TheRPGSite

It's offensive after almost 50 years now. Paizo is trying to curb the wokies at the gate. Lol!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/comicbook.com/gaming/amp/news/pathfinder-paizo-phylactery-lich-soul-cages/

Phylacteries were also magic items, usable only by Clerics, that benefitted the wearer in 1e D&D.
Does Paizo have anything like that, as opposed to the Lich version?

Oh my God who the hell cares, Paizo? Excuse me, Baizuo. :U

I'd had at least been understanding if they changed it to "Soul Gem" or something because "Phylactery" is usually inaccurate as most liches don't use a box filled with papers. I don't think I've actually heard of a lich who used the default phylactery.

What's next? Changing "Demilich" because it's offensive to Demisexuals? Or removing it entirely because it's offensive to physically handicapped people to refer to have less of your bodymass intact as "leaser"?

Calling it now!

Quote from: PsyXypher on October 30, 2021, 12:59:26 PM
Oh my God who the hell cares, Paizo? Excuse me, Baizuo. :U

I'd had at least been understanding if they changed it to "Soul Gem" or something because "Phylactery" is usually inaccurate as most liches don't use a box filled with papers. I don't think I've actually heard of a lich who used the default phylactery.

What's next? Changing "Demilich" because it's offensive to Demisexuals? Or removing it entirely because it's offensive to physically handicapped people to refer to have less of your bodymass intact as "leaser"?

Calling it now!

Heh. Demilich becomes offensive because "Demisexuals"? Possible. And offensive to whatever sexuality Demi Lovato declared to be (as a distraction.) as soon as she got called out for being a shitty person.
Nothing is too stupid to become reality in Clownworld.


BTW:
When's the last time you heard of Elves, Dwarves and Halflings referred to,  collectively, as "Demihumans"?

Lich? Call it 'Evil Undead Sorcerer' wouldn't want it to be a offensive innacurate portrayal of lichyards.

I feel bad for how doomed paizo is. This is very much complaining about the paintjob when the house is on fire.

Quote from: PsyXypher on October 30, 2021, 12:59:26 PM
What's next? Changing "Demilich" because it's offensive to Demisexuals? Or removing it entirely because it's offensive to physically handicapped people to refer to have less of your bodymass intact as "leaser"?

Calling it now!

Easy call. The goal is to make everything offensive and destroy our ability to communicate.

(https://i.imgflip.com/25vq2s.jpg)

Quote from: DM_Curt on October 30, 2021, 01:09:38 PM

BTW:
When's the last time you heard of Elves, Dwarves and Halflings referred to,  collectively, as "Demihumans"?

I haven't heard Elves, Dwarves and the like referred to as "Demihumans" but oddly enough anime usually uses Demihuman to refer to kemonomimi races. So stuff like catgirls, wolf girls, et cetera.

Quote from: sunsteel on October 30, 2021, 12:40:01 PM
It's offensive after almost 50 years now. Paizo is trying to curb the wokies at the gate. Lol!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/comicbook.com/gaming/amp/news/pathfinder-paizo-phylactery-lich-soul-cages/

By itself, this change is a nothingburger.

In context, this is today's" Fuck You If You Aren't Woke, Hate-you-die-already!!!, Baizuo."

I wasn't gonna buy their wokeshit before, not gonna buy it now.

Quote from: DM_Curt on October 30, 2021, 01:09:38 PM
BTW:
When's the last time you heard of Elves, Dwarves and Halflings referred to,  collectively, as "Demihumans"?

   1999. The humans/demihumans/humanoids distinction went away with 3E, lumping everything into 'humanoid.'

  The change in and of itself doesn't bother me--phylactery has always been a misnomer for the main item in question. (The clerical magical items seem closer to the actual meaning.) Call me when they get Limbo right. :)

They didn't call them horcruxes? I'm sad now. Rowling coined a new word without pre-existing baggage and they don't use it?

Anyway, I'm going to write a short story about a voldemort whose horcrux is a tefillin. Because I'm a grammar nazi and damn proud of it.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on October 30, 2021, 03:18:46 PM
They didn't call them horcruxes? I'm sad now. Rowling coined a new word without pre-existing baggage and they don't use it?

Anyway, I'm going to write a short story about a voldemort whose horcrux is a tefillin. Because I'm a grammar nazi and damn proud of it.

I think that'd run afoul of Copyright law. I dunno if Horcrux is copyrighted, but using a term from a (technically) more successful property might raise legal concerns.

