PlaneShift
Gameplay => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bnm85 on September 04, 2005, 10:39:30 pm
-
With all the statements that there will be no dragons, Klyros seem to look a bit like dragons. On many fantasy drawings out there on the net, whenever dragons are made to look somewhat humanoid (dragon warriors, dragon mages etc), they often resemble Klyros. I\'m not expecting a huge number of replies, it was just an interesting observation, that\'s all. ;)
Agree or disagree?
-
klyros is repitle like
dragons are dragon like...
klyros go underwater, dragons dont like water. see different.
-
Originally posted by Drey
klyros is repitle like
dragons are dragon like...
klyros go underwater, dragons dont like water. see different.
Dragons are reptile like. Dictionary.com\'s definition:
\"A mythical monster traditionally represented as a gigantic reptile having a lion\'s claws, the tail of a serpent, wings, and a scaly skin.\"
Sea dragons like water. ;)
-
There are definitely similarities, but it also adds variety. So many people before have been screaming about wanting a reptilian race, without looking closely at the Klyros. The thing is, they\'re not dragons just as Enkidukai aren\'t cats ;)
-
Well, as I said in the first post, humanoid dragons like, not dragons themselves. ;)
As for Enkis, they actually do like like cats that stood up. Heh.
-
What remains is the OT, which has been answered. Klyros are not dragons. Yes, they have wings and scales. However, not even close to all dragons do have wings or scales. There are so many different concepts of \"dragon\" out there, and not all of them are compatible. For example, eastern traditions will see no resemblance between Klyros and dragons whatsoever, because their dragon concept is quite different, and it\'s not the only one that is. And there are concepts that have elemental dragons, others that don\'t, so saying \"dragons don\'t like water\" is valid only in the context of a few of the existing concepts.
Klyros have been used for all sorts of argumentations, like comparing them to gargoyles to justify angels, which AFAICS is a lot closer than dragons, though also not precise, since gargoyles are more similar to dragons than are Klyros. In fact, the mentioned depiction of humaniod dragons is IMO so far off the actual dragon concept that is being referred to here that it\'s not even valid to talk about dragons anymore.
I think this is mostly due to the fact that the mentioned races (Klyros, Enkis) are a lot less common in fantasy worlds than others like elves and dwarves. Similar, in fact, to the creatures they are being compared to (dragons, gargoyles), which also are (usually) not a common siht in the fantasy worlds they exist in. This is the greatest similarity IMO.
The point is that there are some properties they share with some of the major concepts of dragons (whereas Enkis have similarities with almost all existing cats), but the overall number of similarities is very small, they just stick out because one looks closer at them since they are not so well known.
What I have noticed is that Klyros are being compared to just about everything (dragons, gargoyles, demons, fish, birds, bats, lizards whatever) in about the same number of cases, and this IMO proves that they are not dragons (nor any of the others). They are dragons to the the same extent to which they are humans: a tiny bit only.
Thus, I agree with the OP: Klyros look similar to what may be increasingly classified as \"dragon\", but in fact is nothing but a humanoid lizard. However, this concept is not what a dragon traditonally is, and thus is, at best, a \"new\" concept that is quite incompatible with the others. Therefore, it can not be used to argue against the \"no dragons\" statement of PS, as it clearly refers to the traditional concepts of \"dragon\", not the (IMO diluted and misguided) concept of IMO \"non-dragons\".
-
Hey, Seytra
Thanks for a non-spam post, even though I disagree with a lot of it. It was still an interesting read.
