Mythology, Lore, and Speculation.

[Niji]

Is anyone a buff on the mythological sciences, fauna, flora, etc, and interested in having speculative discussions on the topics, I am collecting ideas for the RPG I will be making after I finish this other project.

Alternatively we can use this thread to post what little we do know about fantasy lore!
Things like: Hey pixies are not faeries are not sprites.
And the fae are DICKS.


This topic is for game creation/world building mythos/in universe workings. And I would like to keep it on topic as such for Manual/Biblical Purposes.

EDIT: And just to clear it up, I am looking to have discussion/speculation as well as the supply of information on word of mouth or legends of the past mythology of the fantasy/mythological sciences and its flora and fauna (and other in the case of otherworldly/unnatural things). Mythology information IS BEST HANDED DOWN by word of mouth/stories you were told/events you "witnessed"/old musty tomes you found inside that tree/Surprisingly well maintained leaflet you found in a ring of mushrooms with a dragonfly's wing left on it/etc.

[DjinnAndTonic]

Things like: Hey pixies are not faeries are not sprites.

Wait wait... they're not? Is there actually a definable difference?

[NotMiki]

First thing to acknowledge is that words change meaning over time, as do fairy tales.  You're not gonna get a once-and-for-all definition of any mythological creature, but you can discuss what a creature's important characteristics have been, how those characteristics have changed in different times and settings, and what to make of those changes.

[Lady Door]

First thing to acknowledge is that words change meaning over time, as do fairy tales.  You're not gonna get a once-and-for-all definition of any mythological creature, but you can discuss what a creature's important characteristics have been, how those characteristics have changed in different times and settings, and what to make of those changes.

Yes please.

It's fine to define Your World's Version of fairy creatures, but don't try to pin down any "authentic" version. They're like a language of themselves, and they come with regional dialects and off-shoots just like spoken languages.

[Meeplelard]

Gonna have to echo the "you won't get an exact answer" thing.

Just to give a simple example, Dragons:

A large number of civilizations across the world have Dragons in their Mythology, Lore, Folktales, etc. (Egypt is one of the few that DOESN'T, go figure)   There's no real origin of it, you look at sources for Dragons based on multiple different areas, be it actual Dragons, or things that strongly resemble Dragons (I think Mezo Americans didn't actually say they were Dragons, but they had depictions of monsters, dieties, etc. that were very similar to Dragons, so its close enough), you'll get various different answers.

Heck, just Japan vs. China have different interpretations.  While they look the same, I seem to recall Japanese Dragons have 3 toes, while Chinese Dragons have from 3 to 5 depending on the status of the person wearing the robe (I think only the Emperor was allowed to wear robes with 5-toed Dragons), and both have their own explanation for this (This is from recollection, so might be futzing details):

The Japanese claim that a Dragon is born with 3 toes, and then migrates west towards China once it matures, growing the other 2 during its journey.
China says the opposite; the Dragon is born with 5 toes, and during its journey east towards Japan, it loses 2 toes.

Likewise, the nature of them as well, like European Dragons have wings and breathe fire, while Asian Dragons lack wings (though still fly through magic and what not), and breathe some sort of "Mist of Life."


Yes, this is a very broad example, as Dragons are some of the most universal fictional creatures across cultures, but there is no single origin for them, and each culture has their own interpretation.  This can be applied to various other mythological creatures, naturally.

[Lady Door]

I do want to point out that I'm interested in the project you're proposing. Just want to manage expectations.

[Niji]

I do want to point out that I'm interested in the project you're proposing. Just want to manage expectations.

Excellent so what do you know?



Also ignoring all the not on topic posts everyone else made >.>

[DjinnAndTonic]

My post is completely on-topic! Are we not discussing mythology?

I've personally always been a fan of Lion- and Dog-based mythological creatures. It's always fascinating to see how many different brands of Canine and Feline monsters the ancient (and video game) world was able to convince themselves must exist.

I think Fairy-like mythological beings are probably my least-favorite. Hey! Listen! Don't add any Fairies to your project.

[Niji]

My post is completely on-topic! Are we not discussing mythology?

I've personally always been a fan of Lion- and Dog-based mythological creatures. It's always fascinating to see how many different brands of Canine and Feline monsters the ancient (and video game) world was able to convince themselves must exist.

I think Fairy-like mythological beings are probably my least-favorite. Hey! Listen! Don't add any Fairies to your project.

LOL No the fae will be in it, they are total dickbags they need to be a whole arc in the game hahah.
YEAH FORGOT TO RESPOND TO YOURS. The basics is as follows: Sprites may or may not have wings(varies from individual and species) and are aspects/avatars/guardians/helpers of nature, usually they are spawned from trees/flowers/other plants and etc, they can usually meld into such things as well.
The Fae/Fairies: Total dickwads, often known as changelings, they reproduce by swaping out their child with yours, they live in a world partially in phase with our own(though thats debatable based on the mythology it may also work like: If you beleive you can see them if you don't you cannot), They come in a variety of shapes and sizes the small ones usually have wings while its rare for human sized ones to posses such unnessicary things, They are dirty little fuckers that manipulate things to their advantage, they have a huge ordered society involving courts of the seasons and certain other phenomena, the list goes on from there how complicated they are, very passionate and emotion driven creatures as a whole but some courts do not practice the feeling of emotions. Pixies are mischievious little things, they are the ones responsible for the "rings of mushrooms" they have actual magical powers in the form of hypnotizing forever dances, and some manipulative arts, responsible for the deaths of many humans who trespass into their territory though it isn't their intention to kill you just make you dance forever because its "fun" they are very amoral, or perhaps blue/orange morality.

Tl;dr
Sprites: Nature Spirits, not particularly magical in nature though can meld with what spawns them etc. Not well known but very pervasive they usually help flowers bloom etc.
The Fae: Power hungry cunts with an ordered society or hierarchy, Fairly magical beings(hence the term fairly XD). May or may not exist in our world/out of phase most of the time, popularly known as "changlings." full of many different varieties.
Pixies: Mischievous devils, most well known for their dangerous "pixie rings" which is a ring of mushrooms. Very magical especially in the manipulative arts and dance(basically stuff to cause mischief). Very little variety in species, these are the critters most commonly associated as a "fairy" in american mediums, but they are unrelated to the fae. They must psychically hide, etc. Tinker Bell was a pixie NOT a fairy just to give an example. Well known for their Pixie Dust as well.

[Idun]

Morphological humans/giants in Nordic Prose Eddas who happen to maintain control over their transformed elemental state. Hræsvelgr (t. eagle) assumes position @ edge of the world to create the natural 'wind currents' for everyday life. Víðópnir (t. rooster) an emblem of the rejuvenation that light affords the world, though he oddly does not sit on Yggdrasil. We all know about Loki. Ótr, a dwarf that could transform into anything supposedly, but more standardly into aquatic life: otter as a mnemonic device perhaps. Discrepancy with Nordic Dwarves as hypersexual, tricky and inclined towards evil doing (not so far from 'older' non-Nordic dwarves), and the transformation of dwarves into the mainstream as nature-helpers. Though I feel it's safe to agree that dwarves, more often than not, are considered inhuman for moral or creationist purposes and their abilities compared to human abilities are only stifled by their psychological underdevelopments.

Morphological humans/giants in general is a transcontinental concept developed in many non-Western cultures as well. I'd cite several African examples, but it's too tied into even 20th century beliefs that it would be an injustice to simply consider them as 'myth.' Performances re-animate the divinities through the activation of the human body and spiritual transformation, which would lead a Westerner to believe it's simply for show, though native audiences believe otherwise. I think it's interesting how significant morphological transformation is in several cultures (not simply being half-half, but a whole embodiment of 'x'), but how it seems that the popular understanding of such transformation is generally a curse by which nature claims over man and vice versa these days.

Also, circuses. Pre20th-century American circuses were pretty gruesome and unkept similar to popularly-known 'circus' during ancient Roman times presenting only displays of animal stock. Pepin is widely known now as the 'traditional' circus of bravado and Cirque du Soleil opts for a purposely superficial displays instead of a true false reality. Thinking along the lines of Sarah Baartman and the disgusting portrayal of her physiognomy only to deify her as the 'authentic' representation of an African female whose existence depends primarily on primitive life and unnatural proportions. Not for hottentot, Mikhail Bakhtin is an important author on the subject that NotMiki and LadyDoor just backed: philosophy of language, and not specifically scientific. Also François Rabelais.

Different iterations of sirens: mermaids, winged 'bard'ettes, eel and then it should follow logically about Biblical Lilith, Adam's supposed first wife made from earth as well. Her name is now appropriated for several different things like shows, gaming, and new creation myths. In short though, a water "spirit" or any morphological transformation of a female with an aquatic-ish or bird-ish inclination can potentially be considered a siren today (including succubi). Isn't there an X-Men character named after some sonic abilities that sirens have? If anyone has any biological understanding of the reproductive capacities of any iteration of those sirens besides the clear - has sex with human by luring them succubus-style -, do share. Alls I know as a kid is that Ariel's daddy had always been there. [=

[Niji]

Morphological humans/giants in Nordic Prose Eddas who happen to maintain control over their transformed elemental state. Hræsvelgr (t. eagle) assumes position @ edge of the world to create the natural 'wind currents' for everyday life. Víðópnir (t. rooster) an emblem of the rejuvenation that light affords the world, though he oddly does not sit on Yggdrasil. We all know about Loki. Ótr, a dwarf that could transform into anything supposedly, but more standardly into aquatic life: otter as a mnemonic device perhaps. Discrepancy with Nordic Dwarves as hypersexual, tricky and inclined towards evil doing (not so far from 'older' non-Nordic dwarves), and the transformation of dwarves into the mainstream as nature-helpers. Though I feel it's safe to agree that dwarves, more often than not, are considered inhuman for moral or creationist purposes and their abilities compared to human abilities are only stifled by their psychological underdevelopments.

