The Accretion of DnD Mythology

[DrunkonDuty]

So I was reading the thread about Gruumsh in 1st Ed. (if I knew how to put a link in I'd do it.)

Wayne Ligon's post

"With all the little bits scattered here and there among dozens of other books, I don't really think you can take someone to task for backstory stuff that was written (actually, acreeted is a better word) over a period of 20 years"


got me thinking. DnD really has accreted a mythology. Well the whole game is an accretion thanks to the communal nature of it but I'll try to just talk about the campaign mythologies of fictional gods.

So: accretion. This is how religions DO form. Currently reading a book about the formation of the early Christian church and all the many possible interpretations of the various holy texts. (Many of these interpretations were later defined as heresies, their contributors heretics.) Prophets were quoted (Christ, Paul, Peter) to defend each view. Conflicting documents that had never been meant to create a whole cloth were used to defend/attack all points of view. The issues then became complicated by new ideas and situations (eg: the official recognition of the Christian church by the Roman Empire.)

It just strikes me that the growth of fictional religions in roleplaying games mirrors this process. Read the thread I mentioned above to get an idea. The prophets are Kuntz, Moore, Greenwood. The holy texts dragon magazines. But the process is much the same: a community is trying to thrash out a coherent system from a mish mash of sources that were never intended to be all of one piece. Fortunately the arguments here on Enworld are nowhere near as vicious as the arguments between the bishops of the early Christian church.

Now there's no doubt that some people have recognised this in the past (the disputed Elven and Orcish versions of why Gruumsh has one eye for instance) but the arguments continue.

I just find it fascinating is all. I think a mythographer who wanted a modern case study of the phenomena could do a lot worse than trace this history and read some of the arguments that take place here and other forums.

not really expecting a response, just felt the need to say it.

cheers,
Glen

 

[Tonguez]

Damn another idea for a PHD thesis!

 

[Rabelais]

Fortunately the arguments here on Enworld are nowhere near as vicious as the arguments between the bishops of the early Christian church.Glen

So Piratecat CAN'T put us to death for disagreeing with him?.... hmmmm I'll file that under "Good to Know"

 

[Anti-Sean]

Fortunately the arguments here on Enworld are nowhere near as vicious as the arguments between the bishops of the early Christian church.

Oh great, now I'm picturing Augustine and Pelagius flaming one another back and forth across the rules forum. Thanks for that! :gnash:

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Anti-Sean: "Oh great, now I'm picturing Augustine and Pelagius flaming one another back and forth across the rules forum. Thanks for that! :gnash:"

Your welcome.

(considering they would have communicated by letter not that different. Just faster.)

 

[Anti-Sean]

Your welcome.

(considering they would have communicated by letter not that different. Just faster.)

It's the addition of l33t5p3ak and lolcats to their arguments that really broke my brain.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

It's the addition of l33t5p3ak and lolcats to their arguements that really broke my brain.

*Bows before greatness*

You have given me an idea. There's a professor who teaches a philosophy/history course involving early Christian theology who has been lamenting none of the students seem to pay attention or get the lessons. I'll suggest translating some of the arguments and counterarguments into the form of leetspeak and relating the conflict to internet themes such as flamewars.

 

[Piratecat]

So Piratecat CAN'T put us to death for disagreeing with him?.... hmmmm I'll file that under "Good to Know"

Anyone who thinks this is a dangerously radical, heretical splitter. You're on our list, mister!

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anti-Sean
It's the addition of l33t5p3ak and lolcats to their arguements that really broke my brain.

LOL.

 

[WayneLigon]

Wayne Ligon's post

It would have helped if I'd remembered to go back and spell the word correctly.

Comics also accrete backgrouns material. I'm pretty sure that RPG writers work the same way as comics do: you have certain sources that - by the producers of the works - are considered canon and certain ones that are not despite all having been produced by the same company and many times under the same supervision. In comics we've taken to calling this a retcon (for retroactive continuity) but there is a subtle difference. In a true retcon, a writer will come along and declare that the past has always been this way, whereas with the pick-and-choose canon just certain things are ignored.

For instance, a writer in Flash comes along and reveals that instead of a lightning bolt dousing him with chemicals to give him his superspeed, it was the work of an alien being. That story was written, passed though at least one editor, approved and published... then quietly ignored ever since and is not considered to have happened today.

I'm sure if you did a systematic search of all the D&D literature on, say, the drow you'd come upon a number of similar inconsistancies which in retrospect are not inconsistancies or laziness or maliciousness so much an effort to craft a better story. All source material is not considered equal. And it shouldn't be considered equal. Sometimes editors and writers can put down some truly stupid stuff and if it can't be changed for any reason whatsoever, then you wind up with a worse mess than if you 'allow' for the periodic streamlining or re-write to punch up a weak story element or change something based on new information.

Me, I always thought it was amusing that 1E Gruumsh's Deities and Demigods portrait looks nothing like a 1E AD&D orc with it's pig-snout, yet no-one ever complained about that. Probably because it looks so much better.