The Campaign Builder's Guild

A post in another thread about the Hecatoncheires made me realize it might be good to have a thread where members can come and post questions about mythology or folklore.

I'll certainly do my best to answer what questions I can, and we've got a great community here, so I'm sure someone can answer almost everything.

If anyone else thinks this is a good idea, feel free to post your questions or ideas.

Great idea.

In the spirit of getting things going, I'll link to an old WotC site thread: Where did that come from? (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=484550).  This thread contains information (in some cases speculation) on the origins of monsters that are now D&D staples and was one of my favorites, though it hasn't had much updating lately.

Hmmm... anyone have any clue as to where the first manifestation of the walking dead came from, and what it was specifically? If someone dreamed of skeletal creatures walking about, or the like.

Quote from: WitchHuntHmmm... anyone have any clue as to where the first manifestation of the walking dead came from, and what it was specifically? If someone dreamed of skeletal creatures walking about, or the like.

No idea where the first example comes from, or even if it's possible to trace. I expect the idea of "dead that aren't" is near-universal.

I have suspicions that it's related to the tendency for people to be disturbed by things that look almost-but-not-quite like people. There've been studies that suggest there's a certain threshold of detail at which the brain starts trying to recognize things as people, as opposed to, say, cartoons or crude models. So at a certain level of almost-but-not-quite humanlike detail, the brain tries to categorize things as humanlike, but certain details prevent it from doing so. This has been theorized as the source of phobias involving things like mannequins and dolls (the eyes, so dead!), clowns, and the dead. It also presented some serious problems for 3D animators, especially in the early days of the artform, when they were getting to the point where their models were just realistic enough to give people the heebie-jeebies.

Quote from: Luminous CrayonI have suspicions that it's related to the tendency for people to be disturbed by things that look almost-but-not-quite like people. There've been studies that suggest there's a certain threshold of detail at which the brain starts trying to recognize things as people, as opposed to, say, cartoons or crude models. So at a certain level of almost-but-not-quite humanlike detail, the brain tries to categorize things as humanlike, but certain details prevent it from doing so. This has been theorized as the source of phobias involving things like mannequins and dolls (the eyes, so dead!), clowns, and the dead. It also presented some serious problems for 3D animators, especially in the early days of the artform, when they were getting to the point where their models were just realistic enough to give people the heebie-jeebies.

That's actually really interesting.  I have not heard that before.

On the subject, I don't know about skeletons, but zombies of one form or another appear in all kinds of myths.  Often their attributed to the Carribean and voodoo, but I also found evidence of similar ideas in Chinese myth, India, the Norse draugr, Polynesia, and Japan.  That's not counting creatures described as ghouls (like the Phillipine's  aswang), vampires, ghosts, and stuff.

I hope that helps.

QuoteI don't know about skeletons, but zombies

Again, I am just hazarding a guess here, but I would guess that most folklore treats them as pretty much equivalent. A walking corpse is a walking corpse, basically, and if your society has fear of walking corpses in its collective consciousness, their state of decomposition is sort of a semantic issue.

The difference between a zombie and a skeleton is how long ago it died, and how much it's rotted since. I'd be a little surprised if anyone before dorky games like ourselves, with our compulsion to assign statistics to everything, really drew a distinction between a walking corpse with flesh still hanging on it, and a walking corpse that had been picked clean.

i have one question about mythology, and i already have my own personal answer to this, but i would like to have a guild consensus:

can a religious belief structture currently being practiced (IE: christianity) qualify as having a "mythology", knowing the possibility that there might be guild members that follow that religious belief structure? in other words, knowing that christianity is widely followed, and that there is possibly christian guildmembers, would it still be fair to call biblical events "mythological"?

personally, i say that, by definition, cases like that still qualify as mythological. i would imagine that very few, if any, norsemen of yore would ever have called odin or thor or loki "mythology", just as christians wouldnt see goliath or samson or noah as "mythology".

that said, i do realize that strictly defining the word "mythology" may bring up some religious discomfort amongst guildmembers, so i want to make sure we're clear on what constitutes a mythology.

QuoteThe difference between a zombie and a skeleton is how long ago it died, and how much it's rotted since. I'd be a little surprised if anyone before dorky games like ourselves, with our compulsion to assign statistics to everything, really drew a distinction between a walking corpse with flesh still hanging on it, and a walking corpse that had been picked clean.

Good point. Thanks for the help guys.

As a pointer for anyone with some interest, looking up the word "demon" on Wikipedia.org brings up some curious information. It's cool, but kind of saddening (to me at least), to see that some ancient cultures saw their versions of demons as spirits that weren't necessarily evil.