Quote from: DM_Curt on October 30, 2021, 12:51:56 PM
Phylacteries were also magic items, usable only by Clerics, that benefitted the wearer in 1e D&D.
Does Paizo have anything like that, as opposed to the Lich version?

Yes.  Those are normally little boxes holding sacred texts you wear to help your relationship with your god, like actual phylacteries.  The lich version is just whatever bit of bling an evil death wizard uses as a save point to shove it's spiritual bits in.

"Soul cage" sounds like a lazy attempt to try too hard to sound villainous, though.  I'd probably just call it a reliquary, as a general term for a place you keep important things from the past.  Nothing in a lich's past is more important than its own mortality, so they need someplace to keep it safe and secure.

If a lich had a phylactery, it would probably be a page with a cypher for where they left their save point in case it was ever needed again and didn't want to have the fantasy immortal version of forgetting their password.

"'What was my scholomanse's mascot?  Fuck, that was 500 years ago, what the hell did I mean by that?"

Quote from: PsyXypher on October 30, 2021, 03:21:29 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on October 30, 2021, 03:18:46 PM
They didn't call them horcruxes? I'm sad now. Rowling coined a new word without pre-existing baggage and they don't use it?

Anyway, I'm going to write a short story about a voldemort whose horcrux is a tefillin. Because I'm a grammar nazi and damn proud of it.

I think that'd run afoul of Copyright law. I dunno if Horcrux is copyrighted, but using a term from a (technically) more successful property might raise legal concerns.

you can't copyright a word
https://www.marksgray.com/i-invented-a-word-how-do-i-trademark-or-copyright-it/

I've seen it used in shows and books since

Greetings!

"Baizuo has noted that there are some that have considered the use of the term "Phylactery" in the game as being "problematic"."

It would be nice if some of these owners, developers, writers, management, etc, would just tell people that believe something is "problematic" to fuck it in their ass and shut the fuck up.

How about no one fucking cares if you feel something is "problematic". Cry, sobbing bitch. Welcome to the real world. The real world doesn't care what hurts your feelings, or whatever you feel is "problematic". And you know what else? There's lots of places where anyone crying about things like this would just get curb-stomped to death, right there on the spot. How's that sound for being "problematic"?

Fucking snot-nosed, crybaby bitches. The world is full of offensive, insulting things. I get insulted and offended and believe lots of things are "problematic"--but that doesn't mean the world gives a fuck about what I feel though, isn't that right? Well, why doesn't the world run and gibber and bow the fuck down to whatever *I* think is "problematic"? That's right. Only special individuals have that power and status, evidently.

Our whole society is being run through with a mental an ideological Marxist virus. It's no wonder people are just going off and start fucking killing people randomly, enraged.

Baizuo is a fucking cucked company, and their days are fucking numbered now that they have kneeled down to the fucking troglodyte employees demaning a union.

Who gives a fuck about Baizuo, or what they do with Pathfinder? Baizuo is becoming more an more irrelevant with each passing day.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

What Paizo said to me when I read that statement:

https://imgur.com/a/L4xnFSk

I am still getting used to the Paizo method of R B C character creation.

But I could have some pedantic fun* when the PCs destroy the wrong item because they have not been keeping up with language changes






*fun for me Gygax style

Quote from: Shasarak on October 30, 2021, 06:01:52 PM
I am still getting used to the Paizo method of R B C character creation.

But I could have some pedantic fun* when the PCs destroy the wrong item because they have not been keeping up with language changes






*fun for me Gygax style

Honestly you could have probably fooled PCs by using an accurate phylactery (a box with papers in it) with a spooky looking emerald next to it. People are trained to see gems and think "SOULS!"

Quote from: PsyXypher on October 30, 2021, 06:03:48 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on October 30, 2021, 06:01:52 PM
I am still getting used to the Paizo method of R B C character creation.

But I could have some pedantic fun* when the PCs destroy the wrong item because they have not been keeping up with language changes






*fun for me Gygax style

Honestly you could have probably fooled PCs by using an accurate phylactery (a box with papers in it) with a spooky looking emerald next to it. People are trained to see gems and think "SOULS!"

There is always the chance they would destroy the papers incase they stole the words from their heads

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on October 30, 2021, 03:14:23 PM

Quote from: DM_Curt on October 30, 2021, 01:09:38 PM
BTW:
When's the last time you heard of Elves, Dwarves and Halflings referred to,  collectively, as "Demihumans"?

