LE Lore-Friendly Valkyrie race/items and NPCs?

[Hotemochick1992]

Google search on ancient Valkyrie.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=GHqoAbGStCe0zM&tbnid=Bzl3_QTcpdPQyM:&ved=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fseshdotcom.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F03%2F24%2F&ei=M0EuUfGSG8WYiAKy_IGQAQ&bvm=bv.42965579,d.cGE&psig=AFQjCNG8-e90GM7UMnzUM53iESoXA7pt4A&ust=1362072237993949

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=8DzggFrhCFtDBM&tbnid=plFl2FAbNvakZM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2F01varvara.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F11%2F23%2Fkonstantin-vasiliev-valkyrie-an-etude-1969%2F&ei=3kEuUYyuOsThiwLuxYCYAQ&bvm=bv.42965579,d.cGE&psig=AFQjCNG8-e90GM7UMnzUM53iESoXA7pt4A&ust=1362072237993949

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=xQwFhpJ1K_14AM&tbnid=9su-A3FACq0yJM:&ved=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.howarddavidjohnson.com%2Fnordicmyths.htm&ei=IUIuUaH9KOGaiAKZ14CoDg&bvm=bv.42965579,d.cGE&psig=AFQjCNG8-e90GM7UMnzUM53iESoXA7pt4A&ust=1362072237993949

 

Funny how that works. Old depictions of Valkyrie and what do we see? Oh yes, beautiful women in armor.

[Danman804]

Hotemochick1992, on 27 Feb 2013 - 09:37, said:

Google search on ancient Valkyrie.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=GHqoAbGStCe0zM&tbnid=Bzl3_QTcpdPQyM:&ved=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fseshdotcom.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F03%2F24%2F&ei=M0EuUfGSG8WYiAKy_IGQAQ&bvm=bv.42965579,d.cGE&psig=AFQjCNG8-e90GM7UMnzUM53iESoXA7pt4A&ust=1362072237993949

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=8DzggFrhCFtDBM&tbnid=plFl2FAbNvakZM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2F01varvara.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F11%2F23%2Fkonstantin-vasiliev-valkyrie-an-etude-1969%2F&ei=3kEuUYyuOsThiwLuxYCYAQ&bvm=bv.42965579,d.cGE&psig=AFQjCNG8-e90GM7UMnzUM53iESoXA7pt4A&ust=1362072237993949

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=xQwFhpJ1K_14AM&tbnid=9su-A3FACq0yJM:&ved=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.howarddavidjohnson.com%2Fnordicmyths.htm&ei=IUIuUaH9KOGaiAKZ14CoDg&bvm=bv.42965579,d.cGE&psig=AFQjCNG8-e90GM7UMnzUM53iESoXA7pt4A&ust=1362072237993949

 

Funny how that works. Old depictions of Valkyrie and what do we see? Oh yes, beautiful women in armor.

Apparently you haven't been listening to a word I said. When did I say it was acceptable for you to look at them through the modern view of 'beauty' when written accounts of them by norse of ancient times were clearly the opposite? What makes you think your standard of 'beauty' is even remotely close to theirs, or how the view of them in ancient times for those same images were even remotely close to your own?

 

If you by any chance told them of your ideas about how you viewed those Valkyries, I think they would split their sides laughing. This is exactly the kind of myopia I have repeatedly spoke against, but you just can't get it into your head.

 

 

Edit: Your idea of 'ancient' valkyrie depictions are all from 19th century on by the way. Did you even bother to do any serious research? They were clearly inspired by Romanticism and nationalism of that era seeking to distort the original ideas about what Valkyries really are. Try to do some more serious fact finding before b ching.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Danman804

[Zaldir]

 

Hotemochick1992, on 27 Feb 2013 - 09:37, said:

Google search on ancient Valkyrie.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=GHqoAbGStCe0zM&tbnid=Bzl3_QTcpdPQyM:&ved=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fseshdotcom.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F03%2F24%2F&ei=M0EuUfGSG8WYiAKy_IGQAQ&bvm=bv.42965579,d.cGE&psig=AFQjCNG8-e90GM7UMnzUM53iESoXA7pt4A&ust=1362072237993949

