Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bronzebeard]

It's interesting how tolerant we see seem to be; people shan't be consigned to lunacy and subsequent ridicule, but have their ideas of holy draconic messengers or Cretaceous reincarnation recognized as valid points in a rational discussion! Oh, we deserve cookies for our manners.

[Draco18s]

holy draconic messengers

Haven't met any of those yet.  At least of the "messenger" variety.  Know at least one who's here on a research mission though.
(Take the word "mission" lightly here, as well as the term "research")
But like I said, "dragons exist" is pretty normal by my standards (and Samael the Red was bat shit insane by those same standards).

[atomfullerene]

You know, if you were to drop a komodo dragon, one of those asian gliding lizards, a dinosaur, or heck, probably even a crocodile or a rock python off in 1300's Europe, the average man on the street would call it a dragon or at least a great wyrm.  Rumors of several of the above are thought to have contributed to actual myths about dragons.  In some ways dragon was a good catchall term for big, unknown reptile.  So, at the time, dragons did exist, but once the components of the term that really existed got better known, they got their own definitions and names and there were no more real dragons.

or at least that's one way to look at it.  Sufficiently obscure taxonomy is indistinguishable from mythic

[Bronzebeard]

You know, if you were to drop a komodo dragon, one of those asian gliding lizards, a dinosaur, or heck, probably even a crocodile or a rock python off in 1300's Europe, the average man on the street would call it a dragon or at least a great wyrm.  Rumors of several of the above are thought to have contributed to actual myths about dragons.  In some ways dragon was a good catchall term for big, unknown reptile.  So, at the time, dragons did exist, but once the components of the term that really existed got better known, they got their own definitions and names and there were no more real dragons.

or at least that's one way to look at it.  Sufficiently obscure taxonomy is indistinguishable from mythic

Does this mean you're getting the cookies? :3

[Vester]

You know, if you were to drop a komodo dragon, one of those asian gliding lizards, a dinosaur, or heck, probably even a crocodile or a rock python off in 1300's Europe, the average man on the street would call it a dragon or at least a great wyrm.

Foolishness, yon armored beast of fierce aspect and manifold tusks be a crocodile, which be a kind of devil. Komodo dragons are but vile and noisome creatures, which, upon inspection indeed hath legs as though it were a more wholesome beast, yet is but a vile serpent whom God in all his wisdom has seen fit to inflict upon us.

[Bronzebeard]

Komodo dragons are but vile and noisome creatures, which, upon inspection indeed hath legs as though it were a more wholesome beast, yet is but a vile serpent whom God in all his wisdom has seen fit to inflict upon us.

Well. Not so much us as Komodo, at least. But oh well; that dumb island had it coming.

[Miuramir]

IMO, ideally such "portmanteau" monsters as the griffin and various other heraldic beasts would be produced semi-automatically.  As part of world creation, various proto-mythological beasts would be randomized, most along the lines of "has the body of a (existing creature) but the (some other part or parts) of a (some other existing creature)", with lesser chances of more complex mixes, and mixes with an unnatural power-up (body of a rooster, tail of a venomous lizard, powered-up venom).  These would be then seeded into appropriate habitats along with the normal critters, and some sort of fitness / pruning algorithm would see if they make it beyond the first generation or so.

Griffins, being the combination of what was generally believed to be the king of the land (lion) and the king of the air (eagle), would be likely to thrive and become significant; something that instead rolled the body of a sheep and the head of a crow might make it in isolated areas but would not be the stuff of legend; while the poor body of a beaver, head of a hummingbird creatures would only appear as a footnote in the oldest engravings, if at all.  Until you ran into a forgotten beast based on one...

[Draco18s]

while the poor body of a beaver, head of a hummingbird creatures

Oh man, I can only imagine the hyperactive hypercuriousity of such a critter.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

I like how peppy Deathworks sounds! And signing his name at the end makes him sound classy - like reading letters to the editor in old newspapers when people used 5-letter words and proper spelling.

Okay, here's where my limited research has gotten me:

Dwarves in "Monsters and Treasure" (one of the three 0E D&D booklets) are shown as possibly using trained bears and wolves. The entry for Griffons mentions that they can be used as steeds, but they like eating horses so you can't keep them close together. It actually specifies that you can't have them closer than 36", which to scale is either 360 feet or 360 yards depending. I forget.

I find mention in the 2E D&D "Complete Dwarves' Handbook" under the Rapid Response Rider kit. This kit can be taken only by Dwarves. It mentions that ponies and mules are often used by the riders, but that flying mounts like pegasi, hippogriffs, and griffons can be used as well.

So, nothing really connecting Dwarves with Griffons. I'd suggest checking out the BECMI / Rules Cyclopedia editions, the Skills and Powers edition (especially the "High-Level Campaigns" book), and that Dwarven softcover rulebook that had the list of common Dwarven names and the Dwarven language on the inside of the cover.

Oh hay guess what guys:

This translated medieval bestiary, under "1. Beasts" and page 24, says that a Griffon "Is vehemently hostile to horses. But it will also tear to pieces any human being which it happens to come across".

Now mythologically, humans were of a different type entirely from Elves and Dwarves and such. So perhaps this is evidence at least that Humans would be excluded from Griffons.

(There is also an animal called an ELEPHANT, which has no desire to copulate. To reproduce they must travel to a certain tree and "munch it" whereupon the female becomes pregnant. She wades out into a lake and gives birth while the male guards her because there is a certain type of dragon that is the elephant's mortal enemy. This book should be read by everyone and everything because it is so awesome!)