Talk:Mythology

From 1d4chan

I'm not completely certain about the Heroes/Villains/Artifacts names (currently as of writing, "Most notable heroes with lots of media adaptions:", "Most notable villains in media adaptions:", and "Artifacts that tend to show up in media adaptions:"), but we do need to emphasize that these are the guys and things that show up a lot in various media, especially in "Mythology adjacent" works like Tomb Raider or Stargate and especially D&D. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, most of the article was written by an anon in one sitting who has a poor grasp of English. It's important to have the notes, but it's done clunkily. I think it's fine for now, but definitely needs to be fixed eventually. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we should replace all of those subheadings with a "Notable characters and artefacts" heading within each mythos. Then we can just list all of the important things and not worry about villains and heroes and what picture we paint, just detail the interesting stuff. It is there that we can mention if they turn up a lot in media. Another idea would be to add a "works inspired by this mythos" heading or something within each mythos. --MekGrizzleGob (talk) 09:06 04 Feburary 2019 (UTC)
That makes a lot more sense. If you don't get to it, I'll try to make that edit later today. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Why there shouldn’t be an Abrahamic section[edit]

You do realize that there are Christians, Jews, and Muslims who follow this website and referring to our faiths (in case you are wondering, I’m a Christian) as mythological and as fantasy is surely not going to engender good will towards 1d4chan and many will feel insulted (and rightfully so). -- unsigned comment made by Sarsath

Considering that there are also Pagans who follow this website, yet none of us have freaked out about the other entries in this page, I feel as though your point is irrelevant. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are just as mythological as any other religion (if not more so, but that is merely my opinion). Furthermore, even many Christians will admit that much of the bible is more allegory than historical, and that is not getting into some of the Apocrypha, which are not considered canon by most Christians anyway. Even during early Christian times, and up until relatively recently, there have been disputes over what is considered true. Finally, this is 1d4chan; a wiki for a board on 4chan. While we may not be encyclopedia dramatica, we still already have plenty of material that someone could consider offensive. Are you going to delete all of the NSFW pages as well? --Urist (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Seconded, out of all the places where you could draw the line on "offending people", this one is completely arbitrary; theological persuasions aside, we cover all things related to tabletop; considering the length of time that Abrahamic religion and its associated themese have been osmosed into popular culture (and thus into the media /tg/ consumes naturally), it'd be a huge disservice to gloss over that influence for the sake of a possible inconvenience to you. --LGX-000 (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Thirded; we cover tabletop games, and as long as we're clear that our definition of "Mythological Figures" includes real, historical people who get a lot of supernatural guff assigned to them. Maybe a clearer disclaimer up top? "Important We take no view as to the existence or non-existence of any of these figures, and treat them with the same or slightly more respect we would any other matter (that is, very little either way)."? Saarlacfunkel (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to go ahead and say that the disclaimer shouldn't be at the top, if at all. Let's real quick compare it to my personal pet peeve, the word faggot out of context (it's not just an offense thing - if I was offended by it I wouldn't even be here; for a full explanation, view the history look at Based Tzeentch's discussion). The only disclaimers I've ever added were on the Fags of 4chan and Trap articles, both of which were integrated into the article and made with the understanding that most people wouldn't use them offensively and that most of /tg/ doesn't give a fuck. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear: I only suggested a disclaimer, that I thought might resolve the issue. I'm not picky about the wording, so long as it's clear that we only describe these figures as "Mythical" in the sense that they get a lot of poorly researched supernatural guff attached to them in adaptions, some of which are RPGs (I'm particularly thinking of Solomon here, who frequently has a historical background cameo in Urban Fantasy works as a historically important Good Sorcerer of some kind, something which is really really really dubious, and the various Japanese historical figures). If think you can do something better, feel free to do what you will. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for being civil and making a post here all the same to explain your thoughts, Sarsath. -R
Same sentiment here. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 04:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Jesus and Muhammad folder censorship[edit]

Considering that the folder for Jesus had been there for awhile and even contained a mildly blasphemous statement (calling Jesus a dick to trees), I find it very telling that both were removed only when a folder about Muhammad was added. In my opinion, this is merely giving into the climate of fear that Muslim extremists want or the climate of excessive political correctness that is strangling Western media and parts of the internet. There are Muslims open to discussion about Muhammad and Christians open to discussions about Jesus. To me, it looks like caving in to the Muhammad taboo and walking on eggshells for fear of reprisal is what this is about; I also think since this is online the risk of being targeted by people such as jihadis is unlikely (and Islamic countries would likely have already banned this site due to its NSFW content). For that reason I would like to add a re-tooled version of the folders on Jesus and Muhammad. There are numerous things relevant to /tg/ about or inspired by Jesus and Christianity, and to a lesser degree Muhammad and Islam.

