# Tiamat and Bahamut--Why Use Real World Mythology?



## Kobu (Dec 10, 2007)

What exactly is the point here? The Tiamat vs. Bahamut thing makes no sense in regards to well-known mythology, and throwing in that weird thing about Io splitting makes it even more confusing. Tiamat is the one who was split into two and Bahamut has nothing to do with Tiamat. You might as well throw in Amaterasu as their bratty teenage daughter along with their wacky neighbor Odin.

Show some originality and imagination here Wizards. It's 4E, you've went and redone most of the cosmology already, so what's keeping you from making up original names for your gods?


----------



## Derren (Dec 10, 2007)

You complain that WotC should not name their deities after real world mythology but then you complain when the D&D deities don't behave exactly like in the real world mythology.

Decide what you want, more or less real world mythology references.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Dec 10, 2007)

Tiamat and Bahamut are iconic D&D deities/monsters, dating back to 1e. I think they're some of the best implied setting stuff the game has had, and I for one would be sorry to see them gone. 

As for your complaint that they aren't like their mythological namesakes, I think that's a moot point. Bahamut or Behemoth is a giant sea monster, as was Tiamat; appropriating the cool names for primeval dragon deities is perfectly fine and dandy with me.


----------



## Gloombunny (Dec 10, 2007)

Kobu said:
			
		

> You might as well throw in Amaterasu as their bratty teenage daughter along with their wacky neighbor Odin.



I would totally play that game.


----------



## Green Knight (Dec 10, 2007)

Check out the wikipedia for the D&D version of Tiamat HERE. The D&D version of Tiamat is substantially different from the mythological version and has been around in the D&D mythos for years. Tiamat (and Bahamut) is an iconic D&D figure. Here's a pic of the Aspect of Tiamat in the D&D Miniatures line. 







Another picture of Tiamat. 






And here's an illustration of just how far back Tiamat goes in D&D history. Here's a picture of a Tiamat toy from the mid-80's, as well as Tiamat from the Dungeons & Dragons cartoon from the 80's. 












> The Tiamat vs. Bahamut thing makes no sense in regards to well-known mythology, and throwing in that weird thing about Io splitting makes it even more confusing.




There's nothing weird about it, because in D&D lore, Io, the creator god of dragons, is the father of both Tiamat and Bahamut.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 10, 2007)

Kobu said:
			
		

> What exactly is the point here? The Tiamat vs. Bahamut thing makes no sense in regards to well-known mythology, and throwing in that weird thing about Io splitting makes it even more confusing. Tiamat is the one who was split into two and Bahamut has nothing to do with Tiamat. You might as well throw in Amaterasu as their bratty teenage daughter along with their wacky neighbor Odin.
> 
> Show some originality and imagination here Wizards. It's 4E, you've went and redone most of the cosmology already, so what's keeping you from making up original names for your gods?



 If by "well known" you mean "no one actually ever heard about outside some muthology enthusiats", I'd agree.

As it stands, D&D's Tiamat is far more well known to the general audience than her real-world namesake.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Dec 10, 2007)

I think it'd be safe to say that they are equally unknown to the 'general audience'.  I have met people who've never heard of D&D much less one of its deities.


----------



## Zweischneid (Dec 10, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> If by "well known" you mean "no one actually ever heard about outside some muthology enthusiats", I'd agree.
> 
> As it stands, D&D's Tiamat is far more well known to the general audience than her real-world namesake.




Maybe... but _everyone _ obviously knows the swedish gothic-rock band of that name! Or not?


----------



## Klaus (Dec 10, 2007)

Aust Diamondew said:
			
		

> I think it'd be safe to say that they are equally unknown to the 'general audience'.  I have met people who've never heard of D&D much less one of its deities.



 The D&D cartoon has been a cult hit here (and THE gateway to fantasy for kids 8-12) for the past 20 years (it is constantly airing here in prime kid time -- it's on right now). That has increased the exposure of "Tiamat The Dragon" (as it is called).

If WotC really wants to push D&D's exposure (and attract new kids as gamers), a D&D cartoon with Avatar quality should be a paramount pripority.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 10, 2007)

Eh, Tiamat and Bahumet are their own things now in D&D. It's kind of like riding Howard for stealing all his placenames from actual places, but then re-working them to his own designs. Greenwood did it for the Realms as well.