Quote from: Luminous Crayon<snip>

That would have been my thinking, as well.  As for the actual word "zombie," I believe it come from the Caribbean.

Quote from: sdragon1984, ona'envalya<snip>

It is technically correct to refer to any kind of supernatural doctrine as mythology.  Christian Mythology is an actual field of study, though the terminology might offend some that feel as though their faith is being giving no more credit than the faiths of other older cultures.

The terminology offends some, but in my Folklore and Mythology class, my teacher gave us an excelent definition.

Mythology is classified in the same sphere as Folklore, History, and Holy History. Imagine a square cut into four other squares, like those windows you always see on "perfect" houses. Now think of it as a graph: one axis is the level of ability to imperically prove it, the other axis is how sacred the information is.

If it is secular and can be proven imperically, it is history. If it's secular but can't be proven, it's folklore. If it's sacred and can be proven, it's Holy History. If it's sacred but can't be proven, it's myth.

Even as a christian, I refer to much of the old testimate as Mythology. So, if my vote matters, I won't be offended by such discussion or such a term. I'm currious to know where certain things came from too.

Quote from: sdragon1984, ona'envalyai have one question about mythology, and i already have my own personal answer to this, but i would like to have a guild consensus:

can a religious belief structture currently being practiced (IE: christianity) qualify as having a "mythology", knowing the possibility that there might be guild members that follow that religious belief structure? in other words, knowing that christianity is widely followed, and that there is possibly christian guildmembers, would it still be fair to call biblical events "mythological"?

Well, since the dictionary defines mythology as "a set of widely held but exaggerated or false stories or beliefs" then Christian beliefs are definitely mythology.

Quote from: Patterns of Religion, 2 EditionBroadly concieved, myth refers to speech about the sacred whether it is articulated in nonstory form (creed, sermon, or treatise) or in story form (myth, legend, or parable).  In this perspective, all religions include mythic conceptions. [Snip]  It is arbitary and artificial to reduce... any... religious tradition to their mythical elements.  However... myths concern what lies beyond the reaches of historical and scientific inquiry; they are not so much true or false as they are stories to live by.

Snippage mine.

Quote from: limetom

Quote from: Patterns of Religion, 2 EditionBroadly concieved, myth refers to speech about the sacred whether it is articulated in nonstory form (creed, sermon, or treatise) or in story form (myth, legend, or parable).  In this perspective, all religions include mythic conceptions. [Snip]  It is arbitary and artificial to reduce... any... religious tradition to their mythical elements.  However... myths concern what lies beyond the reaches of historical and scientific inquiry; they are not so much true or false as they are stories to live by.

My quote came from the Oxford English Dictionary.
Patterns of Religion is not a dictionary.  Is it?  It is merely a single bombastic opinion, whereas an Oxford entry is as close to a universal denotation of a word as is possible in this world.

interesting tidbit: kobold, goblin, and leprechaun were cultural equivalents of each other. not only that, but from my understtanding (which may or may not be mistaken), kobold refers to the exact same creature as goblin, simply in a different language.




edit- as for the whole 'christianity' thing, i figured that ws the response i was going to get, but i figured it was better safe then sorry. to be clear, however, i was simply using christianity as an example; the same idea could be carried to any currently practiced religion.

Quote from: CYMRO of the TRUE Cabbage CabalMy quote came from the Oxford English Dictionary.
Patterns of Religion is not a dictionary.  Is it?  It is merely a single bombastic opinion, whereas an Oxford entry is as close to a universal denotation of a word as is possible in this world.

Patterns of Religion[/i] is not a dictionary, correct.  It is, however, a College World Religions textbook written by 2 University Religion Department chairs, 5 Religion Department Professors, and 1 Philosphy Professor each of whom has a unique religious and cultural background, making it a much more universal definition than a dictionary entry.  Waving titles around has never been to my liking, but in a case such as this, it seems fitting.  Patterns of Religion is no more bombastic than the Oxford English Dictionary, but in this particular case it is a much more appropriate citation, and is much more specific than a dictionary is.  

Furthermore, Patterns is not a definition, but rather an in-context explination.  For example, the Random House Japanese to English, English to Japanese Dictionary lists hai and iee as the respective definitions of "Yes." and "No."  This is not entirely correct.  When one responds to the question, "You like taking tests, don't you?", the (assumed) correct response in English would be, "Yes, I do."  However, in Japanese, you would answer with the seemingly incorrect response of, "No, I don't."  This response, to another Japanese speaker who is also a member of the Japanese culture, is considered polite.  You are flattering the speaker.  This is a part of Japanese culture seeping into language that a dictionary cannot include.  It would be unwieldy and confusing to define hai and iee as agreeing or disagreeing (respectively) with the previous statement.  Furthermore, in most other situations, hai and iee do simply mean "yes" and "no", respectively.

