• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Mythology Profile Standards

The_Impress

The_Impress

She/Her
VS Battles
Retired
11,807
7,371
Recently it was brought up that Mythology profiles have little to no standards regarding them, and are pseudo-composites made up of conflicting myths and legends.

A proposal was put forth to counter it:
  • Only profiles which belong to a defined piece of media would be allowed e.g. Sun Wukong from Journey to the West will be valid as a profile, and any other fixed book starring him will get a different profile, with there being no intermingling between these versions. So akin to how we treat other classic literature characters like Dracula and Frankenstein.
This proposal is for the staff to discuss in this thread.
 
This sounds fine to me, since we have gotten rid of composite profiles.
 
Yes, it is fine to me as well, and we also avoid risking to insult the people who still believe in these myths that way.
 
The one Mythology profile I made survives :smug:

vsbattles.fandom.com

Vetala (Baital Pachisi)

The legendary king Vikramāditya promises a tantric sorcerer that he will capture a vetala, a celestial spirit Pishacha, (analogous to a vampire in Western literature) who hangs upside-down from a tree and inhabits and animates dead bodies. Little had he known this vetala was an extremely clever...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com

In all seriousness though I think there are a few profiles which survive this
 
Just a note that there would be a lot of pages to delete, along with removing all of the links to them from other profile pages.
 
I agree on the removal of most of the mythology profiles. Reason being is that some new details claim that it's a double standard that profiles based on modern or mainstream religions are unallowed but ones for obscure or ancient religions are. As there are individual groups dedicated to reviving some of the ancient Greek or Norse religions, and we have made it clear this wiki has no right to tier religion.

However, verse or story specific versions of various mythology figures are fine. And specific fairy tale characters such as the Big Bad Wolf or Gingerbread Man are fine too. But the composite gods such as Zeus, or Odin should be nuked and/or de-composited to just various various fictional versions of said character.
 
Amelia_Lonelyheart said:
I know I'm in the minority that doesn't really agree with this
Click to expand...
No, I’m with you there. This has my disagreement. I was never a fan of nixing composites but this is a whole ‘nother level. These kind of things have to be composited, because the abundance of legends adds to the myth. And just getting rid of the mythological Zeus isn’t smart of the site because it’s a hot debating topic.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I agree on the removal of most of the mythology profiles. Reason being is that some new details claim that it's a double standard that profiles based on modern or mainstream religions are unallowed but ones for obscure or ancient religions are. As there are individual groups dedicated to reviving some of the ancient Greek or Norse religions, and we have made it clear this wiki has no right to tier religion.
Click to expand...
Dude, these are dead religions, end of story. That’s why they’re called myths. Just because a few thousand people at best, who’ll never visit this site mind you, believe that the myths everyone decided were just myths thousands of years ago still believe it it has nothing to do with us. Heck, same amount of people probably believe Lovecraft’s writings are real, and that’s not even a joke.
 
I'm on the same boat as Cal and Amelia here, however, I will still go through and delete them if it is agreed to do so.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I agree on the removal of most of the mythology profiles. Reason being is that some new details claim that it's a double standard that profiles based on modern or mainstream religions are unallowed but ones for obscure or ancient religions are. As there are individual groups dedicated to reviving some of the ancient Greek or Norse religions, and we have made it clear this wiki has no right to tier religion.

However, verse or story specific versions of various mythology figures are fine. And specific fairy tale characters such as the Big Bad Wolf or Gingerbread Man are fine too. But the composite gods such as Zeus, or Odin should be nuked and/or de-composited to just various various fictional versions of said character.
Click to expand...
I also shared Medeus' views.
 
@The_real_cal_howard I was called out for saying the same thing on a previous thread because I didn't know at the time. And I don't need to say his name, but actually, there is at least one person who actually is a Nordic religious person. And those religions aren't dead anymore.
 
Please, do you know how contradictory this shit can get?