Regarding Christianity, many messianic or divine figures take cues from Christianity, such as paladins in Dungeons and Dragons invoking imagery from the Knights Templar or the many religions that are parallels to Christianity in fiction such as Warhammer's Church of Sigmar (complete with a reformist called Luthor). On the sci-fi side, one of many examples is there's Sanguinius from 40k being the son of a figure considered a god, giving his life to stop evil and possible resurrection (apart from early lore implying the Emperor met Jesus).

With Islam there aren't as many examples. I added the parts about why Muhammad is seldom portrayed because I consider that relevant regarding the mythology's impact on fiction. Islam, or elements of it do get referenced or evoked from time to time; I cited Dune, as Paul Atriedes' life has parallels to that of Muhammad (complete with holy war in his name being called a jihad) and Dune has not only been a major milestone in science fiction, there is a tabletop game from the franchise.. There's also times when elements of Islam or Muhammad's story are used, many concepts of djinn from Dungeons and Dragons are drawn from Islam. I would like people's thoughts on what /tg/ relevant content can go in the folders about Jesus and Muhammad and what about them can be mentioned. Flufflion (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really scared of reprisals (what are they going to do, leave mean comments?). I removed them more on the basis of me not wanting to deal with yet another flamewar and therefore taking preemptive measures to avert it. I could say that I trust people here to be mature and dignified about such matters...but I'd be lying.
On that note, there's a fair deal of scholarship that puts forth some rather strong arguments against a historical Jesus existing in any form. The details are much too complicated to cover here, but some of the views include that Jesus was a composite character derived from many Messiah claimants or that the only thing that can be known is that he (or someone like him) might have been a person who existed at that time. The historicity of Muhammad is equally unclear (e.g. the Hadith about Aisha wasn't written until 200 years after the fact, and no contemporary sources even acknowledge his existence). As that particular debate is more obscure than that of the "historical Jesus" one, I'll leave a link to a website summarizing it: [1] --Newerfag (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
What you just described about questioning the historicity of Jesus is the Christ Myth Theory. The history of it is too long to go into here, but the short version is that the majority of the academic community checked the evidence and the majority consensus is that it's false; a large part of that is because The Christ Myth Theory largely relies on inaccurate comparisons of mythologies (such as considering Jesus to be Egypt's Horus with the serial numbers filed off). Then one supporter tried to get acceptance for it by posting their ideas online and throwing it to the "court" of public opinion, and a small amount of people - mostly those who despise Christianity or religion - ate it up. It's credibility is around the level of anti-vaxxers ideas and the Flat-Earth theory. Here's a springboard for more information on that here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory I myself am a Christian and utterly reject the Christ Myth Theory. I can't comment on the Muhammad being a myth idea, but I do believe he was a real person. Flufflion (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
You're oversimplifying it. The "Christ Myth Theory" is not one theory but many, which is greatly complicated by equivocation between the different forms when debated among adherents of the different theories. And it's also conflated with the related "Jesus Myth Theory", which concerns itself with the debate as to whether Christianity had a single founder or if it merely rallied around the myth of said founder (who may or may not have had anything to do with the founding- as is the case with John Frum, so many legends have accumulated around him that the truth is practically unknowable to anyone who wasn't personally there to see it. The most commonly accepted version among scholars is that Jesus existed but some elements such as the miracles and claims to divinity were added later).--Newerfag (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and I did add a section discussing the djinn as well as a note on why Islamic mythology doesn't get much use. --Newerfag (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
As far as the Jesus and Mohammed sections go, I don't see how either being a real human impacts their relevance to the article. Both are tropes and icons, to different degrees, in western media, so it's worth having them whether there's an issue or not. I don't think I read the Mohammed section, but mentioning it and the taboo is probably good, and the section on Jesus is probably good, if a little neutered, but that's alright. All in all, self censorship out of fear, rather than growth, is probably a bad way to have fun. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for adding that point. I elaborated on it a bit since legal consequences and acts of revenge - such as the aforementioned terrorist attack the Charlie Hebdo shootings - are a large reason why that Islamic taboo is respected outside Islamic countries. Flufflion (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
My view was "These are not adding /tg/ content" and "do we really need another SJW-level edit war?". The combo was what knocked the sections over into deleteable. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
That's a fair point. Funny that you bring up SJWs, since they often say any criticism of Islam is bigotry, usually because they're virtue signalling or using Islam/Muslims as allies of convenience against Western society and/or Christianity. On that note, would you consider the points I added here in the talk page (such as the references to paladins, Sangunius and Dune) to be /tg/ relevant? Flufflion (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