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=8DzggFrhCFtDBM&tbnid=plFl2FAbNvakZM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2F01varvara.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F11%2F23%2Fkonstantin-vasiliev-valkyrie-an-etude-1969%2F&ei=3kEuUYyuOsThiwLuxYCYAQ&bvm=bv.42965579,d.cGE&psig=AFQjCNG8-e90GM7UMnzUM53iESoXA7pt4A&ust=1362072237993949

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=xQwFhpJ1K_14AM&tbnid=9su-A3FACq0yJM:&ved=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.howarddavidjohnson.com%2Fnordicmyths.htm&ei=IUIuUaH9KOGaiAKZ14CoDg&bvm=bv.42965579,d.cGE&psig=AFQjCNG8-e90GM7UMnzUM53iESoXA7pt4A&ust=1362072237993949

 

Funny how that works. Old depictions of Valkyrie and what do we see? Oh yes, beautiful women in armor.

Apparently you haven't been listening to a word I said. When did I say it was acceptable for you to look at them through the modern view of 'beauty' when written accounts of them by norse of ancient times were clearly the opposite? What makes you think your standard of 'beauty' is even remotely close to theirs, or how the view of them in ancient times for those same images were even remotely close to your own?

 

If you by any chance told them of your ideas about how you viewed those Valkyries, I think they would split their sides laughing. This is exactly the kind of myopia I have repeatedly spoke against, but you just can't get it into your head.

 

 

Edit: Your idea of 'ancient' valkyrie depictions are all from 19th century on by the way. Did you even bother to do any serious research?

Again. Chill.

 

All you seem to be doing is arguing against the modern view of beauty, but you have yet to provide any information regarding how the Norse viewed beauty.

 

You seem to think that they had a totally different view than we do now, but I highly doubt it. But of course, no one can really prove how they viewed beauty.

Take a strong, beautiful woman of today, remove the make-up, and you most likely have a woman who would be thought to be beautiful in the Viking age.

 

Of course, the perception of beauty is a subjective matter, so you could really argue all day and not get any further.

[Danman804]

 

 

Hotemochick1992, on 27 Feb 2013 - 09:37, said:

Google search on ancient Valkyrie.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=GHqoAbGStCe0zM&tbnid=Bzl3_QTcpdPQyM:&ved=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fseshdotcom.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F03%2F24%2F&ei=M0EuUfGSG8WYiAKy_IGQAQ&bvm=bv.42965579,d.cGE&psig=AFQjCNG8-e90GM7UMnzUM53iESoXA7pt4A&ust=1362072237993949

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=8DzggFrhCFtDBM&tbnid=plFl2FAbNvakZM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2F01varvara.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F11%2F23%2Fkonstantin-vasiliev-valkyrie-an-etude-1969%2F&ei=3kEuUYyuOsThiwLuxYCYAQ&bvm=bv.42965579,d.cGE&psig=AFQjCNG8-e90GM7UMnzUM53iESoXA7pt4A&ust=1362072237993949

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=xQwFhpJ1K_14AM&tbnid=9su-A3FACq0yJM:&ved=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.howarddavidjohnson.com%2Fnordicmyths.htm&ei=IUIuUaH9KOGaiAKZ14CoDg&bvm=bv.42965579,d.cGE&psig=AFQjCNG8-e90GM7UMnzUM53iESoXA7pt4A&ust=1362072237993949

 

Funny how that works. Old depictions of Valkyrie and what do we see? Oh yes, beautiful women in armor.

Apparently you haven't been listening to a word I said. When did I say it was acceptable for you to look at them through the modern view of 'beauty' when written accounts of them by norse of ancient times were clearly the opposite? What makes you think your standard of 'beauty' is even remotely close to theirs, or how the view of them in ancient times for those same images were even remotely close to your own?

 

If you by any chance told them of your ideas about how you viewed those Valkyries, I think they would split their sides laughing. This is exactly the kind of myopia I have repeatedly spoke against, but you just can't get it into your head.

 

 

Edit: Your idea of 'ancient' valkyrie depictions are all from 19th century on by the way. Did you even bother to do any serious research?

Again. Chill.

 

All you seem to be doing is arguing against the modern view of beauty, but you have yet to provide any information regarding how the Norse viewed beauty.

 

You seem to think that they had a totally different view than we do now, but I highly doubt it. But of course, no one can really prove how they viewed beauty.

Take a strong, beautiful woman of today, remove the make-up, and you most likely have a woman who would be thought to be beautiful in the Viking age.

 

Of course, the perception of beauty is a subjective matter, so you could really argue all day and not get any further.

