you like it soooo i'm good
|
|
|
Post by dungeonmistress on May 9, 2014 10:43:00 GMT -9
Like it? I love it! But, seriously, I meant what I said about marketing all this. Yes, I know, you have T.O. in the works, and that's beautiful, too. However this is nearly complete and you have such a rich background to go with it...well, why not run with it? I feel certain that the Splinterwood world would have huge appeal. And you could make a few bucks, too!
|
|
|
Post by madarchitect on May 9, 2014 10:56:46 GMT -9
Gorgons/Medusa: Echidna at least always seemed to have been given a demi-human/serpent-tailed appearance, and was immediately related mythologically to Medusa. Echidna "mother of monsters" is sometimes mother and sometimes "sister" of the Gorgons. ("Sister" as the three Gorgons are usually referred to as "three sisters" without mentioning any other siblings). Other offsprings/relatives of Echidna includes Ladon, Lernean hydra, Nemean Lion, Cerberus, Khimaira, Dragon of Colchis, Sphinx, Scylla, Eagle of Caucasus and others... Genealogy can hardly be any evidence for image of any perticular beast, although I admit that reptilian "genes" seem dominant in the family. Yes, I can sympathise, as I too used to get upset over this in my earlier dealings with various mythologies and how modern culture represented them, but eventually I came to the realisation that all myths are simply stories, and they change and adapt with every fresh generation, and always have, so there isn't one version which needs "protecting" over any other, because those who are really interested enough will always go back to the earlier source materials. For those who aren't so involved, at least this way, the myths continue to live on in a new form, and remain able to enthuse and excite many more people, some of whom may then decide to investigate further. This is how I started as a youngster, discovering photos of Greek and Roman mythological sculptures at about the time I first encountered C S Lewis' "Narnia" books, which included modified mythological creatures. So, it worked for me! Every myth evolves that's truth, I don't question nor fight that (despite you may think I do). However when you read "Narnia" books the creatures were modified but not beyond recognition right? Lewis used the fact that terms such as faun, centaur, and others had quite clear graphical connotations (I think clearer in his times than now). I could compare Mr. Tumnus, Del Toro's Faun, roman fauns, and include satyrs for good measure as a source for fauns (as all are more or less different) and argue for one against another but it is not the case. Examples mentioned above are what it depicts IMHO a myth living on and continuing. The form changes but connotations and symbolism remain at least similar. When you substitute a name for something completely different the myth dies and only name remains. Name is sometimes enough to enthuse and excite people but it not equals myth. Anyway I expected your stance and I can respect that (hoping for another discussion ) But this is what happens in reality. People misinterpret or misunderstand something that is told to them, names and descriptions become attached to things regardless of their "true" ones. You only have to look at the medieval bestiaries to see that, so in this case confusion can be creative, particularly when used for gaming purposes. In reality it was usually a result of ignorance or at least scarcity of information/sources. In age of internet you can hardly complain for scarcity of information (rather an overflow of crap info), and you will not convince me to advocate ignorance even for its creative power . But jokes aside I think for gaming purpose keeping the archetypes (or stereotypes if you prefer but very broadly understood) is more useful as it spares GM/author the effort of explaining that an Elephant is not a camel, and when inventing a new creature giving it a new name is always more creative. I think you'll agree (at least with the latter part). And yet you want to very tightly define and proscribe other mythological creatures and their appearances... A (two legged ) man with some goat features is hardly tight definition IMO. Some motifs handle distortions better than others (e.g. dragons are a broader category than fauns IMHO). It depends also on how tight is tight. Is seems my tight is actually looser than you imply , but you would rather prefer to delete "tight" form equation completely. And lastly, many thanks to everyone who expressed support and encouragement for our hijacking of Aaron's topic! It's great to know such discussions are of interest, and if you're enthused enough to go dragon-hunting across the Web (other monsters and mythological creatures are available too!), good luck. Maybe next time we should start a separate topic though . I can only join You in your thanks, though I believe such discussion would not have taken place in a thread "intended for the purpose". In the end it is all up to personal choice I guess. (As my enforcement battalions are still forming ) Some arguments are above to be considered and we both remain where we stood . Thanks Wyvern for great discussion. The next indeed should spam another thread . "...Wyvern and madarchitect bow low. Lights are dimmed. Curtain goes down. Applause still shake the hall..." (Or not :>)
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 9, 2014 20:00:13 GMT -9
wip
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 12, 2014 17:40:09 GMT -9
The Splinterwood elves love racing as I have said and nothing gets their blood pumping like a good Jara Jara bird race. it's very common for outsiders to get the Jara Jara confused with the common Jara bird though they are close cousins they are not the same bird. the Jara Jara bird is the fastest land animal on the continent and can run unburdened up to 75 MPH. so the riders of the Jara Jara have to have amazing reflexes and quick wits. The Female Jara Jara Bird is a domestic creature and will never stray far from the nesting area. all racing birds are males which makes for an interesting time as they are completely territorial and will not stand the company of another male this includes Splinterwood elves. This is why all the riders have to be females the Jara Jara birds will attack any male trying to ride them. the only thing that the elves like better than watching the races is betting on them. and now you can to! here's how it works. Elves will bet money or mostly favors on a bird then if the bird wins they get double their bet if they loose then they have to pay up. place all the racers on any number and roll the dice what ever number comes up then move that bird one space forward which ever bird crosses the finish line first is the winner.
|
|