Shattered Kingdoms

[Rebuttal - not yet Final Word:]

I'm certainly not disagreeing that Traditional Griffon == Eagle-Headed Lion Thing. But at the same time, it'll take some pretty clear unanimity among the pbase here to convince me that the language in the helpfile needs to be even firmer to exclude the notion of Griffons Who Kind of Look Like Hawks in the Face.

What are now the proposed "clade" descriptions were left relatively unedited - the examples of pronunciation, for instance, are something I left in there, but wouldn't be terribly averse to taking out - I think the line I added about the difficulty some wild griffons have with beak-unfriendly phonemes already covers the same ground.

In fact, I feel like the only fundamental change involved in my own input [except for stylistic considerations in the prose] was actually the division of the notions of clan & "clade" to begin with - while I agree with you that these are primarily historical categories, they do imply a certain vague lineage that transcends the idea of immediate clan. Nor are they meant as an end-all-and-be-all in either of those senses - the genetic diversity of modern griffons certainly does constitute a "weakness" in the system of Clades - but I tried to have 'help griffon-culture' make it pretty clear that Clades are a historical system of classification that is Mostly-True[TM] at best.

To wit:



I'm sure the truth of these things is far more complex. I'm sure Owyran griffons wouldn't have any idea what you were talking about if you started spouting off about a "Clade," you pedantic two-legged nitwit. And... if you can think of a word that you like better, that isn't unduly cumbersome, let me know. I realize not everyone finds alliteration as mnemonically-useful as I.



Again, the *reason* for repurposing these categories as somewhat geneological descriptors is to keep the more direct question of griffon clan and culture open to player interpretation. To solve the problem that you yourself pretty much nailed earlier in this thread with



...and since the political/historical content is really all that the "lost helpfiles" consisted of in the first place - I thought I'd try and make something useful from them. Historical archetypes; general templates from which one is certainly welcome to deviate.

Of course, I could always compile these things in an IC book and make the helpfiles a lot more generic if that strikes you as a more appropriate medium for such. I suppose my feeling on the subject is that this information ought to be readily accessible in some form for the benefit of a hypothetical new player who really, really wants to play a griffon but cares enough not to "do it wrong."



Sure, I can at the very least throw something like that in there near the end if need be.

Thanks again for your input.

Okay, just a note on Owyran griffons: They're not at war with humankind. To say that is to say they draw no distinction between, say, a helf paladin from Taslamar and a delf hellion from Empire. That's just plain silly, IMO. They have a very specific set of enemies that they pursue (as many groups in Pyrathia do), and it doesn't include the general populace at large. That's a correction I'd make, personally.

I would also replace "xenophobic" with "isolationist" because there's a vast difference. The Owyran griffons just want to be left the hell alone to do their thing.

Okay, I know, understand, and agree with the desire to leave Owyran griffon culture more or less out of indepth analysis in the helpfiles so that it can be discovered ICly by "intrepid explorers" (or anyone running into the various Owyran griffon PCs around and striking up a conversation), but blatant misinformation is troubling to me. And there's a LOT of it in the Owyran section. I mean, leave secrets secrets, that's fine, but with the helpfile being such a massive deviation from the way the IC reality of the island's culture and social structure is, you're going to get people rolling griffons to go along with the help file's stated culture for the island...with no ICly real place for that to exist. It's going to confuse new players, and it's going to get tired, real fast. I suggest a less detailed misdirection, and instead leave a vague reference to the afore mentioned isolationist policy making it hard to say anything specific about the island's culture, with hints to search out Owyran or Owyran-born griffons for more information. Basically, I'd mention a somewhat different social structure than is common, I'd mention the isolationist policy, and I'd mention the need for first-hand experience with Owyran or an Owyran griffon to be sure of anything.

I would cut out the issues of pronunciation entirely (not just from the Owyran portion, though especially from there). The vast majority of griffons played don't make a point of playing up the dialectical difficulties, and I think it's pretty well understood that griffons have adapted their speech patterns to be commonly understood. How they've done that...well, that's a different matter entirely, but my personal postulation is that it involves manipulating the tongue within the beak to "simulate" the lip shapes of various sounds.

I don't have much to say about the other parts. I've always (for the extent of my SK career that is) focused on the Owyran griffons and that structure/interaction, so any input I could give on the other clans would be weak at best. I'll just refrain from that. I do prefer the seperation by migratory wings, though.

I didn't mention that this group is "at war with humankind" anywhere, so what you're "correcting" is someone else's post in this thread, I guess? That's all well and good, but I'd prefer you prioritize arguing with me over arguing with one another - this will get done a lot faster that way.



The distinction is a matter of perspective [ICly]; but "isolationist" is vaguer, hence, I don't have a problem with making this change.