As such, a dictionary definition leaves out some things that a textbook or encyclopedia definition do not.  These things can be of importance to the meaning of a word, usually in-context, but sometimes out of context as well.  A universal definition would take all possible factors into acount, making it so that a speaker of any language, coming from any culture, that practicies any (or no) religion can fully understand the concept.  While accurate, the definition provided by the Oxford English Dictionary is not complete or universal.  Many people internal to a particular religion would be hesitant to label thier own religion as having mythology, even if by others', and more importantly, academic standards, it does.

Its not that I disagree with you on the issue, Christianity has mythology, as do all religions, its just that there is no reason why a more complete definition is "wrong".

semi- off-topic...

limetom, it took me a second to realize where your sig began... seems fitting that this is the thread where i notice what it says, no?

Quote from: sdragon1984, ona'envalyathe same idea could be carried to any currently praciced religion.

True.  If it is religion, it contains myth.

Quote, making it a much more universal definition than a dictionary entry.

Eight people defining a term, compared with the hundreds who weigh in on an Oxford entry is more universal?  
It is the difference between connotation and denotation. A dictionary listing is denotation. It is, at its most basic, universal.  One may not like to apply the definition to one's own religion, but that does not change the fact that the definition is true and universal.
The textbook excerpt, incomplete as you made it, is not universal, it is subjective, it is connotative.

Quote from: CYMRO of the TRUE Cabbage Cabal

Quote from: sdragon1984, ona'envalyathe same idea could be carried to any currently praciced religion.

True.  If it is religion, it contains myth.

sorry about the typos.... i just got a new-to-me keyboard, and im still adjusting to it.

Quote from: sdragon1984, ona'envalya

Quote from: CYMRO of the TRUE Cabbage Cabal

Quote from: sdragon1984, ona'envalyathe same idea could be carried to any currently praciced religion.

True.  If it is religion, it contains myth.

sorry about the typos.... i just got a new-to-me keyboard, and im still adjusting to it.

New equipment! :D Always fun!

Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Wicca, Odinism, Shinto, Scienstoology.  You name it, it has myth.

So now that this little connotative/denotative war is over... getting back to WitchHunt's question as to the origins of the walking dead, I'm going to have to go with Pre-History.  

It seems that almost every culture has its own form of undead.  More often than not, these are incorporeal undead; "ghosts" seem to be a universal staple in human culture.  Corporeal undead have much more variety between cultures.  Certian cultures, especially Native American cultures, make little mention of corporeal undead, however.

The belief in the undead, I think, is a way for humans to deal with death.  Since you cannot know what dead is like, you imagine what might happen.  Most Western religions believe in a linear path of the soul, while most Eastern religions believe in a cyclical path of the soul.  An undead does not fit into this, and thus, is the ultimate mockery of life.  They are apart from the "norm" of death, and thus, have a reason behind there existance.

In animistic religions, where spirits are (usually) benevolent, one might expect to become a spirit upon their death, and that is the norm.  In reward-punishment afterlife systems, an undead is something that is imposed on you do to either your own actions, or the actions of others.  In a cyclical afterlife system... I dunno.  I'm not familiar with them, but I assume its similar to a reward-punishment afterlife system.

generally speaking, unless oherwise "designed", belief in reincarnation has little to no room for the belief of undead- especially incorporeal undead. i imagine the only way reincarnation-based beliefs leave room for any form of undead is a soulless, spiritless corporeal undead; how, exactly, that would work, i have no clue. its my understanding that most beliefs state that the soul is responsible for any form of animation.

generally speaking, however, corporeal undead is more commonly viewed as the result of terminally losing the way to the final resting place; the myth of jack of the lantern fits this perfectly, as his resting place was utterly destroyed. i wont deny that an afterlife justice system is involved in some beliefs, but i will say that no examples come to mind.

Quoteinteresting tidbit: kobold, goblin, and leprechaun were cultural equivalents of each other. not only that, but from my understtanding (which may or may not be mistaken), kobold refers to the exact same creature as goblin, simply in a different language.

There seem to be several groups like this where two or three of the creatures are actually the same thing in a mythology or mythologies. I learned of the kobold/goblin/leprechaun conspiracy on Wikipedia, of course :)

Quote from: WitchHuntAs a pointer for anyone with some interest, looking up the word "demon" on Wikipedia.org brings up some curious information. It's cool, but kind of saddening (to me at least), to see that some ancient cultures saw their versions of demons as spirits that weren't necessarily evil.

