Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Godly Kryptonite?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by TwitchTheRat View Post
    The giants were children of Ouranos and Gaea, and included the cyclopes among them, though some of them were exceptions that had different parents, like Polyphemus. The Hecatoncheires are basically badass famous giants, like the giant equivalent of Hercales and Achilles. The Gigantes were a specific group of giants that participated in the Gigantomachy, but they were all giants. That's why the gods considered it such a betrayal when things went bad during the Gigantomachy, because the giants had been on their side previously.

    I mean, that's racial profiling. Just because some giants helped once upon a time doesn't mean you are buddies with all giants, but that's mythology for you.
    You’re classifying things together under the label “giants” that as far as I am aware no Greek writers ever classified together. The English word “giants” derives from gigantes. There is no Greek word that was applied to Gigantes, Cyclopes, and Hekatonchire collectively.

    I’m not aware of any Greek myth narrative that has the gods seeing the Cyclopes as traitors because of the actions of the Gigantes. Except for Apollo, who took out his fury over the death of Asclepius on the cyclopes’ for making Zeus’ thunder bolt (because he couldn’t take it out on Zeus), the gods generally had a good relationship with the cyclopes. Zeus even severely punished Apollo for his actions.


    Check out my expansion to the Realm of Brass and Shadow

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by glamourweaver View Post
      There is no Greek word that was applied to Gigantes, Cyclopes, and Hekatonchire collectively.
      They were the same species, roughly. Every single one of them were described as giants, not just in stature but in overall similar characteristics, except the Hecatoncheires who were giants taken up to 11.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by TwitchTheRat View Post
        They were the same species, roughly. Every single one of them were described as giants, not just in stature but in overall similar characteristics, except the Hecatoncheires who were giants taken up to 11.


        What characteristics were those?

        I'm guessing they were at least roughly humanoid in shape?

        On an unrelated note, I'm curious as to why a race of beings known for their great skill and craftsmanship are often portrayed as being stupid. I'd classify them more as being savants, if that were the case.

        There are different kinds of intelligence besides book smarts.
        Last edited by Nyrufa; 10-10-2017, 06:28 PM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by TwitchTheRat View Post
          They were the same species, roughly. Every single one of them were described as giants, not just in stature but in overall similar characteristics, except the Hecatoncheires who were giants taken up to 11.
          I think there might be a misunderstanding here due to translations. Yes, the Elder Cyclopes, the Hecatoncheires, the Gigantes, and the Younger Cyclopes are all 'Giant' as an Adjective, but they're not all Giants as a Noun. The Gigantes are Giants (Noun) who are Giant (Adjective), and the Hecatoncheires are Giant (Adjective) but not Giants (Noun). Since English uses essentially the same word for the Noun as the Adjective, it causes a lot of confusion. But, helpfully we can riddle this out with ease checking the original text! And even more helpfully, here is a digital copy of The Theogony that you can click on words for their translation!

          So, we can see that on line 185 we get this, "γείνατ᾽ Ἐρινῦς τε κρατερὰς μεγάλους τε Γίγαντας," which is translated into English (using this translation since my physical one is at home) as, "the strong Erinyes and the great Giants," with Γίγαντας being more specifically the name of The Gigantes. This is Giant (Noun).

          Now, looking to lines regarding the Elder Cyclopes, lines 139 to about 147 in our original text, get this: "γείνατο δ᾽ αὖ Κύκλωπας ὑπέρβιον ἦτορ ἔχοντας, Βρόντην τε Στερόπην τε καὶ Ἄργην ὀβριμόθυμον, οἳ Ζηνὶ βροντήν τε δόσαν τεῦξάν τε κεραυνόν. οἳ δή τοι τὰ μὲν ἄλλα θεοῖς ἐναλίγκιοι ἦσαν, μοῦνος δ᾽ ὀφθαλμὸς μέσσῳ ἐνέκειτο μετώπῳ. Κύκλωπες δ᾽ ὄνομ᾽ ἦσαν ἐπώνυμον, οὕνεκ᾽ ἄρα σφέων κυκλοτερὴς ὀφθαλμὸς ἕεις ἐνέκειτο μετώπῳ: ἰσχὺς δ᾽ ἠδὲ βίη καὶ μηχαναὶ ἦσαν ἐπ᾽ ἔργοις." which connects in our translation as: "And again, she bare the Cyclopes, overbearing in spirit, Brontes, and Steropes and stubborn-hearted Arges (6), who gave Zeus the thunder and made the thunderbolt: in all else they were like the gods, but one eye only was set in the midst of their fore-heads. And they were surnamed Cyclopes (Orb-eyed) because one orbed eye was set in their foreheads. Strength and might and craft were in their works."

          So, the words in this passage that are important to us is the Noun given to describe these beings, "Κύκλωψ" as far as I can tell, meaning Round Eyed, which connects with the translation of Cyclopes given in our translation as Orb-Eyed there in the second last sentence. There's a total lack of description of stature of these beings even, instead they are described as being similar to the Gods, "θεοῖς ἐναλίγκιοι," rather than any of the large-of-stature beings.