Yeah, it can be vaguer. Once again, what you term the "blatant misinformation" involved is a relic from the helpfile as it was originally meant to be written, which I chose to translate to "outdated historical validity" IC. If that strikes you guys as bothersome, however, I'm not gonna get butt-hurt about tossing that bit out.



Maybe it's just because I'm operating on even less sleep than usual today, but this is confusing me, because both this historical model and Forsooth's proposed alternative involve migration. Is what you prefer simply a chronological reordering, as in, the notion of the Keenmind Line leaving human civilization before the Imperium Group? [I'm avoiding the word Clade in this post - I guess 'Line' is okay, but ehhhh]

This is what I was objecting to. I wasn't so much arguing with Forsooth as just giving a more accurate statement incase something about the conflicts of the Owyran griffons is going to be included...as you sort of implied with:





I get that (you did mention that already), but since this information wasn't available previously, afaik wasn't used previously, and doesn't reflect except in the most obtuse ways the IC reality of the island (including recorded history there), I just don't think it would be appropriate. Also, there's the original point I made about new players running into trouble.

I mean to say that I think "Flight" is a better term than clan or clade, and a chronological seperation between various "lines" of griffons would be well named as a "Flight," meaning something of a migration. That's an aesthetic issue for me though, and nothing I'm feeling particularly strongly about.[/quote]

Sorry, I guess I really *do* need some sleep.



All very valid points.



Well, it's less clinical, but it *is* aesthetically-appropriate, and I would be fine with "Flight" as a replacement for "Clade" in the helpfiles as I rewrote them above.

Well, that's kind of the complaint. I'm not a big fan of Gnalish's original. Not that there aren't good concepts - but it's awfully restrictive, and includes some things that don't match SK's NPCs. I'd like to see clades as providing flavor for made-up clans, instead of dictating so many details.

Let me provide an example. One background I used as an inexperienced player is the Laskerian Garden griffons. (I wanted a in-game model to ensure I was playing my griffon reasonably.) Just by looking at the NPCs, I knew their typical description. By looking at the area, I could extrapolate views on other races, ornamentation, and a certain deity. I expanded on that in some interesting ways, and then created a character who both reflected and rebelled against the clan concept. Worked great and was fun.

Had I been stuck with Gnalish's files, I wouldn't have had so much freedom. Based on their color, they're Razorbeaks. That dictates not only the clan's history, but the clan's and my character's views on things, such as cynicism toward other griffons. That's a truly bizarre trait, as griffons are currently played. I don't see how this rigidity and ignoring of local conditions is making the race better to roleplay.

I understand wanting to reassure newbies playing griffons. I remember being overly sensitive when I started playing here. But the important thing for acceptance is getting the core racial traits correct, not backstory fluff.

The only other point I'll take issue with is whether Owyran griffons are xenophobic. It's been a while since I've been there, and I'm in no position to visit. But last I knew, many will kill any human entering their homes, even if he's a paladin of Dulrik in full regalia. That's normally an alignment violation for lighties, so there has to be an explanation, whether it be xenophobia or war or whatever. And if an oversimplification discourages newbies from playing Owyran griffons, I see that as a good thing. It's very hard to pull off if you've not seen the place.

[Edited and expanded for clarity.]

Personally, I like using the word Clades. That's a fairly unusual word and it helps SK's griffons stand out as being a unique group.

and [REDACTED] group!

Well, since that's a pretty strong vote for clades , let me suggest an idea to make it work better. Specifically, I'd like the division to be made by human scholars after the exodus from the Empire.

The problem with the clade concept is that it's an ethnic division that spawns in the Empire, and somehow is also linked to their historical fate. It doesn't make a great deal of sense unless they were functioning as seperate groups before the exodus. And I'd really like to avoid the idea of clades being a political group.

Partly that's because I like clan definition over clade definition. But we've also established in-game that most non-Owyran griffons come from small family and clan groups. There is no high-level political organization. (And this also helps explain why PC griffons have never heard of other PC griffons' clans.)

So I suggest that clades were really developed by sages trying to classify the myriad griffon clans in some way. This doesn't just solve the history problem above. It also becomes an opportunity to mention the many small clans, the lack of high-level structure, and that clades are a classification scheme rather than a complete description of griffonkind.

...that's exactly what I was trying to say all along

That is, the only griffons who'd recognize the word "clade" are those who're more familiar with humanoid culture... hence the statement that Owyran griffons would have no idea what one meant by the term.

I'm very sorry if that wasn't clear from what I wrote. The helpfiles are meant to be less NPOV than slightly stilted toward "the way humanoids would see this," since... well, there is no NPOV, humanoids are in the majority, more culturally-unified than griffons, and the most likely to develop arrogant ideas like OK GUYS HERE IS A UNIVERSAL GRIFFON CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM!!!!1 after studying... y'know, maybe like a few dozen clans.

I suppose I can try and think of a way to state


and


less subtly, though, if you feel it's necessary.