   1999. The humans/demihumans/humanoids distinction went away with 3E, lumping everything into 'humanoid.'

  The change in and of itself doesn't bother me--phylactery has always been a misnomer for the main item in question. (The clerical magical items seem closer to the actual meaning.) Call me when they get Limbo right. :)

I only play old school games so I had no idea demi-humans had been replaced by a term that equates them with orcs, gnolls, and goblins.  But I am "edgy" enough to allow for half-orcs that are other than half-human, so they can be half-dwarf or whatever.  But what's a half-elf/half-orc offspring called?  Do you still get to claim your orc heritage for diversity benefits like priority magic college enrollment?

When we first started playing, we used to call the Demi humans as Dummy humans (I was 13 at the time) and let them find all the traps!  :p

Paizo bans phylacteries, citing "the word's connotation with real‑world religious practices."

Yeah, um, because it's, you know, a real word. Yes Paizo, some nouns actually exist.

Oy vey iz mir.

If that's the case, the Witch class will need a name change due to real-world religious practices as well no?

Honest question, does anybody know of a lich who actually kept their soul in a phylactery?  Not just as a bit of gaming jargon, but an actual little wearable box to keep sacred text in?  Aside from an egg in a duck in a well on a hill on an island in a lake an improbable distance away, I can't think of something other than gems and jewelry kept in their version of a safety deposit box.

I don't give a shit about Paizo or Pathfinder in general, I'm just curious about this one thing.

Quote from: Krugus on October 30, 2021, 07:57:21 PM
If that's the case, the Witch class will need a name change due to real-world religious practices as well no?

No. That religion is protected in the RPG industry.

Will this set a trend? Will other companies try to outwoke Paizo? Paradox maybe? I wonder what Paradox will do about their fictional cliques named after such things as Irish terrorists, Spanish bullfighters, random herbs, and other non-English words used in nonsensical contexts by Rein•Hagen that later writers tried to justify with questionable success. Their jargon is mostly just cringy, but some it could be argued as cultural appropriation.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on October 30, 2021, 08:37:17 PM
Will this set a trend? Will other companies try to outwoke Paizo? Paradox maybe? I wonder what Paradox will do about their fictional cliques named after such things as Irish terrorists, Spanish bullfighters, random herbs, and other non-English words used in nonsensical contexts by Rein•Hagen that later writers tried to justify with questionable success. Their jargon is mostly just cringy, but some it could be argued as cultural appropriation.

It is part of a white persons culture to appropriate therefore only non-white people can be accused of cultural appropriation.

I mean there is no such thing as a non-English word, only words that have not yet entered the English lexicon.

Quote from: Manic Modron on October 30, 2021, 08:05:08 PM
Honest question, does anybody know of a lich who actually kept their soul in a phylactery?  Not just as a bit of gaming jargon, but an actual little wearable box to keep sacred text in?  Aside from an egg in a duck in a well on a hill on an island in a lake an improbable distance away, I can't think of something other than gems and jewelry kept in their version of a safety deposit box.

I don't give a shit about Paizo or Pathfinder in general, I'm just curious about this one thing.

I guess Vecna, Acererak and Larloch would be the most famous Lichs but I dont think there has been a story around their phylacteries though.

Greetings!

I think I recall something about Kostchie the Deathless, from Russian mythology, keeping his soul inside an egg, that was placed inside of a special box, which was then hidden and secured. The villain would live eternally, and always return from "death" unless the magic egg was found and destroyed. That was the only way of permanently defeating the mythical villain.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

So .... is Paizo also going to drop the term "Cleric" as it belongs to the Catholic Church proper? With that the spell "thaumaturgy" as that ALSO belongs to the Catholics/Christians and relates to what a "Miracle" is? Will Paizo eliminate Dwarves because Tolkien based his on the Jewsih people - " 'The Dwarves of course are quite obviously – wouldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews?"

Tolkien.

Will Paizo eliminate the "Protection from Evil" spell as we all known evil is subjective. What one person calls evil might actually be righteous. What culture does "Protection from Evil" operate from? What really is "evil"?

If Orcs are D&D's culturally-failed misrepresentation of Black people why aren't there any Orc Kings over multi-racial populations? Why do most settings lack Orc revolutionaries pushing for social change among Human communities? Are there settings with Orc-only military units fighting for the rights of human civilizations that oppress the Orcs? Are there notable Orc activists who deliver an argument that destroys the establishment line?

