Question: I have a Scion of Thoth who's recently undergone apotheosis, and I've been trying to decide what animal head to give him (what's the point of playing a Netjer to godhood if you're not gonna get a bitchin' animal head, after all?). My question is: do you think new gods of the Netjer would only get animal heads based on old Egyptian associations, or could they choose them from more modern ideas? (I wanted to get him a raven head because he's predominantly a justice god - Tower of London and all that.)
We think it can, and should, go either way!
Obviously, using traditional Egyptian animals is probably the easy route to go. The pantheon is already familiar with them and will accept them easily, Egyptian symbolism and iconography is already in place beneath them so it's easy to know what animals represent what in Egyptian religious shorthand, and any worshipers of the Netjer or lesser gods you know will easily be able to recognize and respect you for your new animal association.
But the easiest route isn't necessarily the best, for a lot of reasons. Maybe your character doesn't want to use an Egyptian animal, because none of them represent the concepts he's interested in. Maybe there is a good Egyptian creature that represents your character's concept, but he doesn't want to use it because there are already some older gods with the same animal totem and he doesn't want his Legend to be eclipsed by theirs. Maybe he wants to invent his own weird composite creature, like Set or Anubis, and doesn't want to be constrained by the things gods before him have done.
So yes, you could definitely choose a non-standard creature's cranium to wear about town, in spite of what your fellow Netjer are doing. Keep in mind, though, that if you do choose a surprising animal, you may have political or social repercussions to deal with, anything from the other Netjer being weirded out by your choice, disdainful of your strangeness, offended that you're spurning their traditions or even disgusted if you choose an animal that has a traditionally negative connotation for them. The Egyptian gods probably won't stop you from adopting an animal image that is unfamiliar to them, but nothing is forcing them to like (or respect, or put up with) whatever you choose, so there may still be consequences.
But hey, it might also work out totally fine! Give it a try, and be ready to weather whatever social obstacle courses your Storyteller deems appropriate.
Mental note, make Netjer scion with an Albertosaurus head :)
ReplyDeleteI looked around a bit after sending this and it turns out that crows in ancient Egypt were associated with loyalty in marriage because they pair for life, not quite the forbidding judiciary image I was going for but hey, could be entertaining to see the reaction of the old guard.
ReplyDeleteThank you for answering the question, as always it was informative and thought provoking, with the wonderful side effect that now I'm hugely excited for Netjer politicking in god (my ST tells me the more harmonious of the Netjer are currently pissed of at my scion for his part in a political upheaval in Egypt, whereas the more orderly are pleased that said rebellion has reduced social disorder and crime in Egypt considerabley).
I do have a follow up question though, if you'll excuse my babbling, do you think that the animal heads of the older netjer are all relics with their own fancy powers or are they epic appearance shenanigans or bestial nature uses? and if they are relics, what sort of powers do you reckon they have?
They're probably bestial nature. And if you like, bestial nature is kinda like a boon thats a super relic. But since the vast majority have animal, its probably bestial nature.
DeleteFair enough, that does make the most sense. I'll have to consider buying some animal then, thanks again!
DeleteI think you could represent them however you want. Any of those three options would work just fine. I know John and Anne don't agree, but I think most Egyptian Gods shouldn't have Animal (Whatever Their Head Is). They're not really Animal Gods, they're Gods that are displaying their connection to something else by using animal symbolism. There are some that do have a very, very strong connection to their animal-head-animal, but mostly it's just symbolism representing something associated with that animal. Anubis doesn't do a whole lot with Jackals, but Jackals are associated with Death and so Anubis is associated with Jackals to reinforce HIS connection with Death.
DeleteI had an Egyptian Goddess that used Epic Appearance to turn her head into a praying mantis, but she didn't summon mantises or control them. It was the symbolism of the mantis that mattered.
Ouch....that just caused me an int extremity....Source J...do you have a source for any of that? Cause I have tombs on why they're associated with those animals.
DeleteYou have tombs? O_o
DeleteI think you definitely can do it as a relic as well; that's really up to game taste.
DeleteBut, I don't agree at all that the Netjer aren't actually animal gods! Many animal gods - in fact most - are associated with their totem because of that animal's symbolism; Huitzilopochtli's associated with hummingbirds because they're in turn associated with strength and vigor, Ganesha's associated with the elephant because the elephant is in turn associated with wisdom and intelligence, and so on. A large part of a lot of gods having animal totems at all relies on that animal's symbolism, so the fact that the animal is symbolic of other things they do doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't also associated with the animal itself.