The point, however, was a similarity with a humanoid dragon as an evolution from a typical dragon concept. Yes, there are many concepts but there are also typical fantasy dragons that are very similar to each other (ie not like chinese dragons, for example). Dragons themselves are a fantasy (unless you count real animal life that\'s been labeled a dragon later), so a humoid evolution of one isn\'t any more far fetched than dragons themselves. And what I was saying is that a typical fantasy dragon (or a sea dragon) evolution into a humanoid form, which you see on a majority of fantasy drawings on the net, has a strong resemblence to Klyros. It was nothing more than an observation, not an argument that the game should have dragons because Klyros look like a humanoid version of one. It was just to point out that the game isn\'t completely devoid of \"dragon-ness\" as one might think at first due to \"no dragons\" statements. :)
-
While it may be imaginable and just about as far-fetched as are dragons (and yes, I think dragons are imagination only and don\'t really like the way some people claim that this and that animal is / was a dragon. It may have been part of what inspired them, but it still isn\'t.), this \"new\" concept of \"dragon\" is not acceptable for me. Even if you say that dragons may have \"evolved\" into this, it\'s not dragons anymore, just as RL humans aren\'t apes (though the evolutionary change is a lot less dramatic there).
Thusly, IMO, the drawings you are referring to are mis-labelled and don\'t depict dragons.
-
Hehe, that\'s why they\'re called Klyros now and not dragons! ;) I thought it would just be interesting to discuss. Of course, the evolved \"dragons\" aren\'t really dragons anymore. But perhaps retain something \"draconic\" about them in their name. :)
-
Originally posted by Drey
klyros is repitle like
dragons are dragon like...
klyros go underwater, dragons dont like water. see different.
klyros fly, i don\'t think they go underwater.
-
Originally posted by sesmi
Originally posted by Drey
klyros is repitle like
dragons are dragon like...
klyros go underwater, dragons dont like water. see different.
klyros fly, i don\'t think they go underwater.
Klyros glide at most, and are one of the two amphibious sentient races on our world, they breathe underwater, so why the hell wouldnt they go underwater?
-
Originally posted by Demarthl
Originally posted by sesmi
Originally posted by Drey
klyros is repitle like
dragons are dragon like...
klyros go underwater, dragons dont like water. see different.
klyros fly, i don\'t think they go underwater.
Klyros glide at most, and are one of the two amphibious sentient races on our world, they breathe underwater, so why the hell wouldnt they go underwater?
From Klyros race description
Fly for short time. Breath underwater.
I maintain they fly to some extent, and they, like Kran (in principle) and Nolthrir, breathe underwater, so they likely, as Demarthl stated, will quite readily go underwater.
-
aren\'t klyros more of a fish/reptile mix? an amphibious creation of epic proportions!
or, something along those lines.
they do look SOMEWHAT like the dragon-human mix you see on the internet, but they are, in fact, not dragons at all. they\'re fish... kinda...
but they still would make a yummy addition to any Enkidukai\'s sushi plate. XD
just kidding, all you klyros. ^_^
-
I pictured them as more amphibious than reptilian, but I\'m probably just misguided. Their description states \"skin is similar to reptiles, being slimy and cold...\" however that\'s just as easily used to describe an amphibian who are more apt to \"breath underwater\". As for wings, there are species of fish that can glide for short distances, though I don\'t think Klyros were ever meant to be one or the other.
There is no denying that Klyros and dragons share some resemblance on a rudimentary level, but so do many other creatures. I think that was Bnm85s point that there is such animosity towards dragons, yet the Klyros share many traits and are embraced. I could be wrong. Dragons are an iconic part of fantasy settings, but no less than dwarves and elves for example. Might as well get rid of those too.
You can\'t open your debate on how undragon like Klyros are, with \"There are so many different concepts of \"dragon\" out there\". That just supports the argument that they share a likeness with one of the many visions of dragons. And yes, there are in fact multiple versions of dragons or relations to dragons that have humanoid form. Some include shapeshifting to the form of a human entirely, others to a humanoid form with a strong resemblance to their original form. Yet in others there are entire races, like the draconians of Dragonlance.
The mention of gargoyles is interesting, since they bear almost no similarities to dragons at all. They\'re not reptilian, which is a defining feature of most all dragons. Some may or may not have wings, and where grotesque in nature. They were horrible looking waterspouts, some thought warded away evil. The name itself comes from gargouille, which means throat. Even when used in a broader fashion, the gargoyle is still usually a stone construct.