 

Sounds easy enough on the surface, but still deflecting the issue with 'it's all subjective'.

 

Some of the differences in element is really more close to black and white, which you cannot so easily sweep aside with relatively cheap move of condemning difference to 'subjective irrelevance'.

 

If you look through even the rudimentary summaries about Valkyrie Lore online, (for starters, see the entries on wikipedia or do more serious research about old norse poems and stories) only very occasionally are they described as 'fair' or 'beautiful' in a way of 'attraction', rather, one is more reminded of idea about people beholding almost imperious image of madonna-like image or Athena-like image of Gods who happened to be of female gender. Kind of respect and awe rendered to god like figure who is both an embodiment of divine acceptance and judgment is closer to their image than shallow feeling of 'modern day model-eye candy' type of depictions we are prone to seeing.

 

Just look at some of their names - 'dark death', 'war', 'power', 'axe-age'. Not exactly wall-flower type of 'feminine' idea we imagine today. These entities are not exactly mary or elizabeth we're seeing here.

 

I kind of doubt some of the more 'sacreligious' point of view commonly espoused in modern day is capable of grasping these ideas, but I am sure some modders are up to the challenge of rising above cheap ideas about 'goddesses' and 'femininity' that are as short-sighted as they are shallow.

[Strokend]

I never said beauty means feminine. I gave my example of what I meant: The imperials would not qualify as feminine, throwing your whole argument out the window.

 

Valkyries were described as keepers of order and law, taking the dead to their deserved afterlife. Beyond this, they are gods from Asgard. They don't need to look like Thor from The Avengers, but they need some presense of order and law. This is why I suggested putting them between Nord and Imperial--even the imperials have a somewhat warlike appearance.

 

Lore tends to use a literary device known as "Hyperbole," meaning to exagerate. It's used not to make it seem different than it is, but to invoke the feeling that was intended. If I were to say somebody is beautiful, I'd get people like you, who think Beauty means they cannot be the least bit warlike, that they cannot be the slightest bit scary. So instead, a hyperbole is used: call them monstrous, frightful beings. The reader gets the feel that they're actually beings capable of war and deserving of fear.

 

What you're asking for is a creature to be added to a game which actually has graphics. A game where you can show the audience what you want. You said to take a look at the second image, so I say to you: look at the second image. It's not an ugly, monsterous image at all! It shows a warlike woman, yet she's got a sense of beauty about her. If you wanted to describe the image to an audience who would never see it, but give them the sense of her being a warrior, you'd have to exclude the part of her being beautiful.

 

So why are we asking that beauty and fright be taken into consideration? Because we're not writing a story. We're asking for an image to be made. We want our artist to know these aren't monsters, but rather beings capable of beauty and fright together. No, not all of them need this sense of beauty, especially since making them Gods of Asgard goes against Tamrielic lore. They're a simple race, no more. Some will focus on their beauty, some will not.

[Danman804]

I never said beauty means feminine. I gave my example of what I meant: The imperials would not qualify as feminine, throwing your whole argument out the window.

 

Valkyries were described as keepers of order and law, taking the dead to their deserved afterlife. Beyond this, they are gods from Asgard. They don't need to look like Thor from The Avengers, but they need some presense of order and law. This is why I suggested putting them between Nord and Imperial--even the imperials have a somewhat warlike appearance.

 

Lore tends to use a literary device known as "Hyperbole," meaning to exagerate. It's used not to make it seem different than it is, but to invoke the feeling that was intended. If I were to say somebody is beautiful, I'd get people like you, who think Beauty means they cannot be the least bit warlike, that they cannot be the slightest bit scary. So instead, a hyperbole is used: call them monstrous, frightful beings. The reader gets the feel that they're actually beings capable of war and deserving of fear.

 

What you're asking for is a creature to be added to a game which actually has graphics. A game where you can show the audience what you want. You said to take a look at the second image, so I say to you: look at the second image. It's not an ugly, monsterous image at all! It shows a warlike woman, yet she's got a sense of beauty about her. If you wanted to describe the image to an audience who would never see it, but give them the sense of her being a warrior, you'd have to exclude the part of her being beautiful.

 

So why are we asking that beauty and fright be taken into consideration? Because we're not writing a story. We're asking for an image to be made. We want our artist to know these aren't monsters, but rather beings capable of beauty and fright together. No, not all of them need this sense of beauty, especially since making them Gods of Asgard goes against Tamrielic lore. They're a simple race, no more. Some will focus on their beauty, some will not.

