Will we as gamers ever bee free of this INJUSTICE!!!!!!The mythical, immortal beast that slays gods and kings, known as "Katana" to mortals, clearly does not live up to its' legend... ;-)But what if it's made from adamantine?
Nope.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
That says "Catoblepas" we already had one of those! But youre right, more monsters are more fun.
The better link was down.
The text actually says "CATOBLEPAS MONSTER, 1658. The Gorgon, or Catoblepas." In Topsell's book, it was labeled as the gorgon. Please read the whole text, rather than just one word :)
Here, [url]http://www.strangescience.net/enlar/en_topgor.jpg]this picture's[/url] a bit more clear that it's where the gorgon-in-D&D comes from.
|
Russ, this drum has been banged before.
Topsell is the one who messed up. He is not a source for the mythology, he is a source for interesting misunderstandings concerning the beliefs of ancient peoples.
Gygax used topsell (or a derivative thereof) as a source and so we are lumbered with the confused and confusing gorgon/medusa split in dnd.
Mistakes happen, even to people like Gygax, and that's okay.
Don't be down on people because they want to be able to reference cultural/historical/mythic touchstones that are well known and founded in ancient beliefs/stories/whatever.
They are not wrong, Topsell, in the 17th century, had a poorer understanding of Greek myth than many of us have today: Topsell made a mistake and his error got carried over into the game.
So, please don't get all harsh and superior on your fellow Paizonians for not knowing that particular bit of obscure gygaxian history.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gygax wasn't interested in 100% fidelity to myths it's impossible to keep faithful to. He was interested in new sources for interesting monsters. So we have a metallic gorgon, because that's more interesting than having none at all. We have multiple pegasi, chimeras, and hydras. We have rust monsters and bullettes too, they came from a line of toys. There's no mistake involved in the gorgon being in the game.
It's just not possible to be "true to" ancient myths. They're highly contradictory. You pick some sources and go wild. Being pedantic on the subject of ancient myths? Absolutely pointless.
In any case, a 400 year old source is mythical enough for me :) I'd also call Spring-Heeled Jack mythical, and he's younger. I'm not sure what on earth you'd call Topsell's bestiary other than mythical, it's certainly not very factual, even where real creatures are concerned. Nor were the medieval bestiaries that inspired it. Split hair and call it a fanciful bestiary?
So yeah, I'll stay pretty superior on this topic it sounds like :) There's a mythical source for the gorgon, and if it doesn't meet some people's age criteria for "myth", I'd call that more a deficiency in understanding what's mythical than in the source existing. All myths got made up by someone at some point, often based on a misunderstanding.
My name is Russ, and I'm a smug, superior son of a something!
I actually like it that old mythical creatures get improved in 2011 and beyond, all mythogical creatures are actually orcs, they don't have powers or special abilities at all (spare for medusa) or special abilities that are pretty much alike.
I'm more for improved creatures, we are much further in time so improving on their stories but keeping some very important parts of the creature is cool for me.
I actually like the bunyip (seal/shark) much better than the actual legend, and there are a tons more of this.
If it was for me all creatures changed into something better.
Many people want argus to be a giant with many eyes, I think that as boring as there are already tons of giants, better turn it into something more unique like Age of Mythology did.
Create an sanity score. Add up all the ability scores or just the mental ones. Every time you see a Lovecraftian monster you make a will save to avoid losing sanity. When your sanity hits zero you are insane and useless. Now the game is trying to defeat the enemy before you lose your mind.
If you plays the Call of Cuthulu game then you can see I roughly adapted the sanity mechanism from there.
One of the recent installments of the Ustalav Adventure Path has rules for sanity in Pathfinder.
I thought it did a good job, even if it "overegged the pudding" in certain respects.
Cheers, JohnH / Wanda
The Carbuncle disappointed me, but I suspect that disappointment may have been what they were going for with that particular monster.
I was expecting something bigger, tougher, and a lot prettier.
