Talk:Ouroboros

From Encyclopedia Ermariana
Jump to: navigation, search

Separation

I deliberately didn't link to Wikipedia here to keep it mostly In Character. The myth also has a vastly different meaning in the game as opposed to that described in Wikipedia - here, it has far more of a negative connotation. As with the Nephilim, references to real mythology should be watched... Arancaytar | Send Reply! --- That is not dead which can eternal lie... 14:36, 29 January 2006 (CST)

Categorization

Ouroboros definitely doesn't belong in Bestiary, since it is an individual and not a race. For that reason, maybe Mythical creatures should be removed from Bestiary and put somewhere else. Could we just lump them in the Myths category (I forget if that's the right name; the one with Icarus)? --- Slartucker 09:21, 6 February 2006 (CST)

Suggestions

We could do one of the following things to maintain structural integrity:

  1. Get rid of the Mythical creatures category, and move its entries to Myths/Stories.
  2. Remove the category from the Bestiary, and place it instead into stories.
  3. Leave Mythical creatures in Bestiary, but take its entries out of Bestiary (new 'exception' to structure policy)
  4. Leave things as they are now.

Perhaps number 2 would leave things most ordered. Since Bestiary entries are supposed to be about species, and mythical creatures tend to be unique (exception: Illithids?), it would make sense to keep them out.

On the other hand, we had a similar problem with organizations, which are a subcategory of Persons but aren't Persons themselves. We could have Mythical creatures be a subcategory of Bestiary, but its entries not in this category...

Arancaytar | Send Reply! --- That is not dead which can eternal lie... 09:52, 6 February 2006 (CST)

The problem is the following: Mythical creatures are to Bestiary as Mythical individuals are to Persons. If Illithids can be in the same category as Demons, surely Ouroboros can be in the same category as Sulfras. Therefore, if the same category is going to cover both mythical creatures and mythical individuals, the category itself cannot be in Bestiary *or* in Persons.
Since it looks like there will be very few entries of this sort at all, I am in favor of getting rid of the Mythical creatures category, and just lumping them all into Myths/Stories. It doesn't really improve the bestiary or persons indexes to list mythical creatures there without distinguishing them as such, anyway -- do you really want to see Icarus listed as a *person*? --- Slartucker 10:10, 6 February 2006 (CST)
I wouldn't mind as much about Oroubouros being in Persons as I would about it being in Bestiary. Uniqueness is a stronger divider than fictitiousness. However, much like Organizations is more a "symbolic link" from Persons than a subcategory, "mythical creatures" could be a link from Bestiary. Some people might search for mythical creatures in the bestiary (especially creatures that some scenario designers claim to exist, like Illithids), and a subcategory item can't do much harm. But I agree that the entries themselves should be removed from there. Arancaytar | Send Reply! --- That is not dead which can eternal lie... 10:26, 6 February 2006 (CST)
The link from bestiary makes sense to me. These talk edits are getting out of control! Hee. --- Slartucker 10:29, 6 February 2006 (CST)

Addendum

(wrote this while you were writing the above)

For now, I've gone through with option 3, making mythical species (like Illithids) a member of Stories, Mythical creatures and Bestiary, and unique creatures a member of Stories and Mythical creatures.

The reasoning is that since in a fantasy world the means of confirming/disproving existence is far less advanced, we don't actually know for sure whether these creatures exist or have at one point existed. In theory, the difference between an Illithid and a Unicorn is that nobody has ever seen an Illithid. However, as you said, unique creatures - real or not - don't belong in the Bestiary.

We could go the same way we did with Dragons and make unique creatures Persons. But I think that would really be stretching it.

Arancaytar | Send Reply! --- That is not dead which can eternal lie... 10:19, 6 February 2006 (CST)

In that case, can we at least take the unique creatures *out* of Mythical creatures? There's no objective reason for that category to contain Ouroboros but not Icarus, just because Ouroboros "seems" more alien or more creaturely than a mythical human does. --- Slartucker 10:27, 6 February 2006 (CST)
Good idea. It would also rid us of the need for this complex exception I added to the structure policy. Arancaytar | Send Reply! --- That is not dead which can eternal lie... 10:33, 6 February 2006 (CST)