I would say that the Netjer are, as a pantheon/culture, more invested in the half of the Animal purview that has to do with embodying their totem animals, rather than the ones that have to do with commanding them, but that doesn't say to me that they don't have Animal, just that their culture expresses Animal a little differently than those that rely on commanding or creating their creatures. Also, many of them definitely go the full shapechanged zoomorph (especially in older Egyptian cults, but not exclusive), especially the feline deities, the falcon deities and Sobek, which certainly make them look like they're rocking out that oneness with the animal kingdom to me.
Re: Anubis, I know one of our sources at home (Wilkinson, I want to say? Stupid being at work!) talks about his association with jackals also being strongly tied into the fact that jackals were known to dig up corpses buried insufficiently to devour them, which was viewed as Anubis' servants helping him out in his task of preparing and disposing of the dead. Some of the others are definitely more tenuous, but as always we tried to cut the possible animal associations for those whose connection didn't seem strong enough (like Ptah with bulls, for example).
Hit the wrong reply button below.
DeleteBut yes samudra i keep my tomes in tombs.
Source, how would you decide gods of animals have animal? Because....across all cultures...they're both associated with the animal, and have the traits similar to the animal. What else is there?
I don't like Animal being about totemism because for me, totemism is all about *how* a God represents their other functions instead of a function in and of itself. There totally are examples like Sobek and Sekhmet that are all about being and doing animal things, but a lot of what Scion defines as 'animal gods' are not using that animal as an end. They're using animal as a means to represent something else. This is absolutely all over mythology everywhere. Hera and her peacocks and Ganesha and his elephant head and all kinds of things. The animal isn't something they do, like Thor does lightning, it's something they use as a symbol for something else. I know that Scion's Animal Purview basically tries to BE that, but I'm not a fan of that. All the other Purviews are things that the Gods DO. They BRING fertility to fields or they CAUSE storms or they make volcanoes erupt or whatever else they do. They administer justice. Animal is the odd duck (heh) out, because it's all about imagery where as the others are all about a thing that gets done.
DeleteI would not give Animal to very many Gods at all. I'd give it to hunter gods and wilderness gods and the few figures like Sobek and his buddies who actually are all about doing animal things. And the ones that are animals.
That isn't how Scion defines Animal, or handles Animal. Scion's Animal isn't about that. I know, and for the way Scion models animal, it works for the Egyptians and Huitzilopochtli and Ganesha. I just don't like that way of approaching the idea of an Animal Purview. I don't like anything about the Animal Purview because it's a terrible Purview. And yeah, I know we never agree on anything Animal-related.
Ha, we never do, do we? Well, at least we're all polite about it. :)
DeleteI can definitely see that if you approach Animal as a non-totem purview, it would certainly apply to way fewer gods. Looks like we're just coming at it from different conceptual angles.
Indeed. Some of my perspective might be informed from an art background, where the animal traits are ways to represent other things. You recently talked about this with the winged Greek Gods like Nike and Eros. Their wings are probably not actually *wings* but rather a way to use that animal symbolism to represent something else they do: travel and be omnipresent. That's kinda how I see what Animal in Scion is trying to do.
DeleteWe'll have to disagree there - I think the fact that Animal in Scion specializes into specific creatures instead of being generalized is a pretty clear sign that it's intended to be totemic, although the degree is always under debate. And while some cultures and time periods do indeed use animal parts symbolically, others use them with intent to represent a connection to an animal, so even if that's true for some (like the Greeks!), it shouldn't be considered a blanket phenomenon. (And even the same cultures will have variation within them according to time period and intent of the art, which of course you already know.)
DeleteI think your vision of Animal is very different from ours, and also different from Scion's original RAW version, which was already written as differing from all other purviews in its specialization and handling of the idea of animal associations. Which isn't necessarily bad, just far afield from us.
Yeah, very different; I don't even like Animal being specialized. But, that's a debate we've also had many times.
DeleteParaphrased from Richard H. Wilkinsons books(one of the foremost egyptologists in north america).
ReplyDeleteBastet: While a cat goddess, also actually a cat. Fights apophis as the "Cat of ra"
Tawaret: Actually a hippo wearing a womans wig. Known as hippo goddess
Anubis: Was a god of canines first....LATER he became a god of the dead because of the association with canines digging in cemeteries. (are you going to take his death away because of this?) Often appears as actually a jackal. He only gained his human form later, and early on was just a jackal.
I could go on and on for almost every egyptian god who we gave animal or who has animal. They ARE associated with those animals.
This makes me wonder if gods from other pantheons who might rock similar animal heads, like Tezcatlipoca or Pan would have an easier time relating to the Egyptians
ReplyDeleteWe tend to assume that animal gods have a creature-level understanding thing going on that other gods aren't always able to quite get in on. :) Not that it's always good... sometimes they get territorial. Depends on the situation and the gods, of course.
Delete