Most demons in the Judeo-Christian mythology are just the gods of other cultures/belief systems, just as many of the saints are(example:  St. Hubert is a Christianized version of the Odinic god Uller).

QuoteThe belief in the undead, I think, is a way for humans to deal with death.

You say that now, but you will be singing a different tune when the zombies attack.

Quote from: WitchHuntIt's cool, but kind of saddening (to me at least), to see that some ancient cultures saw their versions of demons as spirits that weren't necessarily evil.

â,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦ :huh:  :wtf: What's wrong with that?  What you have to realize is that ancient cultures didn't see things exactly the same way as your modern Judeo-Christian-Islam-etc. view.  Doesn't make them wrong.  In fact it makes much more sense: the demons were viewed almost like a natural force, which can both harm and help humans and thus earn "evil" and "not evil" in different contexts.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpaw

Quote from: WitchHuntIt's cool, but kind of saddening (to me at least), to see that some ancient cultures saw their versions of demons as spirits that weren't necessarily evil.

â,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦ :huh:  :wtf: What's wrong with that?  What you have to realize is that ancient cultures didn't see things exactly the same way as your modern Judeo-Christian-Islam-etc. view.  Doesn't make them wrong.  In fact it makes much more sense: the demons were viewed almost like a natural force, which can both harm and help humans and thus earn "evil" and "not evil" in different contexts.

And if we were to call them anything other than "demons", a morally-charged term, we wouldn't even be having this conversation-- nobody thinks twice when you say a "spirit" or a "ghost" is not necessarily evil.

Quote from: Luminous CrayonAnd if we were to call them anything other than "demons", a morally-charged term, we wouldn't even be having this conversation-- nobody thinks twice when you say a "spirit" or a "ghost" is not necessarily evil.

Ah.  Finally, someone explains it in terms I can understand.  I still think it's silly to feel weirded out or saddened by a culture believing that demons aren't all bad: "demon" is just a concept, and like any concept can occupy any place you give it.

Let me give you an example: Pazuzu (not the Exorcist demon, the real mythological one from Mesopotamia), king of the evil wind demons was also the protector of pregnant women because he scared off another demon.  So even an evil demon can have beneficial applications.  I think that's how "demons" in ancient cultures could be viewed as not evil (and maybe they aren't evil): they served a useful purpose at least some of the time.  It's like a posinonous snake that keeps the rat population down.

the term demon, as LC said, is very loaded. on top of that, if im not mistaken, most ancient cultures didnt believe in demons per se, but beings that could be described as equivalent; in other words, it would be much easier to view pazuzu as an elemental then a demon. even then it wouldnt be entirely accurate.

remember, pazuzu was a being from mesopotamian beliefs, and the type of being that pazuzu was most likely had a mesopotamian name. to say pazuzu was a demon, elemental, spirit, ghost, angel, diety, hostess cupcake, etc. would be inaccurate.

QuoteWhat's wrong with that? What you have to realize is that ancient cultures didn't see things exactly the same way as your modern Judeo-Christian-Islam-etc. view. Doesn't make them wrong. In fact it makes much more sense: the demons were viewed almost like a natural force, which can both harm and help humans and thus earn "evil" and "not evil" in different contexts.

Perhaps I worded my intent wrong. Until I saw the information on Wikipedia I had not really heard of 'demons' or their equivalents being anything but evil, sadistic things from a dark fiery place. It doesn't sadden me so much as leave me uninterested, because that traditional evil style of demon is what I've always known and what I've come to like. I like seeing how the mythology of fiendish beings has evolved, but at the end of the day I'm still doing to see that word and think of a sinister creature with massive bat wings, twisted horns, glowing red eyes, massive teeth, and a way of movement that doesn't seem quite right.

Quote from: sdragon1984, ona'envalyainteresting tidbit: kobold, goblin, and leprechaun were cultural equivalents of each other. not only that, but from my understtanding (which may or may not be mistaken), kobold refers to the exact same creature as goblin, simply in a different language.

Actually, I'd disagree, in that goblin is a sort of European name for a kind of wicked (if not evil) faerie in general, not a specific type, whereas a kobold is described as a type of goblin because goblin is a general term much like the Unseelie.  A leprechaun is a more specific type of elf (also a faerie, but more mischievous than wicked).

I see the difference between goblins and elves in European folklore as basically equivalent to the Seelie/Unseelie Court divides.

Quote from: WitchHuntthink of a sinister creature with massive bat wings, twisted horns, glowing red eyes, massive teeth, and a way of movement that doesn't seem quite right.