I know Hindu Mythology well so I'll say on the basis of it, but original Ramayana's Rama was unbelievably powerful and essentially a God amongst men with no weakness whatsoever, but the most commonly known verse which everyone knows is Ram Charit Manas, a rewrite of the original Ramayana where Rama is far more fallible and human, his great powers having been replaced for human talents like master archery and extremely capable leadership. These both give a contradicting version of the characters different in personality and strength which according to you are the same because you don't want to bother researching. Original Mahabharata has Krishna be little more than an avatar of Vishnu but the Bhakti period rechristened him as being the supreme being. These are all done like, a thousand years into the Common Era at best btw. These are genuine trends noted across ALL theology that are ignored by compositing them.

These mythologies were based on the opinions of the collective at the time and their views which shaped the strength of their Gods. Acting like they were constant is ignorant and disrespectful, and at the end of the day nothing more than battleboard wank, ignoring the history and context, just so you can get a higher number on the profile.

If this level of stuff is getting argued I will straight up vouch for deleting them altogether, because good God
 
Also example of Lovecraft is being thrown around, except we don't composite Lovecraft either, we clearly have a canon defined for them which we follow.

If any mythology verse with enough supporters would propose a solid enough canon outline, and use material from only that outline, I wouldn't mind listing them like that.
 
You realize the Lovecraft comparison has nothing to do with canon, right? If I was going to argue canon, I’d use King Arthur. Only chronicle original legend. No Lancelot, no Holy Grail, no Guinevere, no Excalibur, no Morgan. Just Arthur and Mordred.
 
“Acting like they were constant is ignorant and disrespectful”

Who tf is getting disrespected, the corpse or the skeleton. Again, dead religion. This isn’t Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, or even Scientology. It’s the backbone of western storytelling, because they’re known as myths nowadays.
 
I support these stricter standards.

I don't care about any disrespect or ignorance on the pages. The issue is that there's many different interpretations of basically every moment in any given major religion, and these different interpretations range from pretty minor to big enough to cause major schisms and split off into new branches, and can have a lot of impact on abilities and tiering. This isn't a matter of offending or not offending anyone - our pages are inevitably going to be inaccurate and limited, or often based on very strange standards - some of the folklore pages get REALLY weird.

They also happen to be a hassle so it's rarely worth the effort, in all honesty.
 
Yeah, even ignoring anything religious about them the conflicting myths and radically different world views make them unsuitable for profiles after the composite removals.
 
I personally Disagree. comparing religious institutes and belief systems that have been dead for nearly half a Millenia or have no active followers with some contemporary beliefs is extremely flawed

also just because there are multiple interpretaitions of a specific mythology doesnt mean there are no "mainstream" or Popular Interpratations that cant be used.
 
I don't know much about Eastern mythology, but from what I know, most Hellenistic legends can be split up by cult (Cult of Sol, for example) or religious "faction" (Like Orphism). It's just hard to know which is which. So the profiles don't have to be composites.

Though I can see the problem if we added stuff like the Gnostics, considering its still technically Christianity but abandoned since the Medival era.

@Cal You mean Artorivs?
 
If we keep the profiles we would need to stick with singular myths or specific cults rather than our current shotgun approach. Things like the Egyptian gods for example were worshipped for nearly three thousand years and went through radical and massive changes throughout those years. We shouldn't try and composite it into one profile.
 
There's no consistency here, no measure to accurately judge any of these stats, and when the existence of the general mythology pages gives people ground to argue for much more controversial ones (for which all these problems exist, and more), what's the point when the pages are all kinda shitty and unreliable by definition anyways?
 
I strongly agree with The_Impress, Promestein, Medeus, and YuriAkuto, and think that we should get rid of all mythology pages that are not derived from a specific work due to the above mentioned reasons.
 
The_real_cal_howard said:
Who tf is getting disrespected, the corpse or the skeleton.
Click to expand...
Respecting the dead isn't a thing for you I am assuming.

Even ignoring that, you're disrespecting actual studies of mythologies and theism by saying shit like that. "Backbone of western media" doesn't give you an excuse to rape it to death with garbage statistics and zero care for original intent just so you can wank it to 5-A.