"Woke" is some BS. It's just SJW hippies flexing their white-privilege in ways that does nothing for non-whites. It's bragging that you can paint bigger pictures than someone who hasn't eaten in days.

Quote from: Theory of Games on October 30, 2021, 10:24:30 PM
Will Paizo eliminate Dwarves because Tolkien based his on the Jewsih people - " 'The Dwarves of course are quite obviously – wouldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews?"

Maybe (although I don't see it myself), but we are all missing the real injustice here, which is that Hollywood Dwarves are totally Scottish. And THAT is racialistical.

Quote from: SHARK on October 30, 2021, 09:48:54 PMI think I recall something about Kostchie the Deathless, from Russian mythology, keeping his soul inside an egg, that was placed inside of a special box, which was then hidden and secured. The villain would live eternally, and always return from "death" unless the magic egg was found and destroyed. That was the only way of permanently defeating the mythical villain.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

It was more like he was indestructible unless the egg (or needle in the egg) was destroyed but that was it effectively. He was more like a Lich+Deathnight and he kidnapped maidens and by all accounts was a total chad.

Drat, I liked being a lich.

Quote from: Shasarak on October 30, 2021, 08:47:23 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on October 30, 2021, 08:37:17 PM
Will this set a trend? Will other companies try to outwoke Paizo? Paradox maybe? I wonder what Paradox will do about their fictional cliques named after such things as Irish terrorists, Spanish bullfighters, random herbs, and other non-English words used in nonsensical contexts by Rein•Hagen that later writers tried to justify with questionable success. Their jargon is mostly just cringy, but some it could be argued as cultural appropriation.

It is part of a white persons culture to appropriate therefore only non-white people can be accused of cultural appropriation.

I mean there is no such thing as a non-English word, only words that have not yet entered the English lexicon.

No, I mean Rein•Hagen's choice of jargon was cringy. Taking words from various other languages and then putting them in new contexts using moon logic. Like, why are the Lestat clones called "bullfighter" in Spanish and why are the Lost Boys clones called "witch" in Spanish? The phylactery's nonsensical name is a holdover from early editions when it was an actual tefillin. Rein•Hagen picked out cringy names first and then later writers tried to justify with ridiculous fictional backstories that still didn't actually explain anything. Some of these get outright political: e.g. the token Irish werewolf clan named after the fenians, pro-independence Irish terrorists (probably unintentionally, but you never know). (For reference, the Irish name for its actual folkloric werewolf clan is "the descendants of Laignech Faelad." Or "Faoladh" in modern fantasy fiction, meaning something like "wolfish" according to internet commenters. No, I have no idea how to pronounce that. If anybody who actually speaks Irish or Scottish Gaelic is here, feel free to correct.)

Quote from: Heavy Josh on October 31, 2021, 09:25:38 AM
Drat, I liked being a lich.

Originally lich just referred to death and corpses. It was D&D that decided to arbitrarily change the meaning to "undead wizard with a horcrux." Clark Ashton Smith uses the original meaning all the time in his necromancer stories, giving them a fascinating archaic Anglo-Saxon feeling I never found elsewhere.

I'm partial to renaming the D&D monster to voldemorts. It's an actual dictionary word now. It was coined specifically to mean "an evil wizard who cheats death" and doesn't have any pre-existing linguistic baggage. Or call them koschies like in Grimm tv show. Or both

Wait, do they think the use of the term Phylactery offends Jewish people? Is that their "problematic" because if so that is misguided. Jews don't call it a Phylactery (which is a Greek word, not a Hebrew word), they call it a Tefillin. Who exactly is it they think this word offends and who told them it was offensive?

I mean, Amulets and Charms are and were used by real world religions too. Will they ban those terms now too?

Quote from: Mistwell on October 31, 2021, 10:22:07 AM
Wait, do they think the use of the term Phylactery offends Jewish people? Is that their "problematic" because if so that is misguided. Jews don't call it a Phylactery (which is a Greek word, not a Hebrew word), they call it a Tefillin. Who exactly is it they think this word offends and who told them it was offensive?

I mean, Amulets and Charms are and were used by real world religions too. Will they ban those terms now too?

The outrage by proxy mob doesn't actually care if something is truly offensive. Only if they think it is, so they can feel good.