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 10, 2007)

All I know is that the description of Orcus in the Monster Manual better have acurate details on his roman cult, and finally clear up the differences between him and dis pater.


----------



## KingCrab (Dec 10, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> The D&D cartoon has been a cult hit here (and THE gateway to fantasy for kids 8-12) for the past 20 years (it is constantly airing here in prime kid time -- it's on right now). That has increased the exposure of "Tiamat The Dragon" (as it is called).




Agreed.  The first thing I think of when I hear 'Tiamat' is that Venger is in trouble.


----------



## GuJiaXian (Dec 10, 2007)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> Maybe... but _everyone _ obviously knows the swedish gothic-rock band of that name! Or not?




You're thinking of Therion, methinks. Great band. Listening to them right now at work.


----------



## Elphilm (Dec 10, 2007)

GuJiaXian said:
			
		

> You're thinking of Therion, methinks. Great band. Listening to them right now at work.



Nah. Tiamat the Band.


----------



## GuJiaXian (Dec 10, 2007)

Elphilm said:
			
		

> Nah. Tiamat the Band.




Hmm, haven't heard of them before. I'll have to look into them, as I love the European gothic rock scene.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 10, 2007)

> What exactly is the point here? The Tiamat vs. Bahamut thing makes no sense in regards to well-known mythology, and throwing in that weird thing about Io splitting makes it even more confusing. Tiamat is the one who was split into two and Bahamut has nothing to do with Tiamat. You might as well throw in Amaterasu as their bratty teenage daughter along with their wacky neighbor Odin.
> 
> Show some originality and imagination here Wizards. It's 4E, you've went and redone most of the cosmology already, so what's keeping you from making up original names for your gods?




Pfft. That's like FF fans complaning Shiva is an ice woman instead of a Hindu deity of ecstatic entropy (plus other stuff). 

It's only a problem if you want to use the two side by side, in which case I'd recommend changing the dragon-goddess's name, or just completely ignoring the dragon-goddess, or appropriating Mesopotamian Tiamat for D&D dragons.

Tiamat is strong enough to hold both figures at the moment, and D&D's debt to mythological history is to be able to evoke it, not necessarily to embody it.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Dec 10, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Pfft. That's like FF fans complaning Shiva is an ice woman instead of a Hindu deity of ecstatic entropy (plus other stuff).




Speaking of which, Bahamut was also in FF...


----------



## Clavis (Dec 10, 2007)

I'm no fan of what WOTC is doing to D&D with 4th edition. However, both Tiamat and Bahumut have been iconic parts of D&D since the 1st edition Monster Manual. Of course, IMHO opinion that's were they belong, not on the list of default deities for humans.

Seeing what WOTC's imagination looks like, I think I want as little of it in D&D as possible.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 10, 2007)

> Speaking of which, Bahamut was also in FF...




Where, as a Dragon-God, he bore more resemblance to the D&D bahamut than any Biblical behemoth!


----------



## Kaodi (Dec 10, 2007)

Actually, the thing I think that is rather odd is that there seems to be very little consistency with which head is where...


----------



## Zurai (Dec 10, 2007)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> Actually, the thing I think that is rather odd is that there seems to be very little consistency with which head is where...




Tiamat is a Chaotic deity. Some inconsistency is a good thing, IMO.


----------



## Mirtek (Dec 10, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Tiamat is a Chaotic deity. Some inconsistency is a good thing, IMO.



Actually no, she's lawful evil.


----------



## Zurai (Dec 10, 2007)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> Actually no, she's lawful evil.




Oops. Well, she _used_ to be Chaotic! (shows how long it's been since I used Tiamat, huh?)


----------



## Mirtek (Dec 10, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Oops. Well, she _used_ to be Chaotic! (shows how long it's been since I used Tiamat, huh?)



AFAIK she was lawful since AD&D 1e, not sure about OD&D.

IIRC Takhisis was chaotic, but she and Tiamat are seperate entities since 2e


----------



## TwinBahamut (Dec 10, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Where, as a Dragon-God, he bore more resemblance to the D&D bahamut than any Biblical behemoth!



Yep.