 

Calling something a Hyperbole and trying to say that somehow excludes it from core meaning of a mythology is like saying you need to exclude 'hyperbole' of a person's presence and perception they exude in favor of viewing them in a 2 dimensional way. It seems you seriously misunderstand what does and doesn't matter, and also what not to call superficially capable of being disregarded vs. what cannot be. You don't take out meat from a meat-only sandwich and still call it a meat sandwich. That's a really weak way of trying to deflect the issue when you obviously don't know the exact purpose of hyperbole literary device that are used across mythologies to their contemporary audiences. Do you think Beethoven was trying to impose some kind of artificial, false mirage of illusion of his ideas when writing the 5th symphony? By your reasoning, perhaps hyperbole in such art is merely an illusion to mask something that is different while the real intent is actually to accurately describe something that cannot be so easily perceived by the human sense due to limitations of our experience and point of view.

 

 

I have already explained why your view of law and tactical aspect in terms of femininity is fundamentally flawed. I suggest you go back and read it again.

 

Once again, what's not feminine about Imperials? They have their own brand of such presence, and you so casually disregard them as if your own views automatically exclude their character from everyone else's.

 

I don't think I ever said they are supposed to look like some thing along the lines of Herma Mora clone. I also never said the second image is EXACTLY what they should be like - only that said 2nd image is MUCH better than the 1st, which as I said we must take pains to avoid.

 

We must exclude the part about being 'beautiful' as in modern-sense-model-beautiful. Yes, in that sense, something must be excluded. But that does not in any way detract from original intent of this request to ask for something closer to the original portrayal of these warrior-gods.

 

Your general tone that tries to say either feminine-or-thor-and-gruff is, once again (tired of repeating things you are incapable of understanding) VERY shallow way of viewing what is feminine or not. Go read some of the excerpts from original norse poems.

 

Edit: Trying to embody this idea into a race is exactly why this is so difficult. But that's exactly the kind of condition where great innovative breakthroughs happen - when seemingly impossible becomes realized.

 

When I said it is going to be tough, I wasn't saying that out of courtesy.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Danman804

[Zaldir]

Your general tone that tries to say either feminine-or-thor-and-gruff is, once again (tired of repeating things you are incapable of understanding) VERY shallow way of viewing what is feminine or not. Go read some of the excerpts from original norse poems.

 

Again you seem to be misreading catastrophically...

 

Neither me, Strokend or hotemochick have ever said that it either have to be feminine OR gruff. We are all saying it needs to be something in between.

[Danman804]

 

 

Your general tone that tries to say either feminine-or-thor-and-gruff is, once again (tired of repeating things you are incapable of understanding) VERY shallow way of viewing what is feminine or not. Go read some of the excerpts from original norse poems.

Again you seem to be misreading catastrophically...

 

Neither me, Strokend or hotemochick have ever said that it either have to be feminine OR gruff. We are all saying it needs to be something in between.

I don't think you even know what you are talking about at this point. You just ran against your own words when you said "If you wanted to describe the image to an audience who would never see it, but give them the sense of her being a warrior, you'd have to exclude the part of her being beautiful." that by all accounts is at least implying and showing incompatibility between your idea of beauty and power. I don't think you are capable of understanding the one making really catastrophic and short-sighted misunderstanding is you who is very much contradicting your own words with your tone of voice opposing and giving lie to statements you make.

 

You say you never meant something this way, while following up with statements that are clearly implying otherwise. I don't think you can really grasp what you yourself is trying to say, while I am outlining and clearly explaining again and again what I mean with examples that may or may not elude your sense of what is and is not. You don't address what I mentioned, but goes back on your word again and again. Mine stands on the idea that this is seemingly impossible, but still very much a valuable possibility that may not be correctly perceived by others with much more limited view of what is being portrayed in these old works of literary and traditional treasures. You are attempting, and going around in circles, trying to justify how your present view should be best imposed upon these ideas when they are clearly out of your league seeing as trying to explain them in your own terms is making you run around trying to cover your own words.

 

I suggest you broaden your horizons about the perceptions of what I am hoping modders are going to portray here. You are running in circles here.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Danman804

[Strokend]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your general tone that tries to say either feminine-or-thor-and-gruff is, once again (tired of repeating things you are incapable of understanding) VERY shallow way of viewing what is feminine or not. Go read some of the excerpts from original norse poems.