I have to admit..I miss the crazy armadillo carbunkle, that would cause fights around it just to watch
It is pretty much impossible, for a design point of view, to make every monster of myth fit every myth, without making it over powered, or look plain silly. I remember someone complaining in a post on here about a monster from 4 Winds Fantasy not being able to shoot flaming fecal material, like the myth..when it would have really added nothing, except questionable taste. The thing to keep in mind, is that the game is set of to be flexible enough to allow you to make variants that suit "your" myth. Most myths, whatever the culture, were not written with "one day this will be a monster in a cool future RPG" in mind. They were one of a kind creatures, that it took heroes of legend to beat, or had vague abilities of do whatever the story teller wants, or had a different set of powers and look with every retelling. As a designer, you have to cherry pick what would make the best theme, and fit the rules, without it becoming the next flumph, or being over/under powered.
|
As has been pointed out, part of the issue is that mythology's monsters are unique. They are terrible nightmares of humanity that can only be stopped by the greatest of heroes. And that's good! Monsters should be terrible and frightening.
But that's not always fun.
If you take away all the standard pathfinder versions of mythological monsters, there's little left to fight at lower levels (which are some of my favorite levels). No one wants to wait until 15th level just to fight a Troll. Low-level heroes have a right to fight myth's most popular baddies, as do heroes of every level.
Luckily, the solution to this is (what I consider) the d20 system's greatest feature: Monsters + class levels.
The monsters that you see in the Bestiary are only the most basic, weakest of their kind. True mythological monsters, as with true mythological heroes, are classed. The fire-slinging Medusa is a sorcerer of great power. The unshakable minotaur in the maze is a ranger, his favored enemy mankind.
In addition to giving monsters classes, there's also a handful of templates and a section on monster advancement that'll let you make a godslayer out of a goblin, should the need arise. If the standard bunyip isn't the threat you'd like it to be, maybe an advanced giant half-fiend bunyip will do the trick.
As an aside, in my home campaigns I consider the proliferation of "lesser" or standard monsters to be the result of highly successful monsters of legends. The descendents of these legends (whether by lineage or curse) might try to pass themselves off as the originals, but somewhere the true monsters lie, waiting for new heroes to test themselves against.
One other thought..there are more then one version of many of these monsters out there. I know of I think, 4 different versions of the wendigo, for example. If one don't suit your fancy, try another on, until you find the right mix.
In any case, a 400 year old source is mythical enough for me :) I'd also call Spring-Heeled Jack mythical, and he's younger. I'm not sure what on earth you'd call Topsell's bestiary other than mythical, it's certainly not very factual, even where real creatures are concerned. Nor were the medieval bestiaries that inspired it. Split hair and call it a fanciful bestiary?
Topsell wrote about things that were already in myths and legends. What myths are the basis for his version of a Gorgon? Topsell, quite simply, got his source material mixed up, or something.
The age of something isn't what makes it mythic; the stories do that. Where are the stories about a metallic bull called a Gorgon? In comparison, there are tons of stories and works of art abort Gorgons being monstrous women with snakes instead of hair. This image of the Gorgon has evolved- early images of a Gorgon show her bearded, with tusks, a protruding tongue, and wings (this image being what typically appears on Athena's aegis, and not all sources agree that this was a shield), and the Gorgon has lost some of those features in more modern art. The "beautiful Medusa" is used as the basis of the Medusa in the Bestiary, and there's nothing wrong with that, even though the uglier images are much older (and, one could argue, a more "true" image). Topsell's Gorgon, on the other hand, doesn't have so much as a Wikipedia entry, never mind actual myths about the creature. If there are no myths, how can it be mythic? Topsells's Gorgon is nothing more than a clerical error.
And if you're going to give Medusa class levels, I think oracle would be much more appropriate than sorcerer. If I ever DM a game, that'll be what I throw at PCs, definitely.
On Medusas and Gorgons: I think Gorgons were supposed to be the bull that Jason fought to help get access to the golden fleece. It was armored or mechanical, big, and breathed fire. The name, IIRC, was the [Name of Place] Bull. I'd imagine that they swapped the names and breath weapon so that they could use it with out using the name. Most people are familiar with the name of Medusa and basically what she is bot might not know that she was one of three gorgons. So they called gorgons medusas and that bull gorgons and gave them a petrifying breath as a nod. It's a theory but it least it has some support from the fact that there aren't creatures with names like the Nemian Lion in the Beastiaries.