Actually, I (probably like many people) was exposed to Bahamut from Final Fantasy a _long_ time before I ever played D&D, and longer still before I knew Bahamut was a D&D deity. He is probably more iconic to Final Fantasy than he is to D&D (and he is cooler as a black cosmic dragon than a cheesy platinum dragon anyways).

Tiamat is also a classic dragon of Final Fantasy, as the original Fiend of the Air, one of the first set of the Four Fiends, along with Lich, Kraken, and Marilith. She even has multiple heads in some versions.

While I normally agree with keeping D&D close to mythology and avoiding the idea of D&D as a meeting point for every real world religion, Bahamut and Tiamat belong to a Pandora's Box that isn't going to close.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Dec 10, 2007)

Kobu said:
			
		

> What exactly is the point here? The Tiamat vs. Bahamut thing makes no sense in regards to well-known mythology, and throwing in that weird thing about Io splitting makes it even more confusing. Tiamat is the one who was split into two and Bahamut has nothing to do with Tiamat. You might as well throw in Amaterasu as their bratty teenage daughter along with their wacky neighbor Odin.




What are your thoughts on the inclusion of Thor?



> Show some originality and imagination here Wizards. It's 4E, you've went and redone most of the cosmology already, so what's keeping you from making up original names for your gods?




How about Takhisis and Paladine?  



			
				Mirtek said:
			
		

> IIRC Takhisis was chaotic, but she and Tiamat are seperate entities since 2e




Takhisis is LE as well.  Takhisis just believes that she is the ultimate law.  

I guess we should mention how Tiamat and Bahamut were the inspiration for Takhisis and Paladine in this thread, and how that dates back to 1984.  


I have to say that I really dig how the 4e pantheon is shaping up.  Bahamut and Tiamat are iconic to D&D, and they're dragon deities (giving a much-needed focus on dragons).  I like that Thor is included, just because I love the Marvel Comics version.  Lolth makes sense being iconic to D&D.  And so on and so forth.

Nothing against the Greyhawk deities.  They're cool.  I would rather see them in a Greyhawk supplement, then have the new D&D pantheon serve as the general set of deities.


----------



## Zurai (Dec 10, 2007)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> AFAIK she was lawful since AD&D 1e, not sure about OD&D.




Tiamat was the farthest name in the Chaotic corner of the original alignment chart, IIRC.

I reserve the right to be wrong again, though


----------



## Green Knight (Dec 10, 2007)

> Of course, IMHO opinion that's were they belong, not on the list of default deities for humans.




Personally, I don't see why gods should be restricted to only having one race worshipping them. Why can't Bahamut have Human worshippers, too, in addition to his dragon worshippers? Or Elf worshippers? Or Dwarf/Dragonborn/Air Genasi/etc worshippers? Why is it that only 'human' deities can have worshippers from other races, but 'nonhuman' deities can't? I've always thought that was silly. And it's nice to see D&D going in a direction where deities can be worshipped by anyone who likes their ideals. And really, we're talking about gods, here. Is there really such a thing as 'an elf god' or 'a dragon god'? Or are there just gods who first appeared as dragons, but then started to appear as other kinds of beings to other kinds of worshippers? 

Bahamut, for instance, likely appears very differently to different worshippers. As a great platinum dragon to some, to a platinum haired human/elf/dwarf to others, to a platinum colored dragonborn, or to an air elemental of massive proportions. So what's wrong with that?


----------



## Ashardalon (Dec 10, 2007)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> What are your thoughts on the inclusion of Thor?



_Io_n't know about you, but I _Shiva_ at the very _Thoth_. Yes, I'm that a-_Freya_d.

On a more serious note, while this particular example is not from real-world mythology beyond the names, more famous names can help set some of the mood of the setting, for example. Also, their presence might help in showing how to 'build' homebrew gods better than made-up gods. I'm not sure if Thor is confirmed-confirmed, or if he was just name-dropped at the 4E announcement (which he definitely was), but I'd hope that he isn't the only real-world god to join the ranks of the default pantheon.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 10, 2007)

For me, this remember me of the world of Conan... 

And I love it.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 10, 2007)

I've never worried too much about deities being different than their mythological counterparts. It did disturb me in AD&D having Bahamut (the dragon), Baphomet (the god), Baphomet (archdevil, impersonates the god), and behemoth (a monster).  But then, we also have drow, duergar, and derro.