At any rate, the concept at the root of the Klyros or the Enkis is definitely not an original one. You could search the internet and find hundreds of versions of cat people, or something resembling Klyros. The best you can do is name them something unique, give them their own culture, and identity and go from there. In the end, you\'ve still got a cat person, etc.
-
So...um...just curious, but how exactly did this debate come up? Just curious. I don\'t see how it should be much of an issue whether or not there are dragons that exist in PS, unless there\'s a following that particularly *wants* them.
Overall, it\'s kind of a silly debate. There are a lot of those, aren\'t there? Do balrogs have wings or not? Who knows? Who cares? Arguement for arguement\'s sake, perhaps?
On whether or not they exist, well, that\'s curious because you can still talk about things that might or might not exist. Dragons don\'t exist IRL, after all.
Perhaps they exist in PS myth and legend? I wouldn\'t know myself. I\'m rather new, and don\'t even know if there is much in the way of details PS myths and legends involving arcane creatures and cults and such. But that would be more relevant, wouldn\'t it?
-
The whole reason for all the debate, is to develop the lore arround the game. PS is to be a role play focused game. PS lore at the moment seems unfinished, so the debates rage on.
-
Klyros look like draconians?
Well think their face is all wrong for that. Agree they have something reptilian and that they have wings ofcourse, but the amphibian underwater breathing doesn\'t sound very standard dragonlike.
-
Ah. Okay. Rock on! Having a good, solid mythos behind a world sure does help in building a definative character.
*scratches head* But this debate doesn\'t seem to be going much of anywhere. Although I\'ve learned a lot more about Klyros! Thanks for the answer, derwoodly. I\'ll watch about this thread and pitch in occassionally. I like background. Background is good.
-
Dragons were not (are not) reptiles. (http://www.dragnix.net/From_tail_to_snout/) :D
-
The word dragon originates from the latin word draco meaning large serpent. Weither dragons are reptiles isn\'t even debateable, lol.
And no, Kylros don\'t look like draconians in my opinion. For the definative answer you\'d have to go to the developers, but if I where to render one, it would be far more amphibian with features closer to that of a fish than a lizard.
-
And dragons likes water too. Dragons live on air, earth, water and fire. ;)
And yes, dragons are mythical reptile-like creatures, so there are dragons,
they are just named differently. :P
Regards.
-
hmm just wondering. Isn\'t one of the characteristics of a reptile that it\'s coldblooded? So if it\'s warmblooded it can\'t officially be a reptile?
Anyhow I rather look at the original \"western\" look at how dragons look and although in the older stories they don\'t always have wings and are called wyrms I can\'t recal seadragons.
The four elements dragons is something new western. Eastern legends do mention them I believe but chinese dragons don\'t have wings normally.
So I stand with the fact that Klyros do not resemble draconians enough to say it\'s just them with an other name.
-
Hmm...it seems to me like there really can\'t be a resolution to this debate. Know why?
Because every person has a different view of what a dragon is. Perhaps the legends IRL concerning dragons have been around for so terribly long that everyone has assimilated them for their own. The definition of dragon changes depending on the person and purpose.
So, maybe, before we start comparing dragons to klyros, we should decide what type of dragon we\'re looking at. From the looks of it, I don\'t think that\'s going to happen any time soon.
Everyone has their own definition of a dragon. All well and good. Perhaps what would be more interesting is to have perhaps such a debate in PS. Maybe there could be *legends*, varying *legends* of these things called dragons, and come people think that they\'re Klyros, some people think that Klyros are maybe related to these ancient *myths*, and the rest think that said people are just nuts.
Just a thought.
Because we\'re never going to resolve the debate we\'re on now.
-
Originally posted by Feye Morgan
Maybe there could be *legends*, varying *legends* of these things called dragons, and come people think that they\'re Klyros, some people think that Klyros are maybe related to these ancient *myths*, and the rest think that said people are just nuts.
Just a thought.
Great idea. Your assignment for this week is now to go write one, and post it here (http://www.planeshift3d.com/wbboard/board.php?boardid=15&sid=08fec0f828011647f14225abbb58111b).