It is not unprecedented that legitimate criticisms of Islam end up blown out of proportion and become bigotry in themselves, especially in light of recent history. Furthermore, in many cases cultural practices end up getting conflated with Islam as a whole in a way that the criticism would be more precisely directed at the culture and not the religion. Of course, that invites problems of its own that we are not suited to discuss. (Incidentally, the Quran never prohibits or even mentions the acceptability of making depictions of the prophets; that taboo didn't exist until around the 15th/16th century, and even then it was only adopted by Sunni Islam; modern Shia Islam has no such ban. A scholarly overview of the matter can be found here; [2])--Newerfag (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
That is an interesting point. Cultural practices getting conflated with religion when they're better directed at the culture and not the religion and criticisms being blown out of proportion due to prejudice is not unique to Islam. Similar has happened to the Catholic Church - especially the Spanish Inquisition (often trotted out in criticisms of Christianity) - and Spain for centuries, see the Black Legend of Spain for more [3]. There's also a similar thing going currently on with directing criticisms of Western society at Christianity along with with the darker aspects of Western society's history and even bringing race into it with the whole "white man's religion" thing. Christianity is no more the white man's religion than Islam is the Middle-Easterner's religion. That's not even getting into what happened with Norse Mythology and Scandinavian culture and all the grief thrown at Jews. As for images, the Qu'ran itself says the making of images is forbidden, but that extends to everything with a soul (people, animals) and not just prophets. Here's an answer regarding that which cites the Qu'ran [4] and here [5] Flufflion (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
As I said, those interpretations of the Quran are relatively new in the greater scheme of things- if the prohibition was always there, why did it take nearly a millennium for it to be implemented? As for the whole thing with Christianity being associated with "white man's religion", that's more of a product of it being most firmly entrenched with Europe combined with a rather unnerving number of extremists who claim biblical justification for racism (e.g. the "Curse of Ham" and groups such as Christian Identity). Nobody is innocent here, as much as they would like to convince you otherwise. --Newerfag (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
To get off topic, I don't know when the killing people for depicting Muhammad first happened. If we're going to talk about race-based controversies in Islam, Muhammad himself had slaves including black ones and according to several Hadiths - writings of Muhammad's life that are the backbone of Islamic civilization - Muhammad is quoted as saying that Blacks are, "pug-nosed slaves" (Sahih Moslem vol. 9 pages 46 and 47) and "raisin heads" (Sahih Al Bukhary vol. 1, no. 662 and vol. 9, no. 256), as well as ordering anyone who says he (Muhammad) is black to be killed (Qadi Iyad 375, 382). Speaking as a Christian and non-white person, Christianity being associated with white man's religion is also quite discriminatory as it's tarring people with the same brush and excluding many people (Christianity is the most followed religion overall on the continent of Africa). Christian extremists using Biblical justification for racism are heretics; Jesus in The Great Commission commanded his followers to make disciples of ALL nations [6], God does not judge by outward appearance [7] and the curse of Ham outlined in Genesis 9 makes no mention of being race-based (assuming it was even a curse rather than just a drunk father cussing about his rude grandson). Pro-slavery intellectuals were hard pressed to find any justification for slavery and racism within Christian theology which taught that all humans were descendants of Adam and therefore one race, possessed with equal salvation potential and deserving to be treated as kin. Blaming Christian teachings for inspiring racism is like blaming a certain tabletop game for promoting devil worship (which it didn't and doesn't) or blaming The Dark Knight movie for provoking a mass shooting. Flufflion (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Guilt by association is a powerful thing even if the association is not actually that strong, and while I'm sure that said intellectuals were able to cherry-pick something from the Bible to justify slavery the specifics are irrelevant for this article. The same goes for the racist elements in Islam as well. At worst I could say that the Bible failed to condemn slavery itself, but that judgment must also be tempered with the knowledge that slavery was considered acceptable at the time it was compiled. But again, this is all insignificant for our personal purposes and lingering on it would be a waste of time.--Newerfag (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
As for your points, the archetype of a savior figure is hardly unique to Jesus so I doubt it would be considered relevant. --Newerfag (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
As someone who isn't a believer, and who has never read any of the Abrahamic religious books, I do think an expanded section on Jesus and Muhammad would be useful for DMs/GMs and certain players. Looking back at the history, the specific folders that were made weren't as useful or relevant to /tg/ as they could have been, however. More focus on their methods, their miracles, and the influence they had on the world's history and cultures would be great for worldbuilders looking to model religions and messiah figures on them as well as players of characters with a religious background. At the same time, we don't need to go into Wikipedia levels of depth here; just summarize the main legends, the most famous followers, and what made people think they were prophets. Sicarius (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Speaking as an ignostic (not to be confused with agnosticism- it's not "it's unknown whether or not gods exist" so much as "there's no point in even asking the question when you can't even define what a god is"), I would assume that all but the most sheltered of people would know at least a little bit about the life of Jesus. I'll acknowledge Muhammad's life and deeds are more obscure at least within the West, but the emphasis should definitely be more on what he did (i.e. lead a ragtag band of tribal exiles into war with a major Arabic city and win, while also setting the stage for what would become the Caliphates). Focusing too much on the controversial aspects is more trouble than it's worth. --Newerfag (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