----------



## Kobu (Dec 11, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Eh, Tiamat and Bahumet are their own things now in D&D. It's kind of like riding Howard for stealing all his placenames from actual places, but then re-working them to his own designs. Greenwood did it for the Realms as well.




Howard?

Anyway, it's a lazy/fanfic-ish practice. Tyr being in FR never made a bit of sense and they should dump him altogether. There may be others there but I don't recall.

It's like making a new scifi series about the hardships of life on a far-flung human colony and for no explainable reason, Geordi La Forge is there, except now he has a blue afro and can't stop talking about surfing.



			
				Clavis said:
			
		

> I'm no fan of what WOTC is doing to D&D with 4th edition. However, both Tiamat and Bahumut have been iconic parts of D&D since the 1st edition Monster Manual. Of course, IMHO opinion that's were they belong, not on the list of default deities for humans.
> 
> Seeing what WOTC's imagination looks like, I think I want as little of it in D&D as possible.




There's a lot of stupid fluff from 1st ed. I don't think that's a good reason to continue it to a new edition. If Tiamat and Bahamut quietly disappeared or were replaced by original gods, I don't think anyone would have cared.



			
				Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> What are your thoughts on the inclusion of Thor?




If you want to run a Norse mythology themed D&D game, It's great, but there's no reason to include our mythology in a generic game setting.



			
				Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> How about Takhisis and Paladine?




They're fine. They may have come about by a strange route, but they exist on their own with no ties to Earth. Even a simple renaming would work in 4E since as I pointed out, the D&D versions of Tiamat and Bahamut have little to do with the actual mythological versions.



			
				Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> I have to say that I really dig how the 4e pantheon is shaping up.  Bahamut and Tiamat are iconic to D&D, and they're dragon deities (giving a much-needed focus on dragons).  I like that Thor is included, just because I love the Marvel Comics version.  Lolth makes sense being iconic to D&D.  And so on and so forth.
> 
> Nothing against the Greyhawk deities.  They're cool.  I would rather see them in a Greyhawk supplement, then have the new D&D pantheon serve as the general set of deities.




Just as Greyhawk deities belong in Greyhawk, so to do the other gods belong in their respective realms. If Wizards feels they need to have dragon gods, pulling from Dragonlance is a better choice though than continuing to mangle real world mythology.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Dec 11, 2007)

Kobu said:
			
		

> Howard?



Robert E. He was a big nut for appropriating mythological and ancient historical sources and dropping them into his homebrew world without worrying about historical accuracy. He did OK with it.


----------



## Kobu (Dec 11, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Robert E. He was a big nut for appropriating mythological and ancient historical sources and dropping them into his homebrew world without worrying about historical accuracy. He did OK with it.




If you are referencing Conan et al., those stories were set on Earth. I guess that's why I didn't make the connection about appropriating names since he didn't as far as I know.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Dec 11, 2007)

Perhaps the answer to your question is another question...

"Why not?"


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 11, 2007)

Kobu said:
			
		

> If you are referencing Conan et al., those stories were set on Earth. I guess that's why I didn't make the connection about appropriating names since he didn't as far as I know.



Conan on Earth? The Hyborian Age was a pseudo-pre-history Earth, i.e. a kitbash of a lot of real world allusions.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Vigilance (Dec 11, 2007)

Kobu said:
			
		

> If you are referencing Conan et al., those stories were set on Earth. I guess that's why I didn't make the connection about appropriating names since he didn't as far as I know.




Uh, no.

Conan is most decidedly not set on Earth.

Anyway, to paraphrase Joel and the bots, repeat to yourself "it's just a game, I should really just relax".


----------



## Lorthanoth (Dec 11, 2007)

The Conan stories are explicitly stated by Howard himself to be set on Earth in an imaginary pre-history.


----------



## Kobu (Dec 11, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Uh, no.
> 
> Conan is most decidedly not set on Earth.




I think you and the others need to actually read the stories. They were set on Earth. There's no point saying "No,they weren't," it's a simple fact.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 11, 2007)

Kobu said:
			
		

> I think you and the others need to actually read the stories. They were set on Earth. There's no point saying "No,they weren't," it's a simple fact.