 

Again you seem to be misreading catastrophically...

 

Neither me, Strokend or hotemochick have ever said that it either have to be feminine OR gruff. We are all saying it needs to be something in between.

I don't think you even know what you are talking about at this point. You just ran against your own words when you said "If you wanted to describe the image to an audience who would never see it, but give them the sense of her being a warrior, you'd have to exclude the part of her being beautiful." that by all accounts is at least implying and showing incompatibility between your idea of beauty and power.

Wrong guy, I'm the one who used the audience line, not Zaldiir.

 

Danman804, on 27 Feb 2013 - 11:20, said:

Calling something a Hyperbole and trying to say that somehow excludes it from core meaning of a mythology is like saying you need to exclude 'hyperbole' of a person's presence and perception they exude in favor of viewing them in a 2 dimensional way. It seems you seriously misunderstand what does and doesn't matter, and also what not to call superficially capable of being disregarded vs. what cannot be. You don't take out meat from a meat-only sandwich and still call it a meat sandwich.

Taking the meat out of a meat sandwich? Really? What does beauty have to do with a soldier? How is it the war aspect of him? It's more like the Lettuce on a burger. A person may always make a burger with that lettuce, but suddenly making it without doesn't make it less of a buger. It still has the buns and the patty.

Danman804, on 27 Feb 2013 - 11:20, said:

Once again, what's not feminine about Imperials? They have their own brand of such presence, and you so casually disregard them as if your own views automatically exclude their character from everyone else's.

I was working by your definition here. You argued that beauty meant femininity meant weak and fragile.

 

At this point, I don't really have the patience to read through the rest of it, so I'll just say this: It's your mod request, not mine. When you supported the second image I used to pull more information out of you, I assumed you wanted that form of beauty. I even further guessed it would take position somewhere between the Imperials and Nords. However, if that is not what you want, I'm presently at a loss for what you do want, and any modders may be as well.

 

Good luck in this, I do look forward to seeing it being made, but at present I intend to become just a watcher here. At the very least, I'll give myself a chance to look through things more carefully before I post again.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Strokend

[Zaldir]

 

Your general tone that tries to say either feminine-or-thor-and-gruff is, once again (tired of repeating things you are incapable of understanding) VERY shallow way of viewing what is feminine or not. Go read some of the excerpts from original norse poems.

Again you seem to be misreading catastrophically...

Neither me, Strokend or hotemochick have ever said that it either have to be feminine OR gruff. We are all saying it needs to be something in between.

I don't think you even know what you are talking about at this point. You just ran against your own words when you said "If you wanted to describe the image to an audience who would never see it, but give them the sense of her being a warrior, you'd have to exclude the part of her being beautiful." that by all accounts is at least implying and showing incompatibility between your idea of beauty and power. I don't think you are capable of understanding the one making really catastrophic and short-sighted misunderstanding is you who is very much contradicting your own words with your tone of voice opposing and giving lie to statements you make.

You say you never meant something this way, while following up with statements that are clearly implying otherwise. I don't think you can really grasp what you yourself is trying to say, while I am outlining and clearly explaining again and again what I mean with examples that may or may not elude your sense of what is and is not. You don't address what I mentioned, but goes back on your word again and again. Mine stands on the idea that this is seemingly impossible, but still very much a valuable possibility that may not be correctly perceived by others with much more limited view of what is being portrayed in these old works of literary and traditional treasures. You are attempting, and going around in circles, trying to justify how your present view should be best imposed upon these ideas when they are clearly out of your league seeing as trying to explain them in your own terms is making you run around trying to cover your own words.

I suggest you broaden your horizons about the perceptions of what I am hoping modders are going to portray here. You are running in circles here.

You may want to go back and see who said what...

The only thing you seem to be doing in this thread is to argue against peoples view of what is beautiful.

If you want a modeler to actually model what you are looking for, you need to describe what you want. Not just say that she needs to be beautiful in the eyes of the Norse of old - that won't help the modeler in any way, because they won't know what the Norse viewed as beautiful.

Like Strokend, I really am at a loss for what you actually want. Someone suggests something, you seem to agree, then the next post you turn around and disagree with it all. It is really hard to know what you are looking for at this moment, and it is highly unlikely a modeler would be able to model anything based on your ideas so far.