-
Ahhhhh, I see. So you guys really *aren\'t* trying to come up with a good mythos background for PS. Aha. And suddenly the reasoning behind this debate sinks away.
So, really, you guys aren\'t trying to be helpful and useful like you claimed (or, at least, like derwoodly claimed).
I see. How disappointing. It seems you guys aren\'t fond of helpful, reasonable criticism and suggestions either. *sigh* What a shame.
Clearly, I\'m not getting through, and clearly this isn\'t a place for someone with reason and logic (like me) to be in. Sorry, everyone, for spoiling your pointless (but fun, I suppose) \'debate\'.
I do hope you all enjoy yourselves. In the meantime, I might just write up a story to that effect. At least I\'d be putting myself to good use, then.
Ta ta!
-
Actually, I was serious. We can\'t expect the devs to develop the program, add all of the features we want, purge all of the bugs, and write the entire history of Yliakum all at the same time. After all, they are programmers, not writers.
So it falls, at least in part, to the players to develop the mythos behind the game. The skeleton framework has already been written, but as you have observed, much work still needs to be done.
You seem to have some strong opinions about the direction PS should take, which is a very good thing. My suggestion was that you take those opinions and try to put them onto a story for the rest of us to take a look at. Perhaps I should have been a bit less tongue-in-cheek with my wording.
Please stick around. We do sincerely need reason and logic around here. Just remember that it will always be tempered with a healthy dose of humor.
-
Originally posted by SuburbanPlankton
Actually, I was serious. We can\'t expect the devs to develop the program, add all of the features we want, purge all of the bugs, and write the entire history of Yliakum all at the same time. After all, they are programmers, not writers.
Hmm... I believe Darkmoon (or in other words, settings team) is responsible for the written stuffs...
-
*blinks* Yay! Yes! Finally someone who didn\'t respond to me with sarcasm! *glomps SuburbanPlankton*
I\'m sorry! I\'ve gotten used to people responding to me with snarkiness and sarcasm, so I assumed (very badly, and I appologize again), that you were doing the same.
Thank you very much for taking me seriously! Yes, I\'ll stick around. I\'m very sorry, once again!
Now, I am new to PS, so I\'ve only a vague idea of the world so far at best. But I\'d like to help with whatever ideas I get and have got already. I can\'t promise much in the way of speed (college is killing me with a workload the size of the Kalahari Desert), but I\'ll definitely stick around.
Tempered with a sense of humor. Right. Got it. ^_^ Thank you so much.
-
Originally posted by Draklar
Originally posted by SuburbanPlankton
Actually, I was serious. We can\'t expect the devs to develop the program, add all of the features we want, purge all of the bugs, and write the entire history of Yliakum all at the same time. After all, they are programmers, not writers.
Hmm... I believe Darkmoon (or in other words, settings team) is responsible for the written stuffs...
Ah. I was not aware of that.
Though that does not change my original sentiment. I think that any of us who might have something to contribute should do so. Whether or not any of it becomes \"canon\" should not be of prime importance.
-
Wow, this is much better than the initial spam. Loving most of the responses so far. And Malloc, thank you for understanding the point I was trying to make. That\'s exactly what I meant. And no, I don\'t think that Klyros are Draconians with just another name either. But I still see something draconian in them, and I like it! :) I\'m actually beginning to like Klyros more now.
And Feye, relax! Not everything has to be a furious debate that either has to prove something or end. This is a message board, I enjoy peoples\' views and opinions tremendously. A lot of things stated here are very educational for others, especially on dragon origins and such. Just enjoy the discussion, that was the point of it. :)
Oh, and as for Klyros looking amphibious and fish-like, that\'s to be expected. Even drawings of various water dragons have fish-like scales on them. I think that\'s pretty common when making something fantastic and amphibious.
Btw, anyone remembers \"The Flight of Dragons\"? The Asian dragon did have small wings in there too.
-
*blinks* Actually, my annoyance came originally off of being told that this thread *was* to make a point and have a purpose. That\'s why I wasn\'t \'relaxed\', as you say, bnm85. And I did mistakenly think that I was being snapped sarcastically at, so I\'m sure you can excuse me for that at least. I did appologize. ^^; And I am sorry.
