|#1dawnstealerApr 05, 2004 21:25:50||Mekillots, Inix, and Kanks underwent a bizarre change from 1e to 2e. Seriously. A mekillot went from being an oversized, reptillian rolly-polly to a triceratops. The Inix went from a beaked lizard to some black-skinned, wierd thing. Kanks changed, too. Which description is correct? |
(I drew mine according to the descriptions in the original version - just assumed the new version said the same thing. Maybe they didn't?)
|#2nytcrawlrApr 05, 2004 21:35:26||I go with 1e. Most of the artwork for 2e was just bizarre, more bizarre than some of the ill-loved Baxa work that some don't like very well.|
1e should be more correct, and I do remember the descriptions being similar, but could be wrong on that. Been awhile since I looked at any 2e stuff until last night and that was just about the quake and the messenger disappearing.
|#3Shei-NadApr 05, 2004 22:27:23||Yeah, I brought up that one! :D|
Personnally, here's how it goes:
Mekillot: I first thought of having both beasts in my setting, but only one would be the mekillot (the 1e one) and the other would need a new name. Then, I saw the Dirks and figured that they looked a lot like mekillots of 1e, so why not make the mekillots of 1e dirks and the mekillots those of 2e? This would clash somewhat with lots of material though concerning the mekillots. Not sure anymore.
Inix: Here, these are two different species of Inixes. Lizard-like inixes are the most common, but the plated inixies (which would need a name, or a tag such as plated) do exist in other areas... I'm thinking east, maybe in the Draj region. I could see draji warriors on those...
Kanks: Definately 1e here. 2e kanks look to much like big spiders for my taste, and they look difficult to ride.
|#4KamelionApr 06, 2004 1:54:55||We have embraced these changes in our game with the idea that there are simply other species of mekillot, kank, inix or whatever. Not all dogs, spiders or cows look alike on Earth - there's no reason that all animals should all be identical on Athas either.|
Maybe the female mekillots have these enormous horns, or maybe it's the males who have the horns? We took the angle that you never seem them together on the same caravan because they have been known to try and mate at inopportune moments. Very messy.
I say keep the differences .
|#5Shei-NadApr 06, 2004 19:55:08||Different spiecies look different, yes, but the two mekillots seem se unalike it doesn't really make much sense IMO. I'm surprised no one else commented this. What version of these beasts do you use?|
|#6OninotakiApr 06, 2004 21:46:25|
Originally posted by Kamelion
I agree on keeping the differances but as seperate species not seperate sexs.
|#7xlorepdarkhelm_dupApr 06, 2004 21:53:51|
Originally posted by Shei-Nad
Well, it could be like the Killer Whale vs. a Humpback Whale - they look different (and technically the Killer Whale is closer to a Dolphin than a Humpback), but both are called Whales. Maybe something similar happened with the Mekillots.
|#8zombiegleemaxApr 07, 2004 3:33:52||And what about how mek's caravans work? I've seen some pictures where it seems like they've built a miniature fort on the mekillot's back... another pic shows two mekillots pulling a fort-on-wheels. |
I would think the prior would be more practical (strangely enough) because if one of those two ton axles breaks in the middle of the sandy wastes, the entire caravan is screwed. Its not like they can just fix it... Whereas the other way they just need to make sure the mekillot gets enough food. (sorry slaves. Take one for the team!)
|#9zombiegleemaxApr 07, 2004 3:59:48|
And what about how mek's caravans work? I've seen some pictures where it seems like they've built a miniature fort on the mekillot's back... another pic shows two mekillots pulling a fort-on-wheels
I like both. The one pulled would be capable of being much larger and so the higher profit may be worth the risk, but that's the trade-off.
|#10Shei-NadApr 07, 2004 10:40:09|
Originally posted by xlorepdarkhelm
Yeah, but both still look like big fish.
The earlier mekillot looked like a giant turtle, and even had similar abilities according to the Crimson Legion, while the other looks like a even bigger triceratops which horns and all. The absence of shell on the latter suggests a completly different evolutionary path IMO.
I think I'd make them completly different species.
What would be a good name?
|#11jon_oracle_of_athasApr 07, 2004 10:54:35|
What would be a good name?
Some suggestions: Mullak, Berak, Tokrak, Nel'ugg
|#12OninotakiApr 07, 2004 10:59:14|
Originally posted by Jon, Oracle of Athas
Man I really like Mullak alot!
|#13Shei-NadApr 07, 2004 18:59:33||I was going to say the same thing... |
Others, how does Mullak sound?
It might be interesting to differenciate what city states have more mekillots close-by and which have mullaks...
I'd go with mekillots for south-western cities (Balic, Tyr, Urik), and mullaks for north-eastern (Raam, Draj, Nibenay)
|#14jihun-nishApr 07, 2004 19:12:07|
Originally posted by Shei-Nad
The word Mul can be found in Mullak. Is there a reason for naming the beast Mullak.
|#15Shei-NadApr 07, 2004 20:46:15||nothing in particular... any other non-mul ideas?|
|#16zombiegleemaxApr 10, 2004 11:24:42||Mellak. It includes enough enough of the same sounds as mekillot to be something very similar (different species within the same Group) but rearranged sufficiently to be something distictly seperate.|
|#17jon_oracle_of_athasApr 10, 2004 15:14:27||Agreed with Dragonid. Mellak is good.|