Print

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

[Flying Dice]

So, to recap: Mythological creatures are upscaled in terms of power to match contemporary military technology, except not really, they're the same as always, except when they're downgraded. Oh, and the mythology itself is unreliable and metaphorical except in instances where it says what I want it to say, in which case it is literal and trustworthy. Did I get everything?

[Neonivek]

So, to recap: Mythological creatures are upscaled in terms of power to match contemporary military technology, except not really, they're the same as always, except when they're downgraded. Oh, and the mythology itself is unreliable and metaphorical except in instances where it says what I want it to say, in which case it is literal and trustworthy. Did I get everything?

No... You really didn't get my point at all.

As well you made up some information there as well and presented it as the recap.

the mythology itself is unreliable

Have you read mythology? The Cyclops alone will make your head spin.

[Orange Wizard]

Mythology is usually vague. And even when it isn't, it doesn't give a detailed run-down of all the attributes and abilities of the creature.
Mythology is unreliable? Yes. By its very nature.

[Flying Dice]

So, to recap: Mythological creatures are upscaled in terms of power to match contemporary military technology, except not really, they're the same as always, except when they're downgraded. Oh, and the mythology itself is unreliable and metaphorical except in instances where it says what I want it to say, in which case it is literal and trustworthy. Did I get everything?

No... You really didn't get my point at all.

Your point was that by the standards set in the present there was no way it would have been possible for people with medieval-level technology to defeat dragons, etc., and yet the mythology clearly describes them being defeated by people. You make the assumption that this is completely true (that people in the past defeated these creatures). In other words, "The mythology is trustworthy because it helps my argument."

Scant sentences later you're talking about how the powers ascribed to these creatures in mythology shouldn't be taken literally, and that they were probably exaggerated. In other words, "The mythology isn't trustworthy because it clashes with another of my arguments."


Here, I'll go through your post bit by bit:

1. Mythological creatures gain additional powers when placed in modern settings. (E.g. Shadowrun dragons are demigods)
2. Mythological creatures already had those powers in the past. (E.g. Shadowrun dragons were demigods)
3. The mythology is unrealistic because it claims that people in the past were able to defeat these creatures without modern weapons.
4. People in the setting believe that the myths are unreliable^{citation needed} because of my argument, but the mythology states that they were.
5. The powers ascribed to these mythological creatures in the modern setting are unrealistically great.
6. The powers ascribed to them in their myths are more potent than what they appear to have. Phrasing suggests myth is trustworthy.
7. One of them has a crippled version of their mythological ability.
8. The powers ascribed to them in their myths are more potent than what they appear to have. Phrasing suggests myth is not trustworthy.

There are, uhm, some contradictions in there. You can't cherrypick little bits of mythology as being trustyworthy while condemning the rest, at least not if you want to remain internally consistent. That aside, the biggest guns are magical powers/aid, not mortal weapons. And arguably luck powers would be more effective against firearms than against melee weapons, not to mention the fact that a godlike being would probably be less likely to underestimate a modern military than a knight with a magic sword.

When you go to kill a god you don't bring rifles and tanks, you bring a god of your own. And possibly lots of magically enchanted shit.

[Neonivek]

No that wasn't my point at all you completely missed the point.

My entire point is that often settings will include fantasy creatures from their own past, except their scale will be that where they can take on modern day weaponry without any indication of how the people of the past were even capable of defending themselves (which they were).

But fine, I am annoyed enough to do the blow by blow... let me break down your post!

". Mythological creatures gain additional powers when placed in modern settings. (E.g. Shadowrun dragons are demigods)
2. Mythological creatures already had those powers in the past. (E.g. Shadowrun dragons were demigods)"

Ok nothing wrong here so far. 1 and 2 do not contradict eachother. The dragon in the future is just as powerful as the dragon in the past.

"The mythology is unrealistic because it claims that people in the past were able to defeat these creatures without modern weapons"

Right still makes sense. Where are these contradictions.

" People in the setting believe that the myths are unreliablecitation needed because of my argument, but the mythology states that they were"

Right nothing contradictory as well.

"The powers ascribed to these mythological creatures in the modern setting are unrealistically great"

Yep if you accept point 1, 2, and 3 then this point still holds.

"Gibberish"

Yeah at this point Flying Dice you started making things up.

"That aside, the biggest guns are magical powers/aid, not mortal weapons. And arguably luck powers would be more effective against firearms than against melee weapons, not to mention the fact that a godlike being would probably be less likely to underestimate a modern military than a knight with a magic sword."

Not only is this arguable (given that the most powerful artifacts were unmagical in nature)... But they already stated out what the "Knight with a magic sword with maxed out luck" would be.

When you go to kill a god you don't bring rifles and tanks, you bring a god of your own. And possibly lots of magically enchanted shit

Also arguable. Many of the gods while having incredible power were closer to mortals then the crazy invincible ones.

As always I bring up the Norse gods.

---

Just to make this clear...

We are in a setting where mythological creatures EXISTED, the myths are true, and no longer exist.

Then in the future the creatures are back.