"Religion" section[edit]

I zapped the following because it added nothing to either the /tg/-related content of the article nor the "avoiding trouble" end. If you disagree with me, feel free to readd it, although I'm especially dubious about the "Note" adding anything worthwhile. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

==Religion==

Religion is a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements.  So every religion has a mythology, but not every mythology is a religion.  

Despite this, scholars have failed to agree on a definition of religion. There are however two general definition systems: the sociological/functional and the phenomenological/philosophical.  The two most widely accepted are:
* "a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say things set apart and forbidden - beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a church, all those who adhere to them."
* "a comprehensive worldview or 'metaphysical moral vision' that is accepted as binding because it is held to be in itself basically true and just even if all dimensions of it cannot be either fully confirmed or refuted".

=== Note ===

In recent history, the term religion is also often used as a Snarl World in modern politics and online discussions to demonize or ridicule groups openly promoting something the user disagrees with.   This relies on the negative stereotype of religious people as irrational, controlling and/or violent; the goal is to smear both the group in question and every religious group the speaker dislikes by association with these undesirable traits, thus misrepresenting them and whatever they're promoting to motivate others to oppose them.  This is mostly done by anti-religious people and groups, who tend to be left-leaning or apolitical though they can come from all sources.

Now that it's less not /tg/: Is it just me or could the religion section be moved off into its own article? Saarlacfunkel (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Time to split things up?[edit]

So, this page is going to get really big and really unwieldy as it grows. Maybe we're starting to reach the point where more "Mainstream" Mythologies like Classical Mythology, Norse Mythology, Japanese Mythology, etc should be moved to their own pages? That way we can also focus on calling out more specific instances of their being utilized in /tg/, such as Classical Mythology giving us the worlds of Theros, Arkadia and Odyssey of the Dragonlords.--QuietBrowser (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

As this is a gaming wiki, I agree that this article [and any prospective child articles] needs to be refocused on /tg/-related utilization of mythology; such needs to be done regardless of whether this article spawns child articles. - Thanateros (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Gaming Refocus Needed[edit]

The deletion of the D&D/Midgard goddess Ariadne from this article was problematic because such deletion is antithetical to the fact that this is a gaming wiki, not Wikipedia. The fact that Karl Kerényi himself, one of the founders of our modern study of Greek mythology, posited that Ariadne was a Minoan goddess absorbed into Greco-Roman mythology is not even needed to justify Ariadne's mention in a gaming wiki; that Ariadne is a D&D goddess via the Midgard setting and she is a character from Greco-Roman mythology means that she belongs in this article; with its current structure the best place to mention her is the "The Greco-Roman Gods & Creation Myth" section, because within the Greco-Roman portion of the Midgard pantheon she is a goddess. In keeping with the gaming theme of this wiki, a correction to Ariadne's placement in this article should be a restructuring/rewording of sections, not a deletion. - Thanateros (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

