|
Post by wildagreenbough on May 4, 2014 7:32:42 GMT -9
Some kind of Tree spirit or Tree kin folk is pretty much compulsory in any Wood Elf army. Um I don't want to be picky or anything, but that Faun looks more like a Centaur to me. Nothing wrong with Centaurs mind you, I've used them in my own Elf armies and no doubt will continue to do so in the future.
|
|
|
Post by wyvern on May 4, 2014 7:53:47 GMT -9
But you haven't seen the SplinterWood Centaurs yet, Wildagreenbough - they might have six or eight legs... Or maybe I've just got too caught up with Dan's Spawn of Shub-Niggurath minis elsewhere on the CWF - "hey boys, sounds like the cavalry's here; argh, no, it's not, SAN rolls everyone..."
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 4, 2014 15:38:33 GMT -9
though it's true that splinterwood Fauns lack a certain petitness that are found in Fauns from other regions of the world, this is due to the fact that they are more commonly related to the Genus Cervus rather than the common Odocoileus (elk rather than a common whitetail.) The Splinterwood Fauns have developed an almost Amazonian quality to them taking on many distinguishing traits such as the females grow antlers and unlike many Cervus they don't shed them at any time. The antlers will keep growing as time goes on and the Fauns are actually quite proud of them. This difference in breeding also gives way to a more fierce nature rather than a sexual one. It is this Fierceness that the splinterwood elves have come to rely on. in fact the splinterwood elves have integrated the fauns so deeply into their society that it is not uncommon to find them in every part of the elf social structure. Though the Splinterwood Fauns are larger and more aggressive than their lesser cousins they are no less Fauns and to call them a centaur would cause them to grind your face into the dirt. It is an offence akin to asking a non pregnant woman if she is expecting any day now. Centaurs live in the southern plains and, in the fauns opinions , are no where near as graceful, smart and beautiful as a Splinterwood Faun. this would be like saying humans look like chimpanzees (though true on many levels and I have known some chimps that were better than most people ) most humans would take the comparison badly. LOL here's a second wip of the fauns .... I'm up to 3! just 2 more and then the back sides and I will be done with them!
|
|
|
Post by wildagreenbough on May 4, 2014 18:26:32 GMT -9
I stand corrected and apologise for my Centaurist comments.
|
|
|
Post by wildagreenbough on May 4, 2014 21:50:12 GMT -9
But you haven't seen the SplinterWood Centaurs yet, Wildagreenbough - they might have six or eight legs... Or maybe I've just got too caught up with Dan's Spawn of Shub-Niggurath minis elsewhere on the CWF - "hey boys, sounds like the cavalry's here; argh, no, it's not, SAN rolls everyone..." The Spawn of Shub-Niggurath is seriously disturbing I like the Splinterwood Fauns, they are a perfect fit for a Wood Elf army. I love their wild and furious energy which Aaron's artwork has captured perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by pavaro on May 4, 2014 23:29:24 GMT -9
This is amazing! Great colors and dynamic poses (brave because one with fauns holding up themselves on one hoof). In spite of all it all give powerful effect. Congratulations!!!! Will be something in undead style in future?
|
|
|
Post by madarchitect on May 5, 2014 0:00:05 GMT -9
though it's true that splinterwood Fauns lack a certain petitness that are found in Fauns from other regions of the world... They don't lack petitness, they are quite gracefull. They lack faun defining features while having some centaur defining. Regardless of animal you will relate them with it is the proportion that matters not the species. Call me a fascist if you like but I hate when people mess up terminology (especially intentionally)! There are some mythological creatures that handle well extreme deviations as they are not strictly defined(vide elves or dragons), but others like almost all classical mythology creatures are so strictly defined that it IMHO should not be messed with. Otherwise it spread ignorance. It is such thinking (Plus the old clash of the titans movie) that made most people think that medusa had a snakes tail, or that vampires are some sad adolescent emo creatures longing to be understood by equally rejected college girls. (Ok vampires are not quite classical creatures but it is an extreme example how ignorance/pop-culture ruins an archetype). Fauns should look like fauns, and centaurs like centaurs (and they varied greatly but in detail and not overall shape) otherwise use of the name is IMHO not justified, regardless of invented mythology. Using the name is a reference to a mythological source, if you use it wrong you blur the source. If you invent a new creature invent a name for it instead of stealing it from an existing archetype thus watering down the archetype itself. Classical education is anyway already in decline why put your own hand to its demise? Apart from all that the miniatures are really great Aaron. I really love dynamism of your miniatures. P.S. Returning to bambi riders. Im not bothered that they are sleek and fragile. It's that they are sweeeeeeeeeet instead of feral that annoys me. They have an older a stag mounted lord that looks much better.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 5, 2014 2:55:00 GMT -9
