Monsters and Medusae, I guess?

[Metastachydium]

See, this is what I was saying about making up more specific rules to include examples you like and exclude ones you don't.

If you think Gorgon ('female monster with snake hair and a paralyzing gaze') is at the same level as a category as the classical usage of d(a)emon ('kind of like any of the numberless intermediary beings between the gods and mortals, especially one of the malevolent instances if you go by later sources'), that's not on me. That's on you.

"Fenrir," "fenris wolf," and other Fenrir derivatives are sometimes used to refer to various kinds of wolf monsters.

I'll have to take your word for that, I suppose.

What do you mean, the coatl? There are plenty of fantasy works where coatls are a whole species of winged serpents, including D&D!

The Couatl, as in the Owlbear or the Gelatinous Cube. I was talking about the D&D monster (which does otherwise happen to be inspired by a singular entity of no species that would be typed as an Outsider in D&D, just as the Couatl is an Outsider).

How many examples will you demand I show you? How much BS will you throw at me to discredit them?

I specified one criterion at the start (there is a species-type category ditched in favour of the name of a famous instance) and sticked to it. Technically, you managed to come up with one (1) example that is not the Medusa, and in actual fact, the Barghest is about as true to its folkloric original as the D&D!Gorgon is to its mythical one.

That said, you have already done that when you said "It has to be a category that I, subjectively, think is narrow and meaningful".

Again, if you think "kinda like a dog" or "animal" or "spirit" is a species-type category, and one has to subjectively move the goalpost to "discredit" that, that's on you.

[H_H_F_F]

I'll have to take your word for that [H_H_F_F]"that" being Fenris Wolf as a creature type[/H_H_F_F], I suppose.

Age of Mythology had Fenris Wolf Brood as a tier 4 monster for Norse if you took Tyr. Then again, it's BROOD, and AoM does that to a lot of singular monsters - like, well, Medusa.

[Metastachydium]

Age of Mythology had Fenris Wolf Brood as a tier 4 monster for Norse if you took Tyr. Then again, it's BROOD, and AoM does that to a lot of singular monsters - like, well, Medusa.

I see, thanks! (Also, does it do the brood thing a lot, or the mislabeling stuff thing a lot? I'm not terribly familiar with that game and I already hate it.)

[H_H_F_F]

I see, thanks! (Also, does it do the brood thing a lot, or the mislabeling stuff thing a lot? I'm not terribly familiar with that game and I already hate it.)

Names of singular monsters adapted to mean a type of monster: Pegasus, Minotaur, Nemean Lion, Hydra, Chimera, Medusa, Scylla, Wadjet, Sphinx (were there multiple?), Leviathan, and Kraken. Perhaps some more in the extensions, I never liked playing with the added deities.

The brood thing: they have Anubites (Anubis-like monsters) and Jormund Elver (internet tells me that means "young eel").

It's a fantastic game, by the way.

[Tzardok]

"Sphinx" is an interesting case, because in Greek mythology there was only one (incidentally, the name means roughly 'female strangler'), but when the Greek visited the Egyptians they applied the term to the many, many lion-bodied statues they found there (partially the reason why there are so many sphinx-subraces in D&D). The Egyptians obviously didn't use the term sphinx for those (IIRC, they didn't have a collective term for them at all, instead giving each an individual name).

[Beni-Kujaku]

Names of singular monsters adapted to mean a type of monster: Pegasus, Minotaur, Nemean Lion, Hydra, Chimera, Medusa, Scylla, Wadjet, Sphinx (were there multiple?), Leviathan, and Kraken. Perhaps some more in the extensions, I never liked playing with the added deities.

The brood thing: they have Anubites (Anubis-like monsters) and Jormund Elver (internet tells me that means "young eel").

It's a fantastic game, by the way.