It's a completely fabricated Earth where Atlantis is real, magic works, the map is redone and it draws from a host of anachronistic elements.

But, yeah, it's Earth...


----------



## Kobu (Dec 11, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> It's a completely fabricated Earth where Atlantis is real, magic works, the map is redone and it draws from a host of anachronistic elements.
> 
> But, yeah, it's Earth...




Yup. It's not really that anachronistic though when you consider that technologies and whole cultures were lost in cataclysms, and peoples of later ages had to start over and only had glimpses of what came before.

In that kind of setting, it makes perfect sense to use gods from Earth's mythology. In the stories, these are real entities.

It does not make sense though for Tiamat or Thor or whoever to show up in a D&D world that isn't Earth. Fine if you want to homebrew that for some reason--maybe Thor decided to skip out on Armageddon and wants to party in your world instead--but there's no good reason to throw those gods into D&D in general.


----------



## Vigilance (Dec 11, 2007)

Kobu said:
			
		

> I think you and the others need to actually read the stories. They were set on Earth. There's no point saying "No,they weren't," it's a simple fact.




Howard was doing EXACTLY what you are slamming D&D for doing.

He appropriated the real cultures and mythologies of the classical and medieval world and then did whatever the heck he wanted with them.

He made a country called "Iranistan". 

There's a place called Asgard, norse type frost giants live there.

This co-exists in a world where the Cthulhu mythos is also at play. 

He explicitly took myths, legends and real world cultures and deities (Mithra anyone?), changed them around and mixed them all together in a nice, tasty stew.

What he most certainly did NOT do in his "Earth" was make it accurate, historically, culturally or mythologically. 

It's called fantasy. 

It has as much to do with the real world as the Wizard of Oz, Narnia, Middle Earth, and (wait for it) D&D.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 11, 2007)

As others have stated - at the point it isn't using real-world mythology so much as continuing to use their own mythology, and not changing the names so it remains recognizable to older players.


----------



## Kobu (Dec 11, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Howard was doing EXACTLY what you are slamming D&D for doing.




The setting was Earth. That's all there is to it. It's no different from Odin showing up in _American Gods_. 



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> As others have stated - at the point it isn't using real-world mythology so much as continuing to use their own mythology, and not changing the names so it remains recognizable to older players.




And as I have stated, so much is being changed already, go ahead and dump them too.

Older players should certainly remember the original _Deities & Demigods_. That's the kind of book that Tiamat and Bahumut belong in, not the PHb.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 11, 2007)

Kobu said:
			
		

> The setting was Earth. That's all there is to it. It's no different from Odin showing up in _American Gods_.



But then, Oerth (i.e. the planet where Greyhawk is on) is a parallel of Earth:


			
				Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> By the way, action takes place on Yarth, a place somewhat similar to Oerth, the setting of Greyhawk, et al. It has fewer magical properties than Oerth but more than Earth. It is not impossible that additional works will be contracted for in months to come, action being set on Yarth or perhaps another alternate world, Aerth. On Earth, magic is virtually non-existent. On Uerth, dweomers are weak, chancy things. Yarth has a sprinkling of things magical, and Oerth is pure magic.



(source)

So, at least for GH, it's like Odin in American Gods, since the setting is also an alternate-Earth-containing-universes. Tiamat and Bahamut just wandered there.

Sure, they're not very accurately portraying, but that's equally true for Conan's Set and _our_ Set.

It's possible that you can explain the PoL setting in the same way! 

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Dec 11, 2007)

Kobu said:
			
		

> I think you and the others need to actually read the stories



I know it's an Internetism -- partially because I've never heard anyone actually say such a thing in real life -- but a difference of opinion does not constitute a lack of knowledge on a subject.

In this case, REH (whom you seemed unaware of a page ago) may have claimed his setting was Earth, but so did Tolkien. In both cases, they invented maps, cultures and histories. That they might have been inspired by real world history does not make either one truly set there, any more than tales set in Atlantis or Lemuria are set on Earth. Less so, in fact, since Atlantis at least has Plato sticking up for it.


----------



## Mirtek (Dec 11, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> So, at least for GH, it's like Odin in American Gods, since the setting is also an alternate-Earth-containing-universes. Tiamat and Bahamut just wandered there.



