| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 06:34:29
well met!
for the last 15 minutes or so i've been toying with the idea of writing a history of the medusa in my own campaign as another race that was created/modified by the sarrukh long ago. the medusa may have been the personal servants of the sarrukh, since they have arms for wielding tools and a scaly form that the sarrukh would find more aesthetically pleasing than a non-reptilian slave race. medusae also tend toward lawful alignments, making them more servile than other races.
as the sarrukh empires waned, the medusae remained docile and nearly faded into obscurity with their masters, while the yuan-ti "stepped up" and began building kingdoms of their own. in time the medusae scattered, remaining few in number and relatively shunned by the other reptilian races... though still feared by kobolds, lizardfolk, and so forth, as the right hands of the ultimate masters.
part of the reason i'm entertaining this tangent is that in my campaign the return of the sarrukh doesn't get aborted by the spellplague and the transition to 4e. i'm still chewing on exactly what i want the "blue fire" of the prophecies to refer to, but i can switch to 4e rules and races if the players want to, without pulling out the heavy explosives. the changes to Faerun will be mostly political rather than mostly physical.
point: as the sarrukh awaken and slip the gauntlets of world domination back on, their old servants will be returning to prominence as well. it's a given that naga and yuan-ti will be involved. i think it could be interesting to add medusae to the stage.
thoughts?
|
| 11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Barastir |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 10:35:51
If you consider medusa as a cursed race, you can explain some bitterness that makes her more "evil" to our eyes - no pun intended. Think of a human who cannot look one person or creature in the eyes, what a cursed existence. She could never love a person, or even an animal, and look him/her/it in the eyes. In this case, the power would be uncontrollable.
Otherwise, evil CAN come because they have this power they use as they want, and be tempted in using it according to their whim. Then, they would have a TENDENCY through evil.
And only to add my two cents: the mythological medusa turned people into stone because her looks were truly terrifying... She was gorgeous, and the curse made her so ugly that people turned into stone just by looking to her face (just as we get paralyzed by a frightening sight, but in a much greater proportion). |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 14 Jan 2012 : 09:10:19
as far as i can tell, there is no canonical link between medusae and yuan-ti... or between medusae and anything else, other than maedar. Serpent Kingdoms indicates that the first yuan-ti were created by sarrukh experiments involving breeding humans with snakes and the sarrukh themselves. if the medusa are another created race, i would think their origins would be similar.
it's also possible that the medusa were created by someone/something else, or by "accident" through some curse (as was the case with ophidians). i've already footnoted a couple of things in my own campaign as created by the Imaskari; i don't see any reason why the medusa would be in That category... but their "patron" could be someone else. perhaps Sss'thasine'ss, who took the form of "a writhing swarm of coiled serpents" and spoke "through the heads of countless smaller snakes." These images (from Serpent Kingdoms) sound to me a lot like they might resonate with the medusae. That god is dead now, but his followers get their spells from Talona, who could easily accept medusae as followers and mimick the manifestations of "Mother" Sss'thasine'ss when she communicates with them.
just more thoughts. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 20:54:47
The changes and retcons between D&D editions is nothing compared to those suffered by myths ... most especially since we only have whatever versions are handed down through several millennia and civilizations. Not to mention most of us learn the myths through Hollywood storytellers whose artistic licenses are little concerned with inconvenient mythological accuracies.
Still, it seems like Gygax defined D&D medusae, arbitrarily drawn from mythology as he saw fit, and his resilient medusa species has managed to survive several game editions and wordly calamities without suffering much mangling, mutation, or injury.
Your questions (and answers) about medusae are perfectly valid. I'm all stoked up about throwing medusa around my campaign again, a refreshing change from the usual Giths and fiends and such.