I haven't made a single argument of it hurting people's religious sensibilities, you're straight up degenerating the original intent of these masterworks by muddling it with other ones.

This is genuinely so ignorant of you lol.

"also just because there are multiple interpretaitions of a specific mythology doesnt mean there are no "mainstream" or Popular Interpratations that cant be used."

Also known as the "guys let's cherrypick feats because my sensibilities of canon is inherently superior to yours"
 
It's not really an exaggerated response, he is being genuinely ignorant here of cultural history and pride, with "who are we offending? corpses". If he's the one being needlessly insensitive he can very well take as insensitive a response.

This is genuinely not a topic to just make jabs towards. I alongside a decent amount of people would indeed find this behaviour as disrespectful, and him doubling down on it isn't exactly a good look.
 
I do agree with the deletion, since even putting aside religious matters, these profiles are just a mess. Compositing multiple contradictory stories that have no indication of being connected is itself more than enough to say this verse is on a terrible state, and the only way to make proper profiles for them is multiple investigations about the different interpretations and cults of each mythology, a massive amount of effort in and for itself. So unless the profiles are based on a single specific interpretation/view/cult/source (such as the Colombian mythology profiles, whose creator informed me with advance that he based all of them on a single book), these profiles are simply not suitable under our standards.
 
@The_real_cal_howard some of those people you're asking "Who are we offending" could still be alive as souls according to some beliefs; we'll never know until we die. And people still honor the dead such as historical heroes and known ancestors. And as mentioned above, there's still around a few thousand people who have faith in some myths; I'd still honor them regardless.

But Zark and Prom are right, it's less about the "Religious offence" and more about the controversial statistics ratings. Honestly, even the main stream religions won't be offended per say if angels or devils are tiered, just their God. But the issues still stems from controversial; nearly every theology study on the planet says different things about these figures. Plenty of historians says the Greek Pantheon takes place on a universe sized planet while others said it takes place on a planet sized pocket universe where the sun, moon, and stars are smaller than Earth. Flashback between debates Matt and Kep bickered left and right on the God of War upgrade threads gives details on both those sides. And this would also apply to many other stats such as speed, or range ect. And even mythologies are so full of inconsistencies it's not funny.

So either way, everything is just far too all over the place to be taken seriously. We cannot composite all these mythos and we should stick to published fictional works. And making every key based on every viewpoint of these mythology gods would just be far to cluttered and messy. It's best to just get rid of them.
 
Yeah, there's nothing more to add, even if the pages weren't controversial by the religional nature, they simply aren't indexable for the composite potential they would force just at an attemp for keeping consistency, as they really don't even have that if we go deep, as it has been mentioned, unless we go for each individual point of view on each culture, but that would be like as if we started to tier a character depending on how it's seen in a country from a period (For example, High 3-A Saitama because OP), which is obviously a no.

Overall, is there anything new to mention? The topic is already turning quite controversial and seems to be already heavily going into those just being deleted, so I would recommend just doing it already, especially considering the only things that have been brought up supporting those staying at best don't fill the main issue of those being composites without performing questionable indexing in an effort to "fix" them, and many even appear to already agree with that.
 
Last edited:
It seems like this discussion has been more or less settled, but we still need help from content moderators and administrators with deleting all "composite mythology" pages and removing all links to them from other character profile and verse pages.

If The_Impress is willing to help out, I can also give her temporary content moderator rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DarkGrath
Proposal for Site/Forum Image Standards Revision
3 4 5
Replies
175
Views
9K
CloverDragon03
CloverDragon03
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Lego Monkie Kid Upgrades
Replies
28
Views
2K
Lloydblitzed
Lloydblitzed
Jozaysmith?
  • Locked
Regarding Beyond-Dimensional Existence current standards
Replies
4
Views
2K
Ultima_Reality
Ultima_Reality
Armorchompy
Metroid Prime: Profile Revisions
Replies
22
Views
2K
Armorchompy
Armorchompy
Mariogoods
  • Locked
Allowing "too weak" character profile related to a team added in the wiki
2
Replies
61
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top