Morphological humans/giants in general is a transcontinental concept developed in many non-Western cultures as well. I'd cite several African examples, but it's too tied into even 20th century beliefs that it would be an injustice to simply consider them as 'myth.' Performances re-animate the divinities through the activation of the human body and spiritual transformation, which would lead a Westerner to believe it's simply for show, though native audiences believe otherwise. I think it's interesting how significant morphological transformation is in several cultures (not simply being half-half, but a whole embodiment of 'x'), but how it seems that the popular understanding of such transformation is generally a curse by which nature claims over man and vice versa these days.

Also, circuses. Pre20th-century American circuses were pretty gruesome and unkept similar to popularly-known 'circus' during ancient Roman times presenting only displays of animal stock. Pepin is widely known now as the 'traditional' circus of bravado and Cirque du Soleil opts for a purposely superficial displays instead of a true false reality. Thinking along the lines of Sarah Baartman and the disgusting portrayal of her physiognomy only to deify her as the 'authentic' representation of an African female whose existence depends primarily on primitive life and unnatural proportions. Not for hottentot, Mikhail Bakhtin is an important author on the subject that NotMiki and LadyDoor just backed: philosophy of language, and not specifically scientific. Also François Rabelais.

Different iterations of sirens: mermaids, winged 'bard'ettes, eel and then it should follow logically about Biblical Lilith, Adam's supposed first wife made from earth as well. Her name is now appropriated for several different things like shows, gaming, and new creation myths. In short though, a water "spirit" or any morphological transformation of a female with an aquatic-ish or bird-ish inclination can potentially be considered a siren today (including succubi). Isn't there an X-Men character named after some sonic abilities that sirens have? If anyone has any biological understanding of the reproductive capacities of any iteration of those sirens besides the clear - has sex with human by luring them succubus-style -, do share. Alls I know as a kid is that Ariel's daddy had always been there. [=

OMG OMG OMG OMG yessss you are the girl duunie! this is the kinda stuff i am looking for ! thank you!

[DjinnAndTonic]

Agreed. That was a really interesting read. I want more of your views on Norse mythology in general.

In response to your question about male sirens, I'm pretty sure the idea of a "Merman" is solidly a creation of modern times and the 'softening' of fairy tales. When people began to idealize the aquatic ladies as pretty princesses, it was only natural that -someone- would think to give them male counterparts. As far as I know, even the Triton and Poseidon of Greek myth weren't conceptualized as half-man/half-fish. My theory here is that since the business of sailing was pretty much exclusively male for the entirety of European history, there was little need to create male version of a creature that lured men to their deaths with sex. Also, due to the very nature of a mer-person's lower half being essentially gender-neutral, I suspect that no self-respecting Ancient Greek/Norse sailor would care to invent a tale about a male creature that wouldn't have the capacity to rape something.

So... yeah, I think Anderson's Little Mermaid is the first story to imply the existence of 'Mermen' through Ariel's father.

[Captain K.]

Although it's a D&D supplement, this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_Tales_of_the_Wee_Folk

is very well-researched and faithful to the actual legends of the kinds of creatures you're interested in.  Pookas as PCs = best thing ever.

[Grefter]

In response to your question about male sirens, I'm pretty sure the idea of a "Merman" is solidly a creation of modern times and the 'softening' of fairy tales.

Triton is commonly depicted as part man part fish.

[Idun]

Ariel's daddy's name as well. Not on the up-and-up, but a quick and scrutinizing wiki mentions that 'Triton' was then transposed onto a class of mermaid-like creatures, but Triton's parents were generally people of the sea and not merpeople. He also had a sister. Not going further with wiki logic though, if Triton's body is the happenstance of a birth between non-merpeople, and his sister shares a similar physical appearance, evolution is jettisoned out the window and inbreeding reigns in its usually-uncomfortable place.

Agreed. That was a really interesting read. I want more of your views on Norse mythology in general.

I recall preferring Norse mythology over Greek/Roman simply because the gods and demigods were more human in character and less gluttonous. Then I moved on from that and realized that much of the design for its creation myth and books was supramedieval and actually nodded to different regional influences. Globalism before globalism was globalism. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that, despite the specific role each individual played, there was little need for dominating narratives with binaries of humans v. gods in an apocalyptic setting.

I feel like I'll be too discursive with answering your question, so do you specifically want to know my opinion on characters/etc.? There are some really 'bad' characters. Also, I read some transliteration, but mostly translations during my teens. No one at a previous forum believed I got the A ending in VP without FAQing, but I only wish I could show them how much I loved Norse mythology then and was extrageeked for VP. I also feel it's aged well, but could be due to the fact that I'm in an environment where Greek/Roman is invoked more than any other mythology out there.

[Scar]

So... yeah, I think Anderson's Little Mermaid is the first story to imply the existence of 'Mermen' through Ariel's father.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_WRTQVyZM0

Also, I've seen a Cyclops with two eyes.

 

[Niji]

So... yeah, I think Anderson's Little Mermaid is the first story to imply the existence of 'Mermen' through Ariel's father.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_WRTQVyZM0

Also, I've seen a Cyclops with two eyes.

 

This qualifies as topic derailment D: I don't care if you've seen a cyclops with two eyes(the dreaded and fearful biclops!)! I want the mythology data on it XD
Also proven to exist with your own eyes things are completely uninteresting no mystery to them at all!