Jefferson wrote:
> Andrew Janssen wrote:
>
>
>>This may be quibbling excessively, but your description of a cockatrice
>>is more like a basilisk. Since a cockatrice is traditionally created by
>>taking an egg laid by a cockerel and then having a toad incubate the egg
>>on a dung heap, there should be at least some reference in the
>>creature's description to its chicken ancestry.
>
>
> I debated describing the creature's two limbs as "like plucked chicken wings,"
> but felt that was too strong a link to the "cockatrices are magical chickens"
> theory. I'll go back and add it.
>
>
>>I've always thought of
>>a cockatrice as looking like a rooster, but with metallic, sharp-edged
>>scales instead of feathers, and a serpent's tail with a sting instead of
>>a rooster's tail.
>>
>>A basilisk, on the other hand, is just a big ugly lizard whose gaze
>>happens to be petrifying.
>>
>>However, a lot of sources do in fact equate the basilisk with the
>>cockatrice, for some reason.
>
>
> What sources _don't_ equate the two?
>
I did a little research online. The cockatrice is apparently a later
medieval version of the basilisk, which was first described in Greek and
Roman times. The name, "basilisk", is from the Greek word, "basilicus",
which means, "little king". The early description of the basilisk is:
"The basilisk is a tiny black snake, scarcely two feet in length, with a
diamond-shaped white spot (or in some reports a crown) on top of its
head. It is said to move with its head and upper body held proudly
erect, and not by slithering along the ground like a normal snake."
By the later medieval period, the basilisk had become the rather less
deadly cockatrice:
"The cockatrice has the head, neck, wings, and body of a cock (i.e.
rooster), with the legs and feet of a lizard. Some descriptions give it
a lizard-like head and bat wings instead, but all accounts agree that it
is a horrid cross between bird and reptile."
Cockatrices can be killed by being forced to look in a mirror or by
weasels, but basilisks can only be killed by weasels (who are immune to
the basilisk's gaze and venom) or by the sound of a cock's crow.
The basilisk was so venomous that it killed the plants and animals
around it, and if some unlucky hero managed to stab it with a spear, the
venom of the basilisk would travel up the spear and slay the wielder.
Cockatrices merely kill with a glance.
>>I also have to say that I don't really agree with the theory that all
>>magical creatures are an 'essential' form of a base creature. If we
>>adopt that theory, we'd have to address whether every 'base' creature
>>has a 'magical' equivalent, or if it's possible for mutiple species of
>>'magical' creature to share a common 'base' creature. On top of that,
>>you have the problem of explaining why some magical creatures occur
>>naturally and breed true (dragons & unicorns)
>
>
> Do we know that unicorns breed true on Celandra?
Heck, we don't even know if there *are* unicorns on Celandra.
>
>>while others are sterile
>>monstrosities created by the intervention of outside forces (cockatrices
>>& chimeras)
>
>
> Do we know that cockatrices are sterile on Celandra?
>
No, we don't know that, but, as I said, the traditional ecology of the
cockatrice suggests very strongly that they are a created, rather than a
natural creature.
>>Now, it could be that some magical creatures are either exalted versions
>>of a base creature (like unicorns & horses) or perverted versions of a
>>base creature (like cockatrices & roosters), but this is not necessarily
>>true of *all* magical creatures. I'm thinking particularly of dragons,
>>in this case.
>
>
> Well, we know that dragons originally came from the Dreaming. That
> immediately creates the distinction of: magical creatures originating in the
> Dreaming vs. magical creatures originating in the physical world. It's
> possible that all six-limbed vertebrates originally came from the dreaming,
> and others are adaptations. Or those creatures that breed true came from the
> dreaming while those who don't are adaptations.
That's a thought, that the creatures who can breed true are either
Dreaming-native or evolved in an area with high background magic, while
the ones that can't were created.
> Why are you assuming that the magical creatures on Celandra are the same as
> those from our legends? The legends are so varied that it's impossible to
> create coherant creatures out of them. Using a particular name is suggestive
> of a creature so that people have a general idea what you're talking about,
> but the description is what's really important. If the languages of Qaiyore
> were well described I'd have taken a stab at giving the creatures local names,
> (like Lurelia (Hippogriff)), but since they weren't I just used translations.
>
>
If you use traditional names, people will make those assumptions. I
"know" what a hippogriff looks like, and if you call a creature a
hippogriff, I'm going to assume you're talking about a creature with the
fore-parts of a giant eagle and the rear parts of a horse. If you call a
creature a manticore, I'm going to picture it as a creature with the
face of a man, the body of a lion, and the sting of a scorpion.
Two good resources for legendary beasts:
http://bestiary.ca/index.html
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionscreatures/myth/dragons/heredragons.html
The first is a collection of creatures from medieval bestiaries
presented from an academic point of view, and the second is a similar
collection, but oriented to the fantasy gamer.
>>One thing more on magical creatures: they're probably not all that
>>common.
>
>
> That's what I've been assuming. For whatever reason, magical creatures are
> almost nonexistent on Orasaren. They are, however, relatively common in
> Junder. (Still meaning that most people have never seen one, but everyone
> _knows_ someone who's seen one.)
>
> Of the creatures I listed, I picture cockatrices, unicorns, and lashbrush in
> Junder. Hippogriffs live in Tanimbar, and gryphons live further north.
>
Going back briefly to the cockatrice-v.-basilisk question, cockatrices
were described as living in damp cellars in northern France, Germany,
and in England, while the basilisk was considered to be the "King of the
Libyan deserts".
Sphinxes are traditionally found in dry climates, also. (Triva fact: The
word "sphinx" is the Ancient Greek word for "strangler". It is also the
root word of the English word, "sphincter". I'd describe just how the
Greek Sphinx is said to have killed her victims, but this is a (mostly)
PG list, and the process is definitely X-rated.)
>
>>If we assume that Qaiyore is similar in most important respects
>>to Elyria, magical creatures will be most common in areas that have
>>either been constantly exposed to moderate levels of magical energy for
>>a long time or that have been exposed to extremely high levels of magic
>>in rather less time.
>
>
> It strikes me that cause may be magic having gone wrong, not the use of magic
> itself.
>
Or both, perhaps. Simple exposure to high levels of magic over the long
term might produce creatures that may not look monstrous, but do use
magic in some unusual fashion as an evolutionary advantage. Exposure to
magic gone horribly wrong might be behind the creation of mutants and
monsters like the cockatrice.
>
>>On Qaiyore, you'd probably see a lot of magical creatures on Mir,
>>because of the Sorcerors and the proximity to the Dreaming Gate there.
>
>
> Unless the Sorcerers know how to "clean up" mistakes, and, even so, the most
> common magical creature on Mir might be human mages.
>
I wasn't thinking of "mistakes" so much as creatures that simply evolved
to take advantage of the presence of the Gate and the magic-users around
the gate.
Andrew
>
>>The Shadowlands where the Floating City flew would also probably have a
>>lot of magical creatures, and Rian a'Avaerand's destruction by a spell
>>gone horribly wrong is probably responsible for most of the sea monsters
>>of Celandra.
>
>
> Jefferson (Exquaestio)
> http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/Exq_Main.html
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