My sole intelligent comments are "Maybe it's where she was included that was the problem, rather than her inclusion period?" and "We could have a 'Miscellaneous /tg/ Relevant Figures/Artifacts'". Saarlacfunkel (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
A question of where though should not result in a deletion. The deleter had ignored the fact that this is a gaming wiki and Ariadne is a D&D deity. - Thanateros (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Again, I doubt he'll object if you put it in a new subsection, called something like "Miscellaneous /tg/ Relevant Figures/Artifacts".Saarlacfunkel (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Partially due to how sparse the Greco-Roman Gods section is, I went with rewording the section's preamble to make the section more in line with the fact that this is primarily a gaming wiki. - Thanateros (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Miscellaneous sections are problematic because people do not generally look there when a more relevant section exists. People are not likely to look in the Miscellaneous Figures section for Ariadne if she is not in the Greco-Roman mythology section. Minoan culture has more overlap with Greek culture than Greek culture has with Roman culture, so if Greek mythology and Roman mythology are to be a cluster then Minoan mythology should be included in that cluster. (A sub-optimal organization is still at least somewhat better than a deletion though.) - Thanateros (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Minoans were a Greek culture; they spoke a dialect of Greek. This means that Minoan mythology is a subset of Greek mythology, so when preeminent mythologist Karl Kerényi et al. revealed Ariadne as a Minoan goddess this also revealed her to be a Greek goddess. This means that within the collective of conflicting stories which is Greek mythology there are at least two versions of Ariadne, one a goddess, the other not, but even the mortal version retained the deific name Ariadne meaning "Most Holy". - Thanateros (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Thing is, to the Greeks, "Adriadne" would have been considered another name for an existing Deity. The Greeks had a thing for equating foreign gods with their own, so Adriadne would have been considered as another name for either Hera or Athena (probably the former). Go look up wikipedia:Interpretatio graeca if you don't believe me. Again, not a Greek goddess. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you are thinking of Aphrodite-Ariadne of Cyprus?
The section is not exclusive to Greek mythology; it lumps together Greek and Roman mythologies. For the similar reasons, it should include Minoan mythology. Ariadne may not have been a mainland "Greek" goddess, but she was a goddess in the cluster of Minoan-Greek-Roman mythologies. It would be appropriate to rename the section as Minoan-Grecian-Roman Mythology (but I do not see that as necessary). - Thanateros (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Minoans were not Greek, they predate the Greeks by centuries. If anything one should say the Greeks were a Minoan culture. --Konrad13 (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
True, but by the time of Greek civilization the Minoans were speaking a dialect of Greek. Either way, Greek and Minoan mythology are as much of a cluster as Greek and Roman mythology. - Thanateros (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
No, the Minoans were speaking whatever their language was which might have been a form of proto-Greek (not a dialect) but we don't really know since we've not be able to decipher most their language from the few writings we've managed to get (damn, why no Minoan Rosetta Stone?). And what little we do understand is very different from Greco-Roman mythology such as Poseidon being the main "king deity" rather than Zeus (who is barely mentioned in what we've seen). It would be better to say that Greece stole some of Minoan mythology but syncretize it with their own myths rather than the Romans who merely tweak Greek myths and otherwise adopt them wholesale. --Konrad13 (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The fact that you mention the Minoan version of Poseidon is all the more reason why the Greco-Roman mythology section should be expanded to include Minoan mythology. - Thanateros (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
That would make sense if we even knew what Minoan mythology was in the first place. Linear A remains unreadable, so there's nothing we can actually say about any of their myths. The only sources for her alleged divinity are speculation from classicists Robert Graves and Karl Kerenyi (whose only evidence was that her name sounded like the Cretan-Greek for "utterly pure") and a brief account from Plutarch regarding an obscure mythographer whose works have long since been lost. --Newerfag (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, as far as I can tell, Ariadne doesn't belong in the Greco/Roman god list directly; she's too much of a footnote to be listed there. Like I'm saying, she rates a mention alongside St. Cuthbert. That's about as good as you're going to get, as footnotes like Ariadne only rate a mention as footnotes. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Ariadne does belong in the Minoan/Grecian/Roman god list though. ...And since this is a gaming wiki, not a Greek mythology wiki, her status as a D&D deity is even more relevant than her real-world mythology. How many of the other Greco-Roman deities are central deities in any D&D setting? In a gaming wiki, even Zeus is just a footnote. - Thanateros (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
No, she doesn't. Minoan culture predates Greek, and we're only interested in covering things that get used commonly elsewhere. (1) Adriadne's in the wikipedia:Theogony, yes, but that's the Priestess, not the Goddess. You're probably going to get opposition for trying to go outside the Theogony, as that's more or less the closest thing to official canon in Greek mythology. (2) She's got very little presence in RPGs, AFAICT. Does she appear in Scion (as a Goddess, rather than a historical figure), forex? Or anything else besides Midgard d20? Saarlacfunkel (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Focusing on Hesiod's Theogony would make sense if this was Wikipedia, or a mythology wiki, but it's a gaming wiki. - Thanateros (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Still doesn't answer my second question: Does she exist in any gaming setting beyond Midgard d20? If not, she might not belong on the page at all. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Not at all. --Newerfag (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)