          Then we have the description of the Hecatoncheires, which is lines 147 - 153: "ἄλλοι δ᾽ αὖ Γαίης τε καὶ Οὐρανοῦ ἐξεγένοντο τρεῖς παῖδες μεγάλοι τε καὶ ὄβριμοι, οὐκ ὀνομαστοί, Κόττος τε Βριάρεώς τε Γύης θ᾽, ὑπερήφανα τέκνα. τῶν ἑκατὸν μὲν χεῖρες ἀπ᾽ ὤμων ἀίσσοντο, ἄπλαστοι, κεφαλαὶ δὲ ἑκάστῳ πεντήκοντα ἐξ ὤμων ἐπέφυκον ἐπὶ στιβαροῖσι μέλεσσιν: ἰσχὺς δ᾽ ἄπλητος κρατερὴ μεγάλῳ ἐπὶ εἴδει." which our translation gives as, "And again, three other sons were born of Earth and Heaven, great and doughty beyond telling, Cottus and Briareos and Gyes, presumptuous children. From their shoulders sprang an hundred arms, not to be approached, and each had fifty heads upon his shoulders on their strong limbs, and irresistible was the stubborn strength that was in their great forms."

          From the text, we can see that the Hecatoncheires are described as being physically large, "μέγας," in the text, but that same adjective is not used to describe the Gigantes we saw in our first passage. The Elder Cyclopes were not even described as being large, and instead were simply physically described as being like the Gods, but with only one eye.

          Now, the reason this is significant is because the Greeks were obsessed with taxonomy for their world, they ordered and structured things incredibly well, and each of these groups of beings was regarded as distinct from each other. The Elder Cyclopes, the Gigantes, and the Hecatoncheires are all described originally as being distinct, different groups of beings. Even in physical description they are rather different. The Elder Cyclopes are simply described as being in the same visage as the Gods, but with only one eye. The Hecatoncheires are described as being physically large, with fifty heads and one hundred arms sprouting from their shoulders. The Gigantes on the other hand are not described as being big, but armored. Now, in later stories we do see the Gigantes being big, but they gain another physical aberration, legs of snakes.

          So, in total we have a) Three men who look like the Gods but have one eye in the middle of their faces, b) Three large men who are large and have fifty heads and one hundred arms, and c) a species of beings born in armor and wielding spears who are later further described as being large, and having snakes for legs. The original text never says the Elder Cyclopes were One-Eyed Giants, that's just how we started describing them as part of the translation, adding in the 'Giant' terminology. The Hecatoncheires are described as being 'big' as an adjective, but we often translate it as, "Hundred Armed Giants," even though the term "μέγας," the adjective of 'big' given to them, is totally different from the noun, "Γίγαντας," which is the actual group of Gigantes.

          Even in cosmological function, these three groups are very different. The Elder Cyclopes are only three beings who forge the three most powerful tools of the Three Kings of the Theoi, with their names all relating to Thunder, Storms, and the sort. Likely connecting the sound of their hammering with the sound of storms, their blows on their anvil like thunderclaps. The Hecatoncheires are similarly given names rooted in words of Storms, likely due to them being the beings who control the winds on command of Zeus. They stand at the gates of Tartarus to open and close the doors to let out the storm winds of Typhon trapped within when Zeus needs them. The Gigantes don't have any similarities with these, being a species rather than specific named individuals, and very clearly having a primary motif of warfare which will become important in the later story of their war against the Gods.

          So, while they are described as Giants, they're not all Giants. The Hecatoncheires are Giants (Adjective), the Cyclopes are actually not ever described as being large but I suspect the Younger Cyclopes may be (I would need to check an original version of The Odyssey I expect) and that confused everything. The Gigantes are Giants (Noun) but never technically described in their first appearance as being Giant. (Adjective) Since the Greeks went to the trouble to differentiate all of these beings to a high degree, I suspect that it is simply meant to be that they are all distinctly different, as different as the Gigantes are from the Erinyes, and the Nymphs for example.

          Comment


          • #50
            Cyclopes being giant in our conception relative to the normally manifest forms associated with the gods is probably thanks to Homer and Polyphemus.


            Check out my expansion to the Realm of Brass and Shadow

            Comment


            • #51
              I Think something like this may be cool for some Crazed group of FBI agents to be looking for, be stringed along by some bored god... maybe Loki, then have him come in laugh in their faces and tell them it doesnt exist.

              sorry, but combat with the gods is something humans will do only through proxy.


              Comment


              • #52
                X-Files Scion fan supplement? I'd read it. I want to believe

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Alpharius View Post
                  X-Files Scion fan supplement? I'd read it. I want to believe

                  "Being 'Divine' shouldnt give one the right to flout the laws all others abide by!" is what they'd say I think.

                  and yes, Loki would make a mockery out of them.

                  By, by proxy, sorry my comment wasnt helpful as was, What I meant to do things like attack their cults and minions, battle their clergy.attack infrastructure.

                  be warned, though, most of the gods senior clergy probaly have a few scions amidst them.