What is D&D's canon relationship between medusae and yuan-ti? Is one somehow derived from the other? |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 19:40:09
i would rule that the petrifying gaze is like a glare... she doesn't automatically petrify her friends, but if you're attacking her or if you surprise her, then be prepared to make saving throws or look away... her attitude (with everyone except a sarrukh, in my storyline) would be: look down at the ground when you speak to me, like the lesser being that you are. 
medusae are, in fact, mentioned briefly in Elminster's Ecologies for the Stonelands... thanks for the pointer, i hadn't thought to look there.
the thing about mythology, and the reason why d&d should not always follow myths, is that myths can conveniently ignore logic, while good fantasy roleplaying demands some verisimilitude. the medusa's eyes glowing (and retaining their power) after her death is a good example. in order for being-petrified-by-a-dead-medusa to make sense, looking at any part of her body would have to have petrifying power. after death, things don't *gaze*. statues (on earth) don't watch you. her eyes are just flesh, much like her back or her fingers. since there's no indication that looking at a medusa's kneecaps caused petrification, looking at her face after she's dead wouldn't, either. but myths have a green light to one-up themselves, to keep getting better each time they're retold, to freely cross the line between logical and impossible. and yea, i know, magic changes all the rules. i'm just sayin... the myth of the medusa doesn't emphasize a magical aspect of her power to turn men to stone... she's written as a monster, as something fundamentally different than humans. the petrification is a natural part of who/what she is, rather than a spell effect.
i agree that basilisks' gaze should be automatically petrifying, with no control on the beast's part. i can justify the contrast (to myself at least) by tying it to sentience. the medusa is an intelligent creature capable of making conscious decisions, while the basilisk is a beast which simply reacts to its needs and perceived threats. it would work to say that young medusae gain control over their petrifying power during puberty... like a rite of passage, i guess. you're a woman when you can stare into the eyes of a slave/meal without turning it to stone. counterpoint: most of the material on medusae seems to contradict this; for example, i think Elminster's Ecologies described them as wearing masks while hunting, or shooting things with a bow from great enough range that the prey doesn't fall victim to her gaze attack. so i don't have any official backing for my view; that never really bothers me, though. that's just how i roll.
and it's all just my 2 coppers, in spite of my long-windedness and strong opinions. i just go off on tangents easily. you should feel completely free to disagree.  especially since you would have the backing of all the literature already out there on medusae. 
(edited with the goal of clarity) |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 18:10:30
The most popular version of the myth tells us Perseus was able to slay the Medusa while viewing it through the reflections seen within his polished shield and other nearby surfaces. He then stuffed the Medusa's still-writhing snakehead into a magical bag from which he would sometimes brandish it at enemies, for the severed Medusa head could still petrify any who looked upon it. The movies typically depict this by showing victims caught in the hypnotic glare of the Medusa head's glowing eyes, seemingly paralyzed by terror until they petrify into statues.
The Medusa is described in different ways throughout the ancient Greek myths, in some she was a beautiful woman cursed by Athena, in others she is a gorgon-spawned abomination surviving from a cthonic era when such demon things walked the world. |
| Seravin |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 16:47:25
IIRC, in Elminster's Ecologies there's a section on Medusa and Maedar that is pretty good. I don't remember which book but maybe the Stonelands? Could be helpful!
|
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 16:44:26
Many of the D&D monsters taken from mythology seem to follow the myths pretty closely. I remember that Minotaurs were even immune to the "Maze" spell. If that is the case then the Medusa's gaze should be involutary as is the basilisk's. Of course one of the great things about D&D is that you can modify any rule you want to fit your play style or campaign. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 15:48:40
I don't think it was ever specified whether a medusa gaze attack is voluntary. Beholders can use their gaze-powers as they choose, for the most part they simply wave all their eyes around to see things. Basilisks have a petrifying gaze they cannot disable, they instinctively avoid their own reflections to prevent self-petrolisking. |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 14:51:53
The main thing i am concerned about is the stone gaze of the medusa. Is this a power that they can "turn off" at will or is it constant? We always played medusa encounters with them having the constant stone gaze effect, which is why they tend to be solitary with lairs decorated with surprisingly life-like sculptures  |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 14:48:49
quote:
Originally posted by Fellfire
I am intrigued by this, I will give it some thought. I always really liked the Maedar as well, I don't know that they were ever updated from 2e.
Wow, great link! I might have to print out every entry on there!  |
| Fellfire |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 06:40:28
I am intrigued by this, I will give it some thought. I always really liked the Maedar as well, I don't know that they were ever updated from 2e. |
|
|