Of course I wouldn't mind a template that turns Beasts into scary maneaters like said Nemian Lion or The Tsavoi Lions (big, scary, smart mutant lions that killed hundreds of workers and stopped production of a railroad before being shot). Something thst a Druid might call up and release to punish an area.
On Mythological Monsters: My problem isn't when a monster doesn't live up to its legend. It's when they fail to live up to the basic concept. Medusas have snake hair and can turn people into stone by looking at them. That's really the key points of Medusa. The Bunyip is one of the scariest monsters in Aboroginal myth. They got the water and the roar but it lacks the Dot and the Kangaroo creepiness (check out "Bunyip Moon" on youtube, the comments are fun). It's like taking Medusa and making them a large poisonous snake that calcifies flesh with its poison. Sure it will pass as a monster but not as Medusa.
I think it might have been in the D&D Epic book, but I do recall a template to make a monster the legendary one.
It is pretty much impossible, for a design point of view, to make every monster of myth fit every myth, without making it over powered, or look plain silly. I remember someone complaining in a post on here about a monster from 4 Winds Fantasy not being able to shoot flaming fecal material, like the myth..when it would have really added nothing, except questionable taste.
That would have been me. My problem with the 4 Winds bonnacon is that if you take away the flaming poop, you remove the only reason bonnacons exist. Don't want a flaming poop monster? Don't call it a bonnacon. Call it something else. What was really weird was that the research had been done, there was a sidebar describing how bonnacons were probably inspired by European bison... but the description was of a horse! It would be like thinking, "Manticores are based off of distorted accounts of tigers! Better make my manticore a giant wolf!"
I am aware that you were probably the author of that bonnacon. But I just don't get it.
The thing to keep in mind, is that the game is set of to be flexible enough to allow you to make variants that suit "your" myth. Most myths, whatever the culture, were not written with "one day this will be a monster in a cool future RPG" in mind. They were one of a kind creatures, that it took heroes of legend to beat, or had vague abilities of do whatever the story teller wants, or had a different set of powers and look with every retelling. As a designer, you have to cherry pick what would make the best theme, and fit the rules, without it becoming the next flumph, or being over/under powered.
This, on the other hand, I get. A fine sentiment, and one I totally understand as a monster designer who's tried to sort through myths and legends before. We might not always agree on specific examples, but I think our philosophies are pretty close.
Create an sanity score. Add up all the ability scores or just the mental ones. Every time you see a Lovecraftian monster you make a will save to avoid losing sanity. When your sanity hits zero you are insane and useless. Now the game is trying to defeat the enemy before you lose your mind.
If you plays the Call of Cuthulu game then you can see I roughly adapted the sanity mechanism from there.
One of the recent installments of the Ustalav Adventure Path has rules for sanity in Pathfinder.
I thought it did a good job, even if it "overegged the pudding" in certain respects.
Cheers, JohnH / Wanda
Oh yes, oh yes. I'm very much looking forward to using those rules. But that's a different, newer group of players :)
|
|
So yeah, I'll stay pretty superior on this topic it sounds like :) There's a mythical source for the gorgon, and if it doesn't meet some people's age criteria for "myth", I'd call that more a deficiency in understanding what's mythical than in the source existing. All myths got made up by someone at some point, often based on a misunderstanding.
My name is Russ, and I'm a smug, superior son of a something!
It's not a myth, it's not an ancient story that was embedded in a culture at a particular time, it's just a bit of fanciful flim-flam.
Appolodorus is a primary/secondary mythical source, Topsell is, at best, a tertiary source.
And we don't need Topsell to get a fancy metal bull full of fire, we've got the Brazen Bull and a load of other mythic bulls to play with.
I'm kind of surprised by this Russ. I normally have a lot of respect for your posts and the things you have to say, if I was going to nominate a paizonaut that might shut someone down with: "It's certainly proper nerdrage, as it's based on being wrong." I certainly would not have nominated you.
I like crazy bestiaries, especially Borges, but I also like my RPG to use myths in a non-jarring, recognisable way: the use of Gorgon fails at this.
Don't tell me I'm 'wrong' for thinking this.