First I would never call you a fascist that's just rude LOL Second I completely agree with you about the sweetness of the bambi riders they do have a sense of Sugar gooey that is kind of annoying. you almost feel bad when my Beast Gores rip them apart and eat their flesh! consigning them into oblivion... almost LOL Also classical vampires stories started with the ancient egyptians and are demi gods of their pantheon. It is after Set is brought before Ra for the Murder of Osiris that he is banished to the deserts never to stand in Ra's presence again and he must sustain himself off of the blood (mortal agent) of lesser creatures. Set wanders the desert until loneliness compels him to make others like himself. They are called sleepwalkers and only the scratch of a cat can kill them. thus leading to the really bad book by Stephen king. I can't actually say that though, as I never read the book I only saw the movie and it was really bad. Soo in that sense even Nosferatu is a deviation from the "classical" Vampire. Really though if you look at any type of Fantasy creature it's just a construct of human nature to create a shape the world around them. to say that any fantasy creature is correct over any other would be fixing to a certain time. if you were standing next to a philistine of the ancient world they would think you were a Hobbit or something. you would call them a Giant. but are you a hobbit ? no your a human (I assume) I mean maybe you are a Hobbit and I'm completely ignorant of it ... which would be freaking awesome btw over time all things evolve and change to fit the needs of the time that's what fantasy is at it's core. otherwise it fades and goes away. How much coolness have we lost to the oblivion of time because the stories were considered "classical"?
|
|
|
Post by wyvern on May 5, 2014 6:52:08 GMT -9
Trying to identify the "true" appearance of monstrous creatures in earlier mythologies is fraught with difficulties, largely because earlier cultures often had very flexible views themselves as to what the creatures were and could do, so there are no "fixed classical" forms of any, beyond fairly broad classes - of the sort that has giants as taller than most normal humans, say. The vampire, as a dead-but-still-living human creature which lives off the blood of other humans is difficult to trace with any certainty before the early 1700s AD in southeastern Europe, despite various earlier claims, mostly because this was the period when oral folklore started to be recorded in writing in earnest. The Egyptian Set-lore seems largely to have derived from the modern novels of Anne Rice as far as I recall, but there are creatures with apparently vampiric traits in forms we might now think of more typically as demons or spirits found in earlier mythologies back into the millennia BC - such as the Akkadian lilitu and ardat lili of ancient Mesopotamia (more modernly confused and conflated with the biblical Lilith - who features in Isaiah 34:14, though the name is not always translated thus; sometimes as "the lilith" instead, and sometimes the goats in the same passage are given as goat-demons or satyrs. Lilith is also to be found in some non-biblical early Jewish traditions). Medusa, following the majority of complete depictions of her in surviving early ancient Greek art, should be humanoid, with an often over-sized head, her ghastly, monstrous face (commonly with a heavily fanged mouth) ringed with serpentine hair, and with large wings sprouting from her back. However, some texts - Hesiod's Theogony, for instance - suggest all three Gorgon sisters may have had water links, so that would infer in people's minds the possibility they had fish tails, often depicted as serpentine in ancient Greek and Roman art. The Gorgons' parents from Hesiod and some later writers, were Phorcys (sea-god, upper half man, lower half serpentine-fish-tail) and Keto (whose name translates as "sea-monster" or "whale"). Medusa's head alone commonly features in much Classical art, given Perseus beheaded her, where it can have wings at the temples, and snake hair, the snakes sometimes tailing off below where the neck should be, so from this shorthand form in art, giving her a serpentine tail more modernly is actually not that unreasonable. Plus there are numbers of creatures in Greek myths, female and male, which have serpent tails for legs (sometimes one, sometimes two). The ancient Roman fauns and their linked deities Faunus (male) and Fauna (female) were apparently commonly thought of as part human male, part goat creatures, typically with just two legs, although in some cases the "goat" element might simply be small head horns and a normal human form otherwise. For the ancient Romans, they rapidly became conflated with the earlier Greek satyrs, although satyrs from the start had a largely male human form, but were more animal-like in their heads, with long pointed ears (a little like a donkey's), long beards, and often long hair, with, usually, a long horse-like tail. Despite such differences originally, it's become difficult to separate the two modernly. Centaurs in their earliest Greek depictions were humans with a horse's hindquarters attached at the backside, only becoming the centaur we might more modernly recognise - human upper torso, head and arms, joined to a horse body, tail and four legs where the horse's neck should be - somewhat later. Their faces were often depicted as nearly identical to the satyrs. So, I'm right there with Aaron is believing all such things change and evolve over time (and even within their original cultures), and am very happy the Splinterwood Fauns should look a little like the later Greek centaurs, but with almost stag-like antlers (I bet it takes them ages to get their hoods on in the morning over them though - or maybe they've already invented Velcro?). As long as people understand what a given noun means, it doesn't really matter what said noun began life as meaning, after all
|
|
|
Post by dungeonmistress on May 5, 2014 7:47:34 GMT -9
I will abstain from the discussion of faun vs centaur (being Sagittarius, it should be obvious where my particular prejudice's lie), except to say that as always, aaron's artwork is spectacular and dynamic. Your "fauns", aaron, are pretty, graceful, elegant, surly, dangerous, strong and proud. I like them very much, regardless of you call them. I can't wait to see the completed set!
