Tiamat and Bahamut--Why Use Real World Mythology?

[Kobu]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[SkidAce]

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.