Then it says "Hi, I'm Bob, I'll be your minister for today."

Seriously, I think where we differ is that you get disinterested by a different interpretation of "demon", and I absolutely love things being done other than the norm.

And I'm still not sure that pazuzu can be classified as an elemental, because he was seen by the ancient mesopotamians as something that pretty much fits "demon".

I think the word "demon" comes from the Greek "daemon," but others are better with languages than I.  It was really the Judeo-Christian mythology that transformed them.  We have similar concepts of supernatural beings, we just now call the non-evil ones other things such as goblins, angels, demi-gods, or whatever.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpaw

Quote from: WitchHuntthink of a sinister creature with massive bat wings, twisted horns, glowing red eyes, massive teeth, and a way of movement that doesn't seem quite right.

Then it says "Hi, I'm Bob, I'll be your minister for today."

Seriously, I think where we differ is that you get disinterested by a different interpretation of "demon", and I absolutely love things being done other than the norm.

And I'm still not sure that pazuzu can be classified as an elemental, because he was seen by the ancient mesopotamians as something that pretty much fits "demon".

so would that be Not-Walter?

and my point on the "demon" issue is that, while "demon" may (or may not) fit a given being best, it isnt what the being was, merely a rough equivalent.

Quote from: sdragon1984, ona'envalyaso would that be Not-Walter?

Hehe, Goblins ftw!

Quote from: sdragon1984, ona'envalyainteresting tidbit: kobold, goblin, and leprechaun were cultural equivalents of each other. not only that, but from my understtanding (which may or may not be mistaken), kobold refers to the exact same creature as goblin, simply in a different language.



edit- as for the whole 'christianity' thing, i figured that ws the response i was going to get, but i figured it was better safe then sorry. to be clear, however, i was simply using christianity as an example; the same idea could be carried to any currently practiced religion.

Really? I heard that kobolds were evil spirits derived from dead-baby fetishes for the casting of magic spells. Wikipedia. Figures.

On an unrelated note... anyone familiar with a "chamber of Gaf"?

Quote from: beejazz

Quote from: sdragon1984, ona'envalyainteresting tidbit: kobold, goblin, and leprechaun were cultural equivalents of each other. not only that, but from my understtanding (which may or may not be mistaken), kobold refers to the exact same creature as goblin, simply in a different language.



edit- as for the whole 'christianity' thing, i figured that ws the response i was going to get, but i figured it was better safe then sorry. to be clear, however, i was simply using christianity as an example; the same idea could be carried to any currently practiced religion.

Really? I heard that kobolds were evil spirits derived from dead-baby fetishes for the casting of magic spells. Wikipedia. Figures.

Most non-D&D references I have seen make it out to be a spirit that haunt mines.

QuoteI like seeing how the mythology of fiendish beings has evolved, but at the end of the day I'm still doing to see that word and think of a sinister creature with massive bat wings, twisted horns, glowing red eyes, massive teeth, and a way of movement that doesn't seem quite right.

pretty bad[/i] on average. But if you convert the word 'jinn' to the nearest english word, you're gonna get 'demon'.

Quote from: brainface

QuoteI like seeing how the mythology of fiendish beings has evolved, but at the end of the day I'm still doing to see that word and think of a sinister creature with massive bat wings, twisted horns, glowing red eyes, massive teeth, and a way of movement that doesn't seem quite right.

pretty bad[/i] on average. But if you convert the word 'jinn' to the nearest english word, you're gonna get 'demon'.

exactly what i was saying all along; djinn were djinn, plain and simple. closest equivalent you could find to them, however, would be "demon" (which, as is already established, they werent).

Quote from: CYMRO of the TRUE Cabbage Cabal

Quote from: beejazz

Quote from: sdragon1984, ona'envalyainteresting tidbit: kobold, goblin, and leprechaun were cultural equivalents of each other. not only that, but from my understtanding (which may or may not be mistaken), kobold refers to the exact same creature as goblin, simply in a different language.



edit- as for the whole 'christianity' thing, i figured that ws the response i was going to get, but i figured it was better safe then sorry. to be clear, however, i was simply using christianity as an example; the same idea could be carried to any currently practiced religion.

Really? I heard that kobolds were evil spirits derived from dead-baby fetishes for the casting of magic spells. Wikipedia. Figures.

Most non-D&D references I have seen make it out to be a spirit that haunt mines.

Yes... the old "WTF ARE THOSE POISON GASSES" bit. Saw that too. Also... the word origin for "Cobalt"... if I'm not mistaken.

Shame this died...so BUMP :detect: