Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 3970733" data-attributes="member: 32536">Why are they not on an equal footing? I would say that elves who make shoes is deeply rooted enough that there should be a representation of it somewhere in D&D. I nominate gnomes for the job, myself.Also, Hercules himself has no real equivalent in D&D, so even popular stuff that is widely known is on the same level as any other possible inspiration for D&D.An idea is an idea. If it serves as an inspiration for something, it is valid and useful. Long-term relevance to western thought is hardly what I would call an important consideration. I don't have any idea how this relates to things I have said. How many times do I have to say that I am not interested in this line of discussion?But, if you insist on making me comment on this...My opinion is that, thanks to the influence of Gnostic christianity, the word "Archon" is a great word for celestial beings, especially since "Archon" does not have the positive connotations that the word "angel" does in English, and it seems that celestials will not be necessarily good-aligned in 4E. Similarly, because of the influences of Zoroastrianism, and I think Hinduism, the words Ashura and Deva are also good terms for celestials that are not necessarily good. The value of these terms is not dependent on mythological accuracy for its own sake (though I do like mythological accuracy), but because these terms have very similar meaning in some usage, and I despise making up meaningless names for things in D&D. Common perception is more important than history.Ugh, this is what I get for omitting the phrase "relatively widespread in literature despite its fairly obscure origin" because I thought it was unnecessary. Also, I have no objection to backing up my claim. I think I have, myself, and others in this thread have also done so. For what I was claiming, that it has a significant enough influence in fantasy and the popular imagination that it is recognizable, even a few examples is enough.Really? Interesting.I was talking about novels and authors, actually, since we were discussing (in a somewhat implicit fashion) whether or not the Chronicles of Narnia or Xanth are widely read and popular or not.I never once argued any point on his behalf. This whole thing started when I was directly responding to your statement "I have never read a book that had Dryads", by citing a few examples of books that had Dryads in them. I was not backing his broad claim, but rather going against your claim (the implicit statement that Dryads are not found in fiction).In other words, I am not claiming that everyone who reads fantasy should know what a Dryad is, rather I am claiming that knowledge of what a Dryad is classically supposed to be is not uncommon among fantasy. There is a difference between claiming "almost everyone should know it" and "it is common enough that many will". I am claiming the latter, but you are acting as if I am claiming the former.I never even meant to make more than a single post on the subject, really. I guess it is hard for me to pull away from internet debates...</blockquote>

Verification