I can add the Behemoth and the Argus (Panoptes, even having an upgrade called "Io Guardian", despite being represented as a flying octopus for some reason). I concur with the fact that the game is amazing (for its age, it dates back to 2002). It treats mythology about as well as D&D does (that is to say, take what it likes, ignores every point that hinders the story it aims to tell), and makes several inaccuracies (beyond having whole species of unique monsters, which is inevitable in an RTS game, Argus is shaped like an octopus, Kronos has time powers, Medusa refers to all gorgons, Scylla is just an aquatic hydra with the ability to grow new heads...), but the gameplay is really good, the main storyline is superb and, above all, it is fun. You should try it.

[Ignimortis]

I'm not terribly familiar with that game and I already hate it.)

It is an amazing game, by the way. Holds up very well even today, and, personally, I consider it to be a welcome reprieve from the micromanagement hell that the RTS genre sometimes devolves into.

[H_H_F_F]

Kronos has time powers

Ugh, the most annoying **** ever.

But I feel like we're going off-topic in the thread that was opened specifically to avoid excessive off-topic, so...

[Metastachydium]

Names of singular monsters adapted to mean a type of monster: Pegasus, Minotaur, Nemean Lion, Hydra, Chimera, Medusa, Scylla, Wadjet, Sphinx (were there multiple?), Leviathan, and Kraken. Perhaps some more in the extensions, I never liked playing with the added deities.

Hm. So, still the Medusa's the only "there was a (quasi-)species!!"-class offender. Good to know.

The brood thing: they have Anubites (Anubis-like monsters) and Jormund Elver (internet tells me that means "young eel").

What's it with media loving the "Soldiers of Anubis (now with a darker jackal head!)" shtick so much, I wonder? (D&D alone has, like, three of those, and I've seen them in a million movies (The Mummy Returns, anyone?), books and the like too.)

"Sphinx" is an interesting case, because in Greek mythology there was only one (incidentally, the name means roughly 'female strangler'), but when the Greek visited the Egyptians they applied the term to the many, many lion-bodied statues they found there (partially the reason why there are so many sphinx-subraces in D&D). The Egyptians obviously didn't use the term sphinx for those (IIRC, they didn't have a collective term for them at all, instead giving each an individual name).

I've seen Shedus called Mesopotamian Sphinges before, in addition to those. But yeah.

It treats mythology about as well as D&D does (that is to say, take what it likes, ignores every point that hinders the story it aims to tell), and makes several inaccuracies

Heh.

Argus is shaped like an octopus,

FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!!

Kronos has time powers,

Ugh, the most annoying **** ever.

Damn. What's so hard to grasp about this little phenomenon called aspiration?!

Scylla is just an aquatic hydra with the ability to grow new heads

To be fair, Scylla and Charybdis are tough to accurately pull on account of being damn weird.

but the gameplay is really good, the main storyline is superb and, above all, it is fun. You should try it.

It is an amazing game, by the way. Holds up very well even today, and, personally, I consider it to be a welcome reprieve from the micromanagement hell that the RTS genre sometimes devolves into.

It's a fantastic game, by the way.

Huh. I might give it a try.

But I feel like we're going off-topic in the thread that was opened specifically to avoid excessive off-topic, so...

It's MY thread now! I'll allow it.

[RSGA]

For the Anubis masked/headed minions, I think it gets used because it's generally thought that the priests in Ancient Egypt would have worn similar masks, it's a very simple but striking look, and it sets expectations real fast.

[H_H_F_F]

Damn. What's so hard to grasp about this little phenomenon called aspiration?!

Nah, it was just mechanically very annoying. Unbuilding your stuff.

[GreatWyrmGold]

If you think Gorgon ('female monster with snake hair and a paralyzing gaze') is at the same level as a category as the classical usage of d(a)emon ('kind of like any of the numberless intermediary beings between the gods and mortals, especially one of the malevolent instances if you go by later sources'), that's not on me. That's on you.

You're taking it as a given that categories can (and should) be put into levels like that. More importantly, you're taking it as a given that that distinction matters to the topic at hand.

There are several ways that the categories "demon" and "gorgon" differ. It's on you to explain why those differences are relevant. And once you do, deciding how specific a category needs to be to "count" is a whole separate discussion!
"Youkai" is more specific than "demon" and more generic than "gorgon"; is it an acceptable category? The fact that I don't know whether you think it is, whether youkai examples will be dismissed for this reason, is a problem with this criterion's mere existence.