|
|
|
Post by madarchitect on May 5, 2014 9:39:31 GMT -9
Ok, to set some things straight Where i refered to classical creature, depiction, education etc. I did that in this sense I never said that there is some "one and only" or "true" image of any creature, but there are more or less clear archetypes and the names denote these archetypes. There is an archetype of minotaur, (despite the fact that there are thousands of different depictions), and because of this archetype when you hear "minotaur" you think "a man - two legs, two arms, one torso - with (one) bull's head". And because of this archetype a man with a boar or elephant head is not a minotaur. If you will insist it is, you severe ties with creature of myth, you lose connotations, you destroy archetype, kill the myth, strip the name of its meaning. When you see Guillermo del Toro's faun in his labyrinth you do not need to be told it is a faun (despite being completely different from classical depictions) because it follows a set archetype of a faun (that is a man - two legs, tho warms single head - with goat features). There is an archetype of centaur, and that is why it came to wildagreenbough's mind that they look like a centaur and not a faun. Of course the image evolves (you can look through 2000 years of evelution of a centaur E.G.), but the archetype holds, because it is the archetype that hold the meaning. Regarding the image of classic mythological creatures I agree with Wyvern completely. But of all people You (Wyvern) should know best where attempts to derive creatures image from it's genealogy can lead . Vague water links in classic mythology do not necessarily imply snake or fish features of any kind - bull was holy to Poseidon e.g. If you know any description or depiction of Medusa with snakes tail Predating Clash of the Titans I'll recall everything. As long as people understand what a given noun means... This is what I'm trying to point out. Calling something is understandable if it follows an archetype. Would you think of Splinterwood Fauns as fauns, if they were not named such by Aaron? I highly doubt. Would you rather think more of centaurs (like wildagreenbough). I'll risk a statetement you would. You can accept the fact that someone names a were-boar a minotaur but it will not make it a minotaur. I can accept (as You did), that Aarons (great) creatures are named Fauns, but it will not change the fact that they have more in common with centaur archetype, almost nothing with faun archetype. Their name is misleading for anyone familiar with faun archetype. I just believe that such original creatures deserve an original name(to perhaps become a fantasy archetype on their own one day), and there was no need to refer to creatures that they share very little with.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 5, 2014 12:01:37 GMT -9
ok first the hooding ceremony is very important to the splinterwood Fauns, it's part of their indoctrination into the fraternity, and can take hours (there are hidden buttons on the inside of the hood so it wraps around the base of the horns.) any Faun not wearing a hood is in mourning over a lost loved one like flying the flag at half mast or their really hot and don't want to wear it either way.
madarchitect I totally see your point and i'm right there with you, Also by your definition my Elves don't look like the Tuatha dé Danann or the even older elven legends of the ancient nordic cultures that predate written history in Europe. My elves follow more of a Tolkien ideology and my superfluous creatures are following the mythos of Warcraft III so really were seeing quite a modern flair on them. wildagreenbough you right They do look a lot like centaurs but thought I added enough differences that they would be distinguishable, I guess that's because you aren't seeing them next to a centaur ... I will have to do that now so everyone can see the difference.