Both Abeir-Toril and Oerth still have some portals to Earth (in the D&D multiverse our Earth is just annother planet among the many crystal spheres on the prime material plane, you could ride a spelljammer from Oerth to Earth if you knew the way). NPCs (and player characters) from Oerth, Toril and Krynn have been to Earth.

FR Tyr is "our" Tyr from the nordic pantheon. _On hallowed grounds_ explains why he decided to shift his focus from the nordic to the faerunian pantheon (because the felt that his fellow gods were slowly pushing him out of the pantheon by encroaching upon his worshipper base)


----------



## Zaruthustran (Dec 11, 2007)

Kobu said:
			
		

> What exactly is the point here? The Tiamat vs. Bahamut thing makes no sense in regards to well-known mythology, and throwing in that weird thing about Io splitting makes it even more confusing. Tiamat is the one who was split into two and Bahamut has nothing to do with Tiamat. You might as well throw in Amaterasu as their bratty teenage daughter along with their wacky neighbor Odin.
> 
> Show some originality and imagination here Wizards. It's 4E, you've went and redone most of the cosmology already, so what's keeping you from making up original names for your gods?




I think the point of re-packaging "real" gods is because they have cool names. Not everyone knows the particulars about Tiamat or Bahamut, but there's a chance (a good chance) that they've heard the name mentioned. Likely while in school, during a class on history, religion, international studies, or art. 

The names *sound* real. Kind of like my username, Zaruthustran. This was the name of a drow character when I was in 7th grade, and it wasn't until later that I realized there was a real world Zarathustra. I must have heard the name mentioned somewhere, somehow, prior to naming my character. 

That's why it's good to throw in names based on names from history. They *sound* like deities. They have the ring of truth to them. They increase verisimilitude. 

Me, I'd much rather have a few names rooted in (or copied from) a real source, rather than 100% brand-new made-up names.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 11, 2007)

You can't really reinvent the wheel always... And often, creation may be silly.


----------



## SkidAce (Dec 12, 2007)

Kobu said:
			
		

> There's a lot of stupid fluff from 1st ed. I don't think that's a good reason to continue it to a new edition. If Tiamat and Bahamut quietly disappeared or were replaced by original gods, I don't think anyone would have cared.




You would be incorrect.  I would have cared.  The main reason (IMHO) is continuity.  I have been using Tiamat and Bahamut as mythic elements for years.  Replace them feels "odd", and yes I know I can keep them.

But now I have shared experience with other players and DMs, who recognize them and their mythic baggage.  Substitute new ones at this point and we lose some shared experiences.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 12, 2007)

Kobu said:
			
		

> They're fine. They may have come about by a strange route, but they exist on their own with no ties to Earth.




Paladine aka "Bah'Mut"
Takhisis aka "Tii'Mhut"

I think those connections are stronger than you suggest. They're essentially variations of D&D's Tiamat and Bahamut. If you have a problem with the D&D versions, then the Dragonlance versions should be equally guilty.


----------



## JamesP (Dec 12, 2007)

Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Howard had an intense love for history and historical dramas; however, at the same time, he recognized the difficulties and the time-consuming research work needed in maintaining historical accuracy. By conceiving a timeless setting — a vanished age — that was not ours but that may once have been ours and by carefully choosing names that resembled our past history, Howard avoided the problem of historical anachronisms and the need for lengthy exposition.




You forced my hand, internet! Now I've started down the dark road to grognardism from which there can be no escape...


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Dec 12, 2007)

My own personal internet grognard, the one who lives inside the light house in my soul, is pretty insistent on the fact that mixing up bits and pieces of different real world mythologies, contemporary fantasy tropes, and odd pop cultural references into a delicious literary tossed salad, or champloo if you will, is the essence of DnDismo.

The moment DnD starts becoming purely one thing or another is the moment I fail to edition up.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Dec 12, 2007)

It cracks me up when people attack REH for 'borrowing' real-world elements and barely changing their names to suit his purposes as if he was some kind of hack.
He knew full well what he was doing!
Such an approach provides the reader with instant familiarity. A few Norse-sounding names is all it takes to make the reader envision an entire culture, without having to describe it. REH did this for the great Europe-Africa-Asia conglomeration in the Conan books, and look at him now! (Well, other than the being dead part.)