I did say that I\'d learned a lot about Klyros, too. I never said I hadn\'t seen that, at least. Sure, it\'s educational and interesting. I just was told that there was a specific point to it, aside from just having fun and goofing around.
But hey, if indeed this thread is just to have fun with a pointless debate (and I agree they can be fun--I have immense fun with the \'do balrogs have wings\' debate ^_^), then sure. I just wish someone had told me that.
-
Actually, this isn\'t pointless at all. I think Malloc summed up my point very well. It\'s just not one of those \"black and white\" heated discussions that a lot of people are used to on forums. This is more \"shades of grey\" kind. But no problem. ;)
-
Originally posted by Platyna
And dragons likes water too. Dragons live on air, earth, water and fire. ;)
And yes, dragons are mythical reptile-like creatures, so there are dragons,
they are just named differently. :P
This is entirely your preferred dragon concept. One of many, as I have pointed out.
Originally posted by Malloc
You can\'t open your debate on how undragon like Klyros are, with \"There are so many different concepts of \"dragon\" out there\". That just supports the argument that they share a likeness with one of the many visions of dragons.
That was, in fact, my intent: I was trying to show that since there is so much that is called \"dragon\" it is almost impossible to have something that has either wings or is reptile/fish-like not to some small extent resemble one or more of them. Therefore, as has been stated, it must first be agreed upon what is a dragon to us and what is not. I have not commented on the dragon concept that I use because it isn\'t of real importance to the discussion.
Except for these new-age \"draconian\" concept, the baseline of \"dragon\" is, AFAICS, that it\'s huge. Klyros clearly aren\'t, so they\'re not dragons. Also except the draconian concept dragons aren\'t humanoid, so this is another difference. The rest would have to be dealt with on a case by case basis per concept, which would become a disproportional book AFAICS.
Originally posted by Malloc
The mention of gargoyles is interesting, since they bear almost no similarities to dragons at all. They\'re not reptilian, which is a defining feature of most all dragons. Some may or may not have wings, and where grotesque in nature. They were horrible looking waterspouts, some thought warded away evil. The name itself comes from gargouille, which means throat. Even when used in a broader fashion, the gargoyle is still usually a stone construct.
I was going solely by the appearance, not their composition or use as decoration. A gargoyle is AFAIK also a mythical creature of sorts, but whether that developed before or after their use as decorative waterspouts I don\'t know. Also, I\'m sure there are gargoyles that are made reptile-like, and my impression of them was that they are either batlike (without fur usually) or reptilian.
Anyway, as for the legends and myths ingame, and in fact general background: They sure are lacking. However, if we as players start creating our own, things will likely move not only into incompatibly different directions, but also deviate from what may or may not be planned or in the works already. However, whatevber we do, we should IMO avoid porting the RL myths to PS, because this is certain to be not what will get implemented, for it is not even slightly original. Thusly, \"dragons\", in whatever way, should be avoided, in both name and creature.
I would recommend starting some myths on some of the things that have been posted in the fanart section instead. I remember the idea of the \"renegade orbs\", which, given a proper name, would make for good starting points. Also, there have been several monstrous creatures IIRC, which would also work well.
-
Too much reading :P, I skimmed through it, and techincally, Dragons are Reptiles, but Klyros or whatever are not Dragons, Dragons are Dragons, Lizards are Lizards...
Now not having any \"Dragons\" in the game is fine, but what about Wyrms? I think PS Should have giant Wyrms to fight :P they arnt dragons.... they are Wyrms, they may resemble dragons, but they are longer, and actually there are many types of dragons, and D&D dragons some love water, fokelore dragons, some love water, Water Dragons, LOVE WATER!
But Wyrms!
We should all say WE WANT WYRMS!!! and then when its done say PLANESHIFT GOTS WYRMS! :P
And Efelire said LET THERE BE WYRMS, and there were wyrms, and he saw this was a good thing....