Ultimately I think (and note that this is my opinion and not to be taken as a manifesto on the correctness of fantasy literature and gaming )but I think that if the story tellers establish the physics and names of the world and creatures in the story it really doesn't matter what they are called. I think that any and all creatures should be taken and molded to the tellers ability and style thus creatures of the old world can be reborn like a phoenix in new and unique forms, inspiring and sparking the imaginations of people for years to come. there are many forms of Dragons and yet they are all called Dragon. who's to say which one is correct. So my fauns look more like centaurs than satyrs does that make them wrong or just a different spin on an old tale or legend.
dungeonmistress I would love to hear your opinion on the matter. you to wildagreenbough everyone has two cents and if we put them all together we may come up with a dollar!
|
|
|
Post by wildagreenbough on May 5, 2014 12:28:17 GMT -9
Eek, I've sparked off controversy and lengthy discussion! As I mentioned I've used Centaurs in my Elf armies particularly those that were Wood Elf or heavily nature connected. The minis I used were some very old she-Centaur sculpts formerly marketed by Amazon Miniatures who had purchased the moulds from somewhere. They were tiny, standing no taller than a normal Elf and I converted them with green putty and various wicker shields and weapons castings (mostly Essex and Eureka I think) to be quite feral with feathers in their long plaited hair and painted them to have white clay smeared faces and warpaint. Opponents used to laugh at them because they were so small standing on their cavalry bases, - that was until they got mauled by them. (Not the best photo) I called them Feral Forest Centaurs because I figured that your usual large horse sized Centaurs wouldn't do so well in dense woodlands. The sculpts are a bit static and old fashioned, but I like them and wouldn't part with them. When I saw Aaron's Splinterwood Fauns I instantly loved them because they were very much in the spirit of my little Feral Centaurs, but with wonderfully dynamic vivid energy. I completely agree about the Vampire thing by the way. I have never seen the Twilight movies or read the books and I have no intention of doing so.
|
|
|
Post by madarchitect on May 5, 2014 13:34:20 GMT -9
Also by your definition my Elves don't look like the Tuatha dé Danann or the even older elven legends of the ancient nordic cultures that predate written history in Europe. My elves follow more of a Tolkien ideology and my superfluous creatures are following the mythos of Warcraft III so really were seeing quite a modern flair on them. Your elves follow an established archetype of "tolkienesque/DnD and derivatives" elf. Not all archetypes are ages ancient you know . It is a common understanding of the name that makes an archetype not fixed lexical definition. Mythological (celtic or nordic) elves were so vaguely, inconsistently or uncharacteristically described that they created no strong visual archetype. Shakespeare created some sort of an elf archetype that was most common for a few hundred years, but it was pushed to the margin by strong tolkienesque version. Dragons follow an archetype: big lizard like monster with optional wings, number of legs, often fire spitting (for common western tradition). Regardless of diversity of dragon forms you can always tell a dragon from a sphinx right? And both dragons and sphinxes come in a variety of forms, but there is a set of traits that mark them as a dragon (or dragon like) or sphinx (or sphinx like). Usually when a storyteller uses a name connected with an archetypical creature he uses the power and meaning of the archetype, and classical mythology creatures are some of the strongest and most uniform archetypes not only in fantasy but in western culture at all. You wish to call them fauns, it is your right as an author. It is just the word faun is meaningless in case of Splinterwood Fauns because it does not describe them. They sure can be called fauns, why not, but you need to further elaborate or provide an image to show that you do NOT mean a two legged goat-man hybrid. Otherwise no one would know that you mean beautiful sleek, horned, deer-women hybrids of centaur-like proportions. Your Fauns are not reborn, but born as unique, original, inspiring creatures, and I just cannot see a reason of why should they not sparkle imagination and inspire people for ages to come under equally unique, original and inspiring name. It takes more than will of an author to change an archetype - global exposition and recognition is required (and I wish you both ) Anyway that is enough ranting on my part. I promise (or no I don't... ) Show us more of Splinterwood menagerie.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 5, 2014 17:48:57 GMT -9
I hope the reason that I call them fauns will be more evident with more of the Splinterwood creatures that are in the works. Also I will add a centaur next to a faun so you can see the difference... not that they are super different but hopefully you will see it. if not I will cry and be very sad LOL And I still have to finish that dragon! on top of it all my son turned 15 today !! I survived the day but I'm going to have to really work out if I plan on making through his 16th birthday. I don't know why but it's making me feel veeeery OLD .... between making pancakes , sushi a double layer cake and going to the movies and avoiding all Niko's Party pals there was 14 of them! I didn't get much done today ... all I could do was sketch out this last faun in the parkinglot of the movie theater .... maybe this defensive position is really my subconscious cry for help! LOL their all gone now ... I never realised how precious silence really is
|
|
|
Post by dungeonmistress on May 5, 2014 18:29:25 GMT -9
Their name is misleading for anyone familiar with faun archetype. I just believe that such original creatures deserve an original name(to perhaps become a fantasy archetype on their own one day), and there was no need to refer to creatures that they share very little with. OK, just remember, aaron, You asked for it! I have to say that I basically agree with everything madarchitect said, especially the last part quoted above. Here's why: In comparing fauns to centaurs you are trying to compare apples to oranges. You can't do because they are fundamentally different. The only way in which they are similar is that they are both fruit. A faun has the head arms and upper torso of a man and the hind quarters and antlers of a deer or sometimes a goat like creature. A total of 4 limbs. A centaur has the head arms and torso of a man and the whole body (except the head and neck) of a horse like creature (sometimes a unicorn or Pegasus). A total of 6 limbs, not counting very rare wings. And now let us look at your beauties: I count 6 limbs and antlers! They say a picture is worth a thousand words. I hope this helps. In closing let me quote madarchitect again: "I just believe that such original creatures deserve an original name(to perhaps become a fantasy archetype on their own one day), and there was no need to refer to creatures that they share very little with." You have such a vibrant imagination, aaron, I know you can find a name better suited to these gorgeous creatures you made, without having to change them or their story. Post Script: Without saying anything about them, I showed your "fauns" to my husband. He's not big into mythology, but his first words were: "Lady centaurs, nice br____s!" )Obviously, he's not a leg man! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 5, 2014 19:11:36 GMT -9
LOL that was awesome ! and I have learned in my 20 years of blissful marriage not to argue with a lady! I would just add one final note on the matter, the splinterwood elves don't really have a preset story i'm just making this up on the fly with each new post LOL and if the overall consensus is not to use the term Fauns then who am I to argue with the teaming mobs of my adoring fans! ... you know ... both of them... LOL so we shall call them something else .... hummmmmm how about Klecari (it's Elk backwards with the beginning of Caribou)better?
|
|
|
Post by wildagreenbough on May 5, 2014 19:33:57 GMT -9
Klecari, - I like that. It's a really good name with a nice fantasy ring to it without being over the top or silly. Definitely gets my vote.
Whether it's a species name or a tribal name it doesn't really matter because it's their name. In fact I might start calling my wee she-Centaurs 'Klecari' from now on whenever anyone pokes fun at them for being so small.
By the way I like the pose of the Klecari in your sketch. It's very original in that a defensive pose like that is rarely seen with minis.
Teenagers? - yes they can be pretty intense. My two are in their late twenties now with my daughter soon to be thirty later this year. That's when you really start to feel old.
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on May 5, 2014 20:15:29 GMT -9
YEAH! for birthday parties, 15 year old boys and the dads that make them possible. (My boys are 15 and 11 and I have been celebrating my 47th for five whole days now, so I may be biased.) I love klecari and expect them to ROCK the multiverse from this time forward. WOOT!
|
|
|
Post by dungeonmistress on May 5, 2014 21:08:20 GMT -9
Klecari! I approve!
I remember when my kids were that young. I still can't believe I survived! They are 32 & 28 now. Boy do I feel old!
|
|
|
Post by squirmydad on May 5, 2014 21:10:17 GMT -9
Klecari, yep, that's a keeper. My son turns 15 this July and I'll be taking him and his pals to a paint-ball range, should be exciting.
|
|
|
Post by mahotsukai on May 6, 2014 7:14:04 GMT -9
Not to be pedantic, but I think you'll find that only the Mannish races pronounce it 'Klecari' the correct pronunciation being Kl'cari. The glottal stop is apparently difficult to master.
'The strong bond between the Splinterwood Elves and the Kl'cari is partially down to the fact that only the elves have been able to master the intricacies of the Kl'cari language.' The Splinterwood and it's Denizens by Romtador the Sage. Published in the 433rd year of the 3rd Empire.