                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Alpharius View Post
                    X-Files Scion fan supplement? I'd read it. I want to believe

                    "Being 'Divine' shouldnt give one the right to flout the laws all others abide by!" is what they'd say I think.

                    and yes, Loki would make a mockery out of them.

                    By, by proxy, sorry my comment wasnt helpful as was, What I meant to do things like attack their cults and minions, battle their clergy.attack infrastructure.

                    be warned, though, most of the gods senior clergy probaly have a few scions amidst them.


                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Prince of the Night View Post
                      I Think something like this may be cool for some Crazed group of FBI agents to be looking for, be stringed along by some bored god... maybe Loki, then have him come in laugh in their faces and tell them it doesnt exist.
                      Originally posted by Prince of the Night View Post

                      sorry, but combat with the gods is something humans will do only through proxy.


                      "I made Sanchezium up, dumbasses. Don't believe everything you read on wikipedia!"

                      "Stand down, he's not afraid of pirates!"

                      "Ahhh, run, Morty! That part was true!"





                      Originally posted by Prince of the Night View Post


                      "Being 'Divine' shouldnt give one the right to flout the laws all others abide by!" is what they'd say I think.

                      Precisely! If the Gods can't play by their own rules, then why should anybody else follow them?

                      The big question is "Who's going to prosecute them?"

                      I mean, if you try to arrest the God of the Underworld... YOUR Underworld, specifically... that's going to be a pretty serious conundrum. Especially since Gods are known to hold grudges.


                      As for attacking them by proxy, I don't know if Scion adheres to the D&D formula in which mortal faith directly sustains the pantheons. Like, if everybody stopped worshiping the Gods, would they just fade from existence? That doesn't seem to be the case in 1E, where they pretty much severed contact with us for thousands of years. And the Titans wouldn't even notice if humanity was wiped off the face of the planet.
                      Last edited by Nyrufa; 10-11-2017, 12:51 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by glamourweaver View Post
                        Cyclopes being giant in our conception relative to the normally manifest forms associated with the gods is probably thanks to Homer and Polyphemus.
                        So was Polyphemus an outlier or something? I definitely recall descriptions that assume he was giant, like hefting a huge log just to pierce his eye.


                        But sexually.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Nyrufa View Post



                          "I made Sanchezium up, dumbasses. Don't believe everything you read on wikipedia!"

                          "Stand down, he's not afraid of pirates!"

                          "Ahhh, run, Morty! That part was true!"








                          Precisely! If the Gods can't play by their own rules, then why should anybody else follow them?

                          The big question is "Who's going to prosecute them?"

                          I mean, if you try to arrest the God of the Underworld... YOUR Underworld, specifically... that's going to be a pretty serious conundrum. Especially since Gods are known to hold grudges.


                          As for attacking them by proxy, I don't know if Scion adheres to the D&D formula in which mortal faith directly sustains the pantheons. Like, if everybody stopped worshiping the Gods, would they just fade from existence? That doesn't seem to be the case in 1E, where they pretty much severed contact with us for thousands of years. And the Titans wouldn't even notice if humanity was wiped off the face of the planet.
                          Point...

                          Im pretty sure it doesnt, theirs talk of giving advantages for cults in 2nd edition but not making them NECCESSARY.


                          As for the Things with Arresting the gods, it doesnt upset you I'd want to do it as comic relief?


                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Prince of the Night View Post

                            Point...

                            Im pretty sure it doesnt, theirs talk of giving advantages for cults in 2nd edition but not making them NECCESSARY.


                            As for the Things with Arresting the gods, it doesnt upset you I'd want to do it as comic relief?


                            I'm not saying it wouldn't be comedic, I'm saying that it typically wouldn't end very well for any mortal involved.


                            "We the Jury find the defendant-"


                            "Before this court passes sentence on me, I want to remind everybody that someday our positions will be reversed!"


                            "Not guilty!"

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              What does a god without ties to the underworld do you think?

                              Or a Demigod, Hero, Berserk, or Sage, who is involved in the war in some fashion for that matter?

                              Amateratsu (Im experimenting wiith shinto IRL, christianity didnt give me the answers I needed) is guilty of QUITE A BIT. Her commands on purity, which drive me to Recycling, and Tending plants, can, and have been, interpreted as an excuse for murder on occasion.
                              Last edited by Prince of the Night; 10-11-2017, 06:45 PM.


                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Ellis View Post
                                So was Polyphemus an outlier or something? I definitely recall descriptions that assume he was giant, like hefting a huge log just to pierce his eye.
                                He wasn’t an outlier. The other Cyclopes who appear on the island are no smaller than him. But two things to keep in mind; 1) these aren’t the children of Gaea Elder Cyclopes, Who are by definition closer in nature to gods and Titans; and 2) Homer and Hesiod might just have pictured Cyclopes differently.


                                Check out my expansion to the Realm of Brass and Shadow

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X