Bahamut and Tiamat are iconic to D&D. These versions just happen to share names with actual mythological ones, but not much else. Just like I'm totally different from that other dude name Steve.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Dec 12, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> Bahamut and Tiamat are iconic to D&D. These versions just happen to share names with actual mythological ones, but not much else. Just like I'm totally different from that other dude name Steve.



Your parents were hacks! They should have made up a whole new name, like Steev, instead!


----------



## Kobu (Dec 13, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I know it's an Internetism -- partially because I've never heard anyone actually say such a thing in real life -- but a difference of opinion does not constitute a lack of knowledge on a subject.
> 
> In this case, REH (whom you seemed unaware of a page ago) may have claimed his setting was Earth, but so did Tolkien. In both cases, they invented maps, cultures and histories. That they might have been inspired by real world history does not make either one truly set there, any more than tales set in Atlantis or Lemuria are set on Earth. Less so, in fact, since Atlantis at least has Plato sticking up for it.




Sorry, I can't believe that anyone who has read any of the stories could fail to grasp that they are set on Earth, especially when the author takes labors to point it out in the stories. I also don't think alternate opinions on it are valid when the author explicitly states that it is Earth.

The point here though is that an author throwing in a god from Earth's mythology into a story set on Earth shouldn't give anyone pause.



			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> Paladine aka "Bah'Mut"
> Takhisis aka "Tii'Mhut"
> 
> I think those connections are stronger than you suggest. They're essentially variations of D&D's Tiamat and Bahamut. If you have a problem with the D&D versions, then the Dragonlance versions should be equally guilty.




No, they've done in Dragonlance exactly what I am suggesting. If the gods have little resemblance to the original gods from mythology they are named after, change the names. There's nothing wrong with being inspired by Earth mythology, but there's no need to grab proper names at the same time.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Dec 13, 2007)

Kobu said:
			
		

> Sorry, I can't believe that anyone who has read any of the stories could fail to grasp that they are set on Earth, especially when the author takes labors to point it out in the stories. I also don't think alternate opinions on it are valid when the author explicitly states that it is Earth.



Hyboria is "Earth", in that it is a fantastic, fictional "pre-prehistory" of our world. That said, apart from the names and the fact there are humans around, Hyboria isn't any more Earth than any other fantasy world that draws upon real-world historical and mythological roots.


----------



## .:avatar:. (Dec 13, 2007)

Heh... what then about Orcus and Asmodeus being names of christian demonology? Consider also that both will probably be dieties in 4e!

I wonder if that will be more a problem than Tiamat, which is light years away from its mythological roots


----------



## Klaus (Dec 13, 2007)

.:avatar:. said:
			
		

> Heh... what then about Orcus and Asmodeus being names of christian demonology? Consider also that both will probably be dieties in 4e!
> 
> I wonder if that will be more a problem than Tiamat, which is light years away from its mythological roots



 Orcus is actually the Roman god of the underworld (he and Pluto together are a match for Hades).


----------



## kennew142 (Dec 13, 2007)

I'm going to be honest. I think this whole argument is kind of silly. Most D&D players have no problem with the names Bahamut and Tiamat, and couldn't care less that they are real world names applies to D&D entities. If you don't like it, change it in your game. To insist that the rest of the D&D playing world change to suit your tastes is hubristic.

I don't care that Orcus is an ancient Etruscan-Roman death god, that Asmodeus has his roots in Judeo-Christian mysticism, that Tiamat and Bahamut are originally ancient semitic gods/demons. My degrees are all in ancient history, literature and religion, and it would never have occurred to me to get worked up these issues. The D&D entities are reimagined creatures based on the evocative feel of the name. Authors borrow names and imagery from one another all the time. The yog-sothoth of HP Lovecraft isn't exactly the same as the yog-sothoth of Clark Ashton-Smith, Robert E. Howard or August Derleth (let alone the authors of Doctor Who novels).

I am not really trying to belittle the OP (this issue obvious bothers him quite a bit), but I seriously doubt that the average D&D player is bothered by this borrowing in any way. Many of us have been using Bahamut, Tiamat, Orcus, Asmodeus (et alii) from the beginning, and have many fine memories of conflict with their minions.


----------



## infax (Dec 13, 2007)

While not really agreeing with Kobu, I can see a problem with appropriating mythological names and nothing more. While I don't see it as a crime, it can wreck havoc for new players.