These are wondrous and intriguing miniatures, with a unique back story. Thank you for these.
|
|
|
Post by wyvern on May 6, 2014 7:17:49 GMT -9
I never said that there is some "one and only" or "true" image of any creature, but there are more or less clear archetypes and the names denote these archetypes. However, you seem to be using "archetype" to mean "stereotype" here, that is, something whose form has become (relatively) fixed in one particular, popular way (whether by chance or design), rather than one in its earliest or original form. When you see Guillermo del Toro's faun in his labyrinth you do not need to be told it is a faun... Actually, I did. I assumed it was meant to be a version of Pan, because of its deliberately frightening appearance, quite unlike the typically more pacific Classical-period Roman fauns. If you know any description or depiction of Medusa with snakes tail Predating Clash of the Titans I'll recall everything. Well, I'm sure you won't wish to agree, as none are replicas of Ray Harryhausen's 1980s AD Medusa interpretation from that movie, but you may care to check out the following, which are suggested as dating mostly to the circa 6th-5th centuries BC: 1) The cast metal Vix Krater, now displayed at the Musée du Châtillonnais, Châtillon-sur-Seine, which has a pair of Gorgon-decorated handles, whose widespread legs extend from beneath her skirt as a pair of large serpents, best-seen via the images on Wikimedia Commons; 2) A similar Gorgon-decorated cast metal handle now in the British Museum, London, but best-seen in this blog image; 3) A ceramic "shorthand" version on the same theme from the Louvre Museum, Paris, where two low-relief moulded serpents extend from the bodiless neck of a bearded Gorgon face, on the Theoi.com website; 4) The apron of a fragmentary male statue from Idalion, now in the Neues Museum, Berlin, which shows a Gorgon head with two pairs of long serpents dependent from it, like arms and legs, the "feet" serpents winged, Egyptian style, which can be found among a more general discussion of ancient Gorgon imagery beginning halfway down the linked page on the My Favourite Planet website, but a much higher resolution image is on Wikimedia Commons. While hunting around online to find suitable images, I also came across two other unusual Gorgon depictions which may be of interest, a curiously calm "centaur-Gorgon", with a scaled (? armoured?) horse body, being killed by Perseus, in low-relief, archaic Greek style, at the bottom of this page, among other Greek Gorgon imagery, but a somewhat better resolution image is the fourth photo down here instead, while the second page of Gorgons on that first site has an interesting serpentine fish-tailed Gorgon that has leonine front legs and clawed paws, a metal artwork of Scythian origin. ...Splinterwood Fauns...have more in common with centaur archetype, almost nothing with faun archetype. Their name is misleading for anyone familiar with faun archetype. I just believe that such original creatures deserve an original name... That really depends how caught up by such stereotypes you are. I think it's important to appreciate these are called Splinterwood Fauns (proper noun), not "fauns" (ordinary noun), which deliberately different name immediately tells you these may well be different to what you might generally expect of the term "faun", following the common stereotype. The fact they aren't following that stereotype makes them far more interesting to me, and fits nicely with naming conventions elsewhere, in folklore for example, which often deliberately circumvent expectations by using one term to mean something else. On those grounds, the name is sufficiently original, though I doubt we'll agree on this point either Dragons follow an archetype: big lizard like monster with optional wings, number of legs, often fire spitting (for common western tradition). Oh dear no! There isn't a "common western tradition" for dragons as such, although the term "Western dragon" is frequently used to separate it from the "Eastern version" which latter, based on the Chinese models, is usually perceived as being beneficial, compared to the more negative connotations often associated with draconic creatures in, for example, Europe. What constitutes a dragon in Europe has changed markedly over the centuries, such that the Oxford English Dictionary currently defines "dragon" as meaning: "A mythical monster, represented as a huge and terrible reptile, usually combining ophidian and crocodilian structure, with strong claws, like a beast or bird of prey, and a scaly skin; it is generally represented with wings, and sometimes as breathing out fire. The heraldic dragon combines reptilian and mammalian form with the addition of wings." This is somewhat vague, but you'll know one when you see it - probably! However, the earliest version in English (now considered obsolete in modern usage) followed more closely the Greek original drakon: "A huge serpent or snake; a python."
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 6, 2014 12:36:58 GMT -9
mahotsukai That's FanTastic!! you're hired! ok so one down 4 to go ! conceptualising her in reverse was one of the hardest things I have had to so so far ... the angles were crazy and I have found that foreshortening doesn't really work in paper models so I'm trying to avoid it, but on something like this it's almost unavoidable. I would love to incorporate other peoples ideas into the SplinterWood elves and just let people go crazy with them. here's what I have so far. In this the 433rd year of the 3rd Empire the SplinterWood is a continuous deciduous forest that takes up almost half the western continent. It spans from the foothill region of Larguins Pass to the coast of Shemel apnning some 1800 miles across and nearly twice that distance long. It's size is due in part to the fact that no outside race is permitted to settle there. Humans, Centaurs and other sentient life are drive out with untamed ferocity by the Splinterwood Elves. The Splinterwood elves are the hart and sole of the mighty Splinterwoods. The Elves are Broken into 9 distinct sub-tribes all hailing allegiance to the 10th and ruling Tribe. All Splinterwood Elves recognise Queen EllaSaph and her Husband King Tanelarell they have ruled over the whole of Splinterwood for as long as anyone can remember and are many centuries old however they are described as young by all who know them. This is in part to their life force being tied to the forest itself and in terms of a forest they are just babies. Queen Ellasaph is not only Dragon Kine but has an affinity with all the denizens of the forest Except those who dwell in the deep place. The Deep Place is the last remaining stronghold of a sickness that afflicted the forest in the time of first Empire. The sickness first seeped into the woods and was described as a rot that caused madness and elves turned on elves even the most docile creatures were twisted and broken by the sickness. the Denizens of the Deep are twisted elves and broken beastmen and Kl'cari driven to madness along with many other forms of creatures unleashed on the world in this time of crisis. The Splinterwood elves spent decades fighting the "turned" Soon it was discovered how the sickness was passed and they were able to isolate it and eventually the Splinterwood elves drove the Denizens of the Deep back to their stronghold and now keep them in check. The 4th tribe of Splinterwood elves sits on the doorstep and never rests against the assault of the sickness. They send The Vigilant among the other tribes to watch for signs of sickness. soon they will mount an offensive and strike into the heart of the deep and attempt to destroy the sickness once and for all. When this happens the Forest will finally heal and the wood elves will turn their eyes to the great Island nation of Kell Fallien where their Dark Kin live and Queen Erassabeth sits upon her obsidian throne stroking the brow of her son and champion Prince Galithose. From their she casts her evil magic out into the world to afflict all who will not bend to her will. it was shortly after the sickness was discovered that the black ships of the Kell were see upon the shors Shemel marching into the forests and claiming land as though they had the right to the land and not the other way around. they times their attack poorly as nature is always stronger than one might think. the remnant of the splintewood elves Drove the Fallen to the shores and burned their ships as they tried to flee. From that day on The splinterwood elves have closed the forest to any outsider and will drive out anyone with the same firosty. Once the SPlinterwood elves have regained the Deep they will remind Erassabeth what happens when you anger mother nature and Launch an attack on the Fallien they will not soon forget if their are any left to remember. The splinterwood elves are not all war and wild, they enjoy social gatherings and games. Racing is a particular favorite of the elves both large and small. It is this affinity for racing that has lead to one of the longest and deadliest races in all of the known world. large tracts of forest have been devoted to The Great Race held once a year. all Participants will start at the southern border of the forest and have two days to reach the northern border of the forest passing many obstacles and traps laid to slow them down. the contestants only have 48 hours to get some 2600 miles. It is not a race for the light hearted and many have died from the exhaustion of it. winners are treated as heros. Another game that has become a national sport is something called Gathem. In the common tongue of the Splinterwood elves Gathem means Wet. The game is something to behold and will be described in full details in my next entry.
|
|
|
Post by wildagreenbough on May 6, 2014 13:15:31 GMT -9
Oh I love good 'fluff' (history) for a race of fantasy people When I was still working as a social worker I had the privilege of attending a short course on community mental health presided over by a wonderful African psychiatrist. His people's native language contained many glottal stops and he entertained us greatly by demonstrating how these were used in everyday speech. If you didn't grow up speaking his native tongue those glottal stops would be just about impossible to master for most Westerners so on that basis I very much agree with the change of name to 'Kl'cari'.
|
|
|
Post by madarchitect on May 6, 2014 13:32:13 GMT -9
Ok let's' hijack this thread one more time .;0 I'm writhing this a second time as my first elaboration suffered a windows crash, and I forgot half of what I wrote:) But hopefully it would make this easier to read:) However, you seem to be using "archetype" to mean "stereotype" here, that is, something whose form has become (relatively) fixed in one particular, popular way (whether by chance or design), rather than one in its earliest or original form. Stereotype is about what people think/ belive and can be true or false. Archetype (in an anthropological sense or "as I use it") is about recognition (recognisability?) of a cultural construct in this case an image of a mythological creature. Archetype cannot be true or false it either works (it IS) or not (it is NOT). However reading what you wrote I'm starting to think that there is a slight difference in meaning of both therms in Polish (in which I think) and English in which I (am trying to) write. Not sure though. Actually, I did. I assumed it was meant to be a version of Pan, because of its deliberately frightening appearance, quite unlike the typically more pacific Classical-period Roman fauns. And the fact that the title was mistranslated to English as "Pan's labirynth" had nothing to do with that? Kidding. Pan was not depicted as frightening. He used to frighten animals as a mischief or amusement and it was this sudden, animalistic stroke of fear in livestock that was the origin of "panic fear" and not a particularly monstrous image of a deity. Well, I'm sure you won't wish to agree... I wish to agree very much, but I won't because its too much fun . A great set of depictions, It was worth to stir the thread just to see those , but none of them justify snake tailed Medusa. Vix Krater handles are IMO just a grotesque decoration with Gorgon motif. (grotesque in Vitruvian or Renaissance sense). You must be always careful when interpreting architectural or utilitarian sculpture, the border between motif/depiction and ornament is often blurred. The centaur Medusa is very heavily influenced by Levantine art. Are you sure it is not an import? This gorgon resembles more mesopotamian monsters than anything related with Perseus. The Scythian hybrid is very curoius, whether it supposed to be a Gorgon/Medusa we will never know, it could be as well some traditional Scythian monster depicted following greek art patterns which was very common. Medusa's head with dangling snakes (regardles if resembling legs, arms or whatever) in classical art does not represent Medusa, but Aegis and invoke apotropaic (or in general protective) power of Athena (usually). Recreating the image of Medusa basing on a head and a bundle of snakes is a misunderstanding. It can lead to interesting effects but neither of them would be Medusa. The snake tailed Medusa (and with a rattlesnake tail !?!) lies in a twisted mind of some Clash of the Titans concept artist, and general ignorance of classical themes of the wide audience (that simply could not discard it as nonsense) made it (IMHO unfortunately) into a fantasy archetype. That really depends how caught up by such stereotypes you are. I think it's important to appreciate these are called Splinterwood Fauns (proper noun), not "fauns" (ordinary noun) [...] I doubt we'll agree on this point either So Splinterwood Tiger can look like an elephant, and Splinterwood tiger should rather look more like a tiger? If so - Let there be discord! Oh dear no! There isn't a "common western tradition" for dragons as such, although the term "Western dragon" is frequently used to separate it from the "Eastern version" which latter, based on the Chinese models, is usually perceived as being beneficial, compared to the more negative connotations often associated with draconic creatures in, for example, Europe. What constitutes a dragon in Europe has changed markedly over the centuries, such that the Oxford English Dictionary currently defines "dragon" as meaning: "A mythical monster, represented as a huge and terrible reptile, usually combining ophidian and crocodilian structure, with strong claws, like a beast or bird of prey, and a scaly skin; it is generally represented with wings, and sometimes as breathing out fire. The heraldic dragon combines reptilian and mammalian form with the addition of wings." This is somewhat vague, but you'll know one when you see it - probably! However, the earliest version in English (now considered obsolete in modern usage) followed more closely the Greek original drakon: "A huge serpent or snake; a python." But there is! Not a tradition of dragons but one of dragon depictions. I'm not speaking of some strict definition or pattern but a broad yet (relatively) consistent set of traits that while not all mandatory imply a dragon. Traits I mentioned were just most common examples. It incorporates both (early/original) serpent form dragons (being it Greek Drakon, or Python or nordic Orms) and (later) more extravagant forms. They share common cultural space and function (not identical but similar) and evolve one from another. They all originated from a monstrous serpent or reptile creature, and retained some of this original resemblance. As for Eastern Dragons. Calling them such is a missatribution of name by lazy westerners (Myself guilty at times). It is easier to call them dragons than learn or explain what they are exactly. But still it makes some sense because there is some resemblance to archetypical dragon. Anyway were getting far from the subject of this thread. You believe it is justified to use a name regardless of connotations. I believe it is pointless. But there is actually no conflict here, and Klecari (Klecaries?) are much better than Fauns
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 6, 2014 16:35:29 GMT -9
Kl'cari two down three to go
|
|
|
Post by wildagreenbough on May 6, 2014 17:12:36 GMT -9
Brilliant
|
|
|
Post by dungeonmistress on May 6, 2014 17:52:19 GMT -9
The phase of my game will have my heroes traversing the Osta Alba Forest. I think they will meet a troop of your wonderful Elves and Kl'cari! Oh, this is going to be fun! Thank you so much, aaron!
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 7, 2014 2:35:32 GMT -9
Osta Alba ? is that any relation to Jessica Alba? can you get her autograph for me!? I wanna forge some checks LOL ( I never did understand the whole autograph thing) sooo what then Osta Alba is what your people call the Splinterwood? LOL
|
|