Talk:Deities & Demigods

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other Pantheons & Artists[edit]

If anyone knows the other pantheons covered in the book, please add them. Some were pretty obscure, so I can't remember them. Also, if you know the other artists who contributed to the volume, please add them as well. Thanks! —Frecklefoot 18:31, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Public Domain and Cthulhu Mythos[edit]

It's best to say TSR believed the Cthulhu Mythos was public domain. To assert that it was requires original research.

Agreed, the sentence could be clearer. At the time, many people believed the Mythos was public domain, and the pre-1923 short stories are -- see Letting the Monsters Out: The Cthulhu Mythos and Intellectual Property Rights for non-original research on the subject. — Catherine\talk 15:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anything pre-1923 is automatically public domain. Most (if not all) of HPL's work is also public domain, as early copyrights required renewals, and nobody ever renewed those stories... no one has ever turned up anyone anywhere renewing these stories, which means they weren't, as they had to be filed that way. It is only newer creations in the Mythos by other authors... like, say, the Cthonians... which are covered by copyright. Of course the part about nonrenewal of copyrights is somewhat original researchy because the people at Arkham House like to lie about the status of the copyrights. They have never been able to show a renewal of any of them, which is required. Of course all this probably is too much for this particular article anyway. DreamGuy 20:16, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Is it actually known that Chaosium threatened legal action? Is there a source for that? I've heard (second hand) that that was not true, and that TSR removed the content so as not to promote the products (even indirectly) of a competitor. 136.1.1.105 (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfnmFKMzfVI suggests that TSR did have written approval from Arkham House to use the Cthulhu mythos, however the company likely did not have the funds to fight Chaosium in the courts, and wanted to "play nice" with them. Sawatts (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian mythos[edit]

I think these were removed eary on (for fear of causing offence ?) Anyone know. Rich Farmbrough 19:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They were removed and it may be for the reason you state, since some native Americans still practice the religion(s) they were based on. But we need some verification before we insert that info into the article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Thank you" note[edit]

Should it be noted that the thank you note remained even in some printings that removed the two pantheons? The current text (So they removed the Cthulhu and Melnibonéan pantheons, thus negating the need for the "Thank you" note.) seems to imply that the thank you note was removed at the same time as the pantheons. However, the thank you note remained for one printing after the two pantheons had been removed.

(My source for this is my copy of a third-printing of Deities & Demigods, which is missing the two pantheons, but includes the thank you note.) g026r 05:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it'd be fine to add it if you can find an eloquent way of wording it. Just MHO. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about like so: "So they removed the Cthulhu and Melnibonéan pantheons, thus negating the need for the "Thank you" note. Paradoxically, the "Thank you" note was still included in the first printing to contain the shortened list of pantheons — though this oversight was remedied in subsequent printings."?
And apologies for the typos last night. I tend to make them when I get tired. g026r 16:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources to Add[edit]

White Dwarf #23, Feb/Mar 1981, page 21 has a detailed review of the 1st Edition, 1st printing. Reviewer Andy Slack gives it 8/10. Web Warlock (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian gods[edit]

The article mentions "Re-Horakthy (Amun-Ra)". However, the first name is properly spelled "Re-Horakhty", the second, if using parallel form, would be spelled "Amun-Re", and, besides, they are not the same god, as the parentheses imply. If the errors are present in the book, then they can stay, but they should at least be noted.Jtle515 (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd edition[edit]

Since I don't want to create any problems, I thought that I would pose my questions here, before updating anything. The article currently states that for the 2nd Edition, "Legends & Lore was expanded, completely revised from the 1st Edition AD&D volume, and rewritten for the 2nd Edition rules.[2] This edition had pared-down content in comparison to the original; the sections on Babylonian, Finnish, Sumerian and non-humanoid deities were wholly excised.[1] The Central American mythos was renamed the Aztec mythos, while the Nehwon mythos was retained.[1]"

However, I own a copy of Legends and Lore (published in 1984), and it has 15 groups of mythic and legendary beings, all labelled the same as the pantheons in the original edition of Deities & Demigods. The only ones missing from my edition are the Cthulhu Mythos and Elric Mythos. Also, the list of interior artists in my edition, is different from the list of artists in the article. Does anyone have an explanation for this, and where would be the best place to reflect these differences? Fortdj33 (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. After checking the references, I discovered that Legends & Lore was originally a reprinting of Deities & Demigods with a new title and cover. It was later recast into a 2nd edition book. The 2nd edition version contains new content. Sorry for the confusion. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's a bit confusing but it sounds like you've got it right. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, there was not yet a 2nd edition of AD&D in 1984; iirc, the first L&L was merely a reprinting of the 2nd version of the original Deities & Demigods (with Cthulhu and Melnibonean mythoi pulled). Frankly, I find the subsuming of every edition under the heading "Printings" to be highly misleading; the 2e L&L (which in hindsight, they really should have come up with a new name for, but oh well) was completely overhauled in text and mechanics, substantially more detailed (not least because of 2E's institution of Specialty Priests) and significantly altered its interpretation of quite a few repeated deities. 3rd edition was likewise not a mere reprinting. I haven't seen the 4e version, but point already made that the only common thread is that all versions serve the same basic purpose. TheNuszAbides (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information to include in the article?[edit]

I found this link where the Creator of Dungeons and Dragons says: "I do not advocate any use of actual religion in an RPG. Any references I have made to Arab-like civizilations do not include any hint of Islam in them. the same holds for Judaism and Christianity. As a matter of fact, I did not write Deities and Demigods, nor did I use it in my campaign."

Would that be something interesting to include? Especially since the 1980 edition of Deities and Demigods: Cyclopedia of Gods and Heros From Myth and Legend includes a forward written by Gygax praising the work as inseparable to AD&D.[1] –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why that would need to be included. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:F547:54CF:BB57:887D (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ward, James M.; Kuntz, Robert J.; Gygax, E. Gary (1984). "Foreword". In Schick, Lawrence (ed.). Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, legends & lore. Lake Geneva, WI: TSR. p. 2. ISBN 0-935696-22-9.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deities_%26_Demigods&oldid=1201428779"