If I have a fantasy god named Odin, but he is not a father figure, one eyed, ruler of a pantheon, but rather a half-man half-fish, prankster young god of the Orcs, it WILL cause confusion when I tell a player newly come to my homebrew "And then, you find an altar to Odin at the back of the cave". It generates confusion.

Howard was able to evoke a whole viking-like culture by dropping a couple of nordic sounding names. D&D will be doing the same if they use the name Thor. If they intend to create a god completely different than the one most people are familiar with, maybe they should create another name (or select one more evocative to what they want).


----------



## kennew142 (Dec 13, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Orcus is actually the Roman god of the underworld (he and Pluto together are a match for Hades).




I'm not usually so pedantic on the internet, but it seems to be the purpose of this thread.  

It is a common misconception that Pluto is a a Roman name for Hades. It is in fact a Greek epithet (meaning wealthy). Some Roman poets use the name, because it fits Latin poetic meter better than Hades does. The Roman name for the deity is either Orcus or Jupiter Summanus. The Greek epithet Pluto is more often translated as Dis in Latin (also meaning wealthy), as in Dis Pater (an arch-devil starting in AD&D 1e).

/Pedantry

Since I'm now teaching Middle School Latin/Mythology instead of college, I have to find some way to utilize these degrees.


----------



## Kobu (Dec 13, 2007)

.:avatar:. said:
			
		

> Heh... what then about Orcus and Asmodeus being names of christian demonology? Consider also that both will probably be dieties in 4e!
> 
> I wonder if that will be more a problem than Tiamat, which is light years away from its mythological roots




You may have misunderstood my first post. I'm a little more ambivalent about the greater demons/devils since they aren't as far off from their base. I'd still prefer original names, especially as they stray farther from their origins.

The 1e version of Tiamat wasn't that far from its roots as I recall. It has gotten farther though. I wish I had the 1st Deities and Demigods book here to reference. The whole thing with Io (an FR reference?) splitting is just bizarre though, especially considering that Tiamat is the one who was split in two.

The pairing with Bahamut is also way out there. I could understand Marduk--he was represented as a dragon! And fought Tiamat! Bahamut isn't even a god in mythology as far as I know and is from a whole other culture. Did someone just mix the names up and go with it ever since?



			
				kennew142 said:
			
		

> Authors borrow names and imagery from one another all the time. The yog-sothoth of HP Lovecraft isn't exactly the same as the yog-sothoth of Clark Ashton-Smith, Robert E. Howard or August Derleth (let alone the authors of Doctor Who novels).




Those were collaborations, not just a borrowings. Any differences were not intentional but caused by no one wanting to strictly define those things. Descriptions were intentionally vague in keeping with the mythos. As a collaboration, the mythos stories were also meant to exist together in the same shared universe. I see no problem there.

An example of what I am taking issue with would be having Cthulhu show up as an ocean god in Eberron represented as a kraken. You can sort of see where it came from, but it's far from the origin. It makes no sense to call this god "Cthulhu" even though that was the inspirational source.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 13, 2007)

You would have a problem with Cthulu being represented by a Kraken?  

Heck, whack a fiendish template on him, which gives him wings, and poof, instant Cthulu.  Or, at least close enough.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 13, 2007)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> I'm not usually so pedantic on the internet, but it seems to be the purpose of this thread.
> 
> It is a common misconception that Pluto is a a Roman name for Hades. It is in fact a Greek epithet (meaning wealthy). Some Roman poets use the name, because it fits Latin poetic meter better than Hades does. The Roman name for the deity is either Orcus or Jupiter Summanus. The Greek epithet Pluto is more often translated as Dis in Latin (also meaning wealthy), as in Dis Pater (an arch-devil starting in AD&D 1e).
> 
> ...



 No problem at all, your post is made of pure win!


----------



## Klaus (Dec 13, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> You would have a problem with Cthulu being represented by a Kraken?
> 
> Heck, whack a fiendish template on him, which gives him wings, and poof, instant Cthulu.  Or, at least close enough.



 BAH!

BAH, I say!

Everyone knows Cthulhu is a Colossal half-fiend mind flayer with the Space Creature (d20 Future)!

BAH!


----------