The minotaur, a creature who was defeated in said mythology without anything special, suddenly is able to wade through the equivalent of anti-material fire without going down. The minotaur is so powerful in fact that it would have been impossible to take down within its own mythology making its defeat a gaping plot hole. Especially when there is no extra powers involved either.

That is my entire point. There is a tendency for settings where mythological creatures, that existed before, to be so powerful in the modern-future times that it makes their defeats all the more perplexing.

In Shadowrun we have dragons and they are so powerful that there is no way they could reasonably be defeated in the In universe mythologies. In Legend every monster gets a huge power up (and often... immense population spike) to the point where how the world existed was questionable.

It isn't a pattern, it is just that this situation always confuses me.

It is on par with those stories where a great evil was SOOOO powerful that it took the entire world's resources and talent, which was many times more powerful then the current timeline within the setting, just to seal it... Then later on this small group will manage to actually kill it without any hint that this evil is weaker (in fact it will usually be more powerful).

[Bauglir]

Usually, I would assume the heroes capable of taking them down were unreasonable badasses themselves, and therefore had the stats to match it. A dragon could easily deal with an army of ordinary knights, but King Arthur is no ordinary knight - he even had magical artifacts of his own! A magic sword, and its magic scabbard, both of which have powers that would prove particularly useful against a creature that manipulates fate and luck as a weapon and a defense (since they create absolute outcomes, like King Arthur being impossible to wound).

Beowulf only had a dagger, though. He was clearly just so insanely badass that he outclasses modern day weapons.

More to the point, your claim seems to revolve around the idea that the stats show that dragons were THIS powerful, which translates into being better than THESE things, which we know from real-world history were superior to THESE OTHER things, which we know from in-game myth were capable of defeating dragons, so nothing makes sense.

I've bolded the flaw here. You're assuming that the stats in question would justify your complaint, when consistency can be attained by simply disregarding the real-world historical record and adding extremely powerful characters to the myths as heroes who really can punch harder than bullets. Modern technology isn't necessarily inherently better than what heroes were capable of in a mythological past.

[smirk]

On the other side, though, when stories like this bring back old heroes, said old heroes tend to be upgraded as well. So the ancient warrior awoken from sleep will be able to swing a sword with the stopping power of an anti-tank battery, just to give legitimacy to the legends of monster-slayers. It's always heroes that slay monsters, not the random background scrubs, and that usually holds true whether those scrubs are faceless villagers or faceless tank battalions. Still doesn't make a lot of sense progress-of-technology-wise, but there is some sort of consistency at least.

On a side note, you might enjoy the book Grunts! by Mary Gentle. Standard(ish) fantasy setting disrupted by the appearance and use of US Marine Corps hardware. Satire; hilarious and rather graphic at points.

[Xantalos]

Hey, we're talking about how dragons are killed and how implausible it is?
Ancalagon the Black.
How.

[da_nang]

Maybe it's just evolution?

[SalmonGod]

I think the biggest problem here is everyone's talking in terms of stats and raw defense vs penetration power and whatever such nonsense.  Reality isn't so straightforward.

For example:  Yeah, a dragon's scales may be hard enough to stop whatever modern projectiles that hit with so much force.  No, a human being with a sword will not hit with comparable force, but a sword can be slipped between scales.  May be a difficult feat to manage, but that's why many thousands fail before a hero succeeds. 

Really, no matter how ridiculous a creature's defenses seem to be, there is always some vulnerability and some way to expose it.  Most heroes quests to slay legendary creatures involved ridiculous amounts of preparation to do just that.

There's also the assumption that humanity always needed to defend itself.  These creatures didn't exist solely for the purpose of wiping out mankind.  More often they were portrayed as simply forces of nature that people (or kingdoms) might find themselves in the path of.  Most often, those people didn't successfully defend themselves.  That's why these monsters had fearful reputations as unstoppable forces, and why heroes were notable at all.

[Scelly9]

What if it's just a function of luck? Shadowrun's dragons can bend luck, let's say that in reality they're actually no more powerful (strength/armor) wise than an elephant. What if it's simply a matter of luck, the explosive round was a dud, or went off with only a small amount of force. The sword was swung clumsily and the knight tripped.

[Pnx]

There's also the assumption that humanity always needed to defend itself.  These creatures didn't exist solely for the purpose of wiping out mankind.  More often they were portrayed as simply forces of nature that people (or kingdoms) might find themselves in the path of.  Most often, those people didn't successfully defend themselves.  That's why these monsters had fearful reputations as unstoppable forces, and why heroes were notable at all.

Wait... were dragons were the ancient equivalent of the great enemy. You know, we need to keep our military strong to protect against the threat from <dragons>? Sort of thing?

[Max White]

And then dragons were terrorists.

[Pnx]

Would've thought these ancient societies wouldn't need something like that given the typically very present threats, but it does make a certain amount of sense.

[werty892]

You thought the Boston bomber was cute? No, no, Tumblr has got this:
http://hottiesfromhistory.tumblr.com/post/3528877074/hottie-from-history-37-lewis-thornton

*note - HFH in no way condones angering farm animals as a method of plastic surgery

Heh.