The Couatl, as in the Owlbear or the Gelatinous Cube. I was talking about the D&D monster (which does otherwise happen to be inspired by a singular entity of no species that would be typed as an Outsider in D&D, just as the Couatl is an Outsider).

Inspired by and named after.

Also: If you weren't using it as a proper noun, why did you capitalize The Couatl? Why did you use the singular in the first place? When talking about bears or dragons, you don't say "The Bear attacks with its claws" or "The Dragon breathes fire," do you?

I specified one criterion at the start (there is a species-type category ditched in favour of the name of a famous instance) and sticked to it. Technically, you managed to come up with one (1) example that is not the Medusa, and in actual fact, the Barghest is about as true to its folkloric original as the D&D!Gorgon is to its mythical one.

And you added a second criterion in your second post. (As I said you would.) And you have failed to explain why the heck that criterion matters, beyond your own assertion.

I also disagree with your choice to dismiss the other examples I've given. For instance, you dismissed "fenris wolf" with:

I'll have to take your word for that, I suppose.

Since you don't count "fenris wolf" as one of the examples that you accept, I have to assume that "I have not personally seen this happen much" is a third criterion. Then you said that couatls are merely inspired by Quetzelcoatl, which is somehow distinct from the relationship between Medusa and medusas, and I guess that's a fourth criterion. And since you mention that the D&D barghest is unfaithful to its legendary inspiration, should I assume that that is a fifth?


I can't see into your heart and soul. But from my perspective, it seems like you'll come up with an excuse to dismiss every example I provide—and all of your excuses so far have been subjective. I think that that category is too generic. I haven't heard that name used often. I think that's just inspiration, not...whatever medusas have. I don't think it's mythologically accurate enough to count. That's not enough examples to convince me. Yes, one counterexample is usually enough to disprove an absolute rule, but that's not enough because I say so.

Whatever your intent, the past two posts have convinced me that there is absolutely no point providing additional examples.

[ShurikVch]

Names of singular monsters adapted to mean a type of monster: Pegasus, Minotaur, Nemean Lion, Hydra, Chimera, Medusa, Scylla, Wadjet, Sphinx (were there multiple?), Leviathan, and Kraken.

How about the Balor?

[H_H_F_F]

How about the Balor?

In Age of Mythology?

[ShurikVch]

In Age of Mythology?

In D&D: originally (possible past copyright infringement aside), they were Type VI Demons, and Balor was just one of them - the greatest.
Thus, now we got Balor named Balor...

[Metastachydium]

You're taking it as a given that categories can (and should) be put into levels like that. More importantly, you're taking it as a given that that distinction matters to the topic at hand.

There are several ways that the categories "demon" and "gorgon" differ. It's on you to explain why those differences are relevant. And once you do, deciding how specific a category needs to be to "count" is a whole separate discussion!

I don't think I need to explain why and how reptile and dragon are different categories, frankly, and if I have to, I'll blame my audience.

"Youkai" is more specific than "demon" and more generic than "gorgon"; is it an acceptable category? The fact that I don't know whether you think it is, whether youkai examples will be dismissed for this reason, is a problem with this criterion's mere existence.

I was very clear and specific. Literally specific. I consistently called Gorgon a quasi-species, insofar as it cannot be further sundivided into categories that go beyond displaying minimal, if at all meaningful, differences. It's like basic taxonomy. Do you often feel like vertebrate, amphibian and cane toad are basically interchangeable or something?

Inspired by and named after.

Yes, so?

Also: If you weren't using it as a proper noun, why did you capitalize The Couatl? Why did you use the singular in the first place? When talking about bears or dragons, you don't say "The Bear attacks with its claws" or "The Dragon breathes fire," do you?

This is something I do for (D&D) creatures and spell names out of habit (outside certain context, such as homebrewn rules texts). Case in point, I capitalized Owlbear and Gelatinous Cube in the very post you quoted, which is an odd detail to miss, frankly.

And you added a second criterion in your second post. (As I said you would.) And you have failed to explain why the heck that criterion matters, beyond your own assertion.

No, I merely realized Barghest was irrelevant to begin with. By your own admission, no less: the first thing you said on the subject was that criticizing the appropriation of the term Gorgon for something that's, at best, superficially similar to a Gorgon is a fair rap. You made that a part of the basic premises we work with, not I, even though I agree such use cases are a different beast, so to say, altogether.

I also disagree with your choice to dismiss the other examples I've given. For instance, you dismissed "fenris wolf" with:

Since you don't count "fenris wolf" as one of the examples that you accept, I have to assume that "I have not personally seen this happen much" is a third criterion.

"I'll take your word for it" means 'I'll take your word for it', buddy. No need to overthink it.

Then you said that couatls are merely inspired by Quetzelcoatl, which is somehow distinct from the relationship between Medusa and medusas, and I guess that's a fourth criterion.

There is no quasi-species to the Quetzalcoatl as there is a quasi-species (the Gorgon) to Medusa. That is my argument and that's what it always was, sorry.

And since you mention that the D&D barghest is unfaithful to its legendary inspiration, should I assume that that is a fifth?

It's like the Bull!Gorgon. A name tacked on something that has nothing to do with the name's original owner, beyond some superficial overlap (a petrification effect in one case, sometimes looking somewhat doglike in the other). If you consider Bull!Gorgon an odd duck yourself, I don't see where the sudden leniency regarding Barghests comes from.

I can't see into your heart

I'm a FLOWER. I don't have a heart.

it seems like you'll come up with an excuse to dismiss every example I provide—and all of your excuses so far have been subjective.

Nope.

I think that that category is too generic.

If you don't understand the difference between species and (basically) kingdom-level categories, that's not me being subjective.

I haven't heard that name used often.

I said that one is okay.

I think that's just inspiration, not...whatever medusas have.

That's your own misunderstanding. The Couatl thing is about the lack of a species-level category such as Gorgogn, not some vague "inspirations don't count thing".

I don't think it's mythologically accurate enough to count.

That was part of your basic assumption regarding the Gorgon. See above.

That's not enough examples to convince me. Yes, one counterexample is usually enough to disprove an absolute rule, but that's not enough because I say so.

I didn't say there are no instances of such mistakes anywhere ever. You said "A. it matches a convention [I] accept for other species and B. it's broadly accepted not just by D&D, but by lots of fantasy media in general." How one example of anything proves your stated "general convention broadly accepted" is true is beyond me (and, I believe, basic logic).

Whatever your intent, the past two posts have convinced me that there is absolutely no point providing additional examples.

You do you, of course.

[Errorname]

Then you said that couatls are merely inspired by Quetzelcoatl, which is somehow distinct from the relationship between Medusa and medusas, and I guess that's a fourth criterion. And since you mention that the D&D barghest is unfaithful to its legendary inspiration, should I assume that that is a fifth?

I think the actual distinction that makes it distinct from Medusa is the lack of a better option.

If you're making a Quetzalcoatl-inspired type of monster you've got to have a name for it, and Quetzalcoatl is one of a kind in the myths. The path of least resistance there is to just take the name of the individual and make that the species name.

But you don't have to make that compromise with something like Medusa, because there are other monsters like her and there's a name for them that's specific to the sort of monster they are. Gorgon basically just describes Medusa and her sisters, it's not an umbrella term that encompasses a wide swathe of monsters.

[H_H_F_F]

I'm a FLOWER. I don't have a heart.

You'd think by this point, your commitment to this bit would stop catching me off-guard - but when it still does.

[Metastachydium]

this bit

I'd go all "why are you wearing that stupid man suit" for this, but rabbits are kinda scary.

[H_H_F_F]

I'd go all "why are you wearing that stupid man suit" for this, but rabbits are kinda scary.

...I've lost you

[Metastachydium]

...I've lost you

Donnie Darko? Come on, it's a classic!