Quote from: PsyXypher on October 31, 2021, 10:34:32 AM

Quote from: Mistwell on October 31, 2021, 10:22:07 AM
Wait, do they think the use of the term Phylactery offends Jewish people? Is that their "problematic" because if so that is misguided. Jews don't call it a Phylactery (which is a Greek word, not a Hebrew word), they call it a Tefillin. Who exactly is it they think this word offends and who told them it was offensive?

I mean, Amulets and Charms are and were used by real world religions too. Will they ban those terms now too?

The outrage by proxy mob doesn't actually care if something is truly offensive. Only if they think it is, so they can feel good.

I'm offended because I'm a grammar nazi. These should be called horcruxes because it sounds cooler than "soul cage" (even tho the meaning is identical) and actually makes sense whereas "phylactery" was a nonsensical holdover.

Quote from: Manic Modron on October 30, 2021, 08:05:08 PM
Honest question, does anybody know of a lich who actually kept their soul in a phylactery?  Not just as a bit of gaming jargon, but an actual little wearable box to keep sacred text in?

Good point: A "phylactery" in D&D pretty obviously refers to any magical container. Some are boxes containing scripts, others are gemstones.

Just like lots of words in D&D mean something slightly (or drastically) other than their real-world counterparts. Like "Dwarf" for example.

Phylactery: from Greek phylacterion , which refers more generally to any protective amulet.

Quote from: Zalman on October 31, 2021, 11:19:16 AM

Just like lots of words in D&D mean something slightly (or drastically) other than their real-world counterparts. Like "Dwarf" for example.

or Gorgon.

QuotePaizo bans phylacteries, citing "the word's connotation with real‑world religious practices."

Yeah, um, because it's, you know, a real word. Yes Paizo, some nouns actually exist.

Oy vey iz mir.

Funny is they're going to re-vamp their Occultist class, changing it from limited spellcaster into something a'la Abraham van Helsing, who is not magical, but can exploit weaknesses of magical beings and so on. This is not really Occultist, but let's say it's acceptable abbreviation of Occult Detective.

But they decided to rename Occultist - THAUMATURGE - which is Greek word used in Orthodox Christianity for wondermakers. Saint being able to do real miracles. And it's like... have really nothing to do with whole concept of new class, or D&D history where thaumaturge was DEMON WORSHIPPING SPELLCASTER.

Quote from: Wrath of God on October 31, 2021, 12:04:50 PM

QuotePaizo bans phylacteries, citing "the word's connotation with real‑world religious practices."

Yeah, um, because it's, you know, a real word. Yes Paizo, some nouns actually exist.

Oy vey iz mir.

Funny is they're going to re-vamp their Occultist class, changing it from limited spellcaster into something a'la Abraham van Helsing, who is not magical, but can exploit weaknesses of magical beings and so on. This is not really Occultist, but let's say it's acceptable abbreviation of Occult Detective.

But they decided to rename Occultist - THAUMATURGE - which is Greek word used in Orthodox Christianity for wondermakers. Saint being able to do real miracles. And it's like... have really nothing to do with whole concept of new class, or D&D history where thaumaturge was DEMON WORSHIPPING SPELLCASTER.

Source on this? Occultism is one of the 4 schools of magic in Pathfinder 2nd edition. Which I always thought was a terrible and nonsense name, particularly given that "Occult" school of magic is used by Bards, Investigators, and other such classes.

Thaumaturge wouldn't be an improvement, but it's probably no worse except in the practical sense of being a more obscure word & harder to say.

QuoteSource on this?

Thaumaturge playtest for upcoming books on their forums.

QuoteOccultism is one of the 4 schools of magic in Pathfinder 2nd edition. Which I always thought was a terrible and nonsense name, particularly given that "Occult" school of magic is used by Bards, Investigators, and other such classes.

Revamping bard as occult class is MEH. He should be jack of all trades TBH with limited access to all school traditions if anything.
Occult is renamed term for PF1 psychic magic, and I honestly cannot say which one I prefer. In PF1 psychic magic was used by psychics, mesmerists, occultists, mediums and spiritualists.

Quote from: Mistwell on October 31, 2021, 10:22:07 AM
Wait, do they think the use of the term Phylactery offends Jewish people? Is that their "problematic" because if so that is misguided. Jews don't call it a Phylactery (which is a Greek word, not a Hebrew word), they call it a Tefillin. Who exactly is it they think this word offends and who told them it was offensive?

I mean, Amulets and Charms are and were used by real world religions too. Will they ban those terms now too?

If the argument is that it's a real world word, then every word in D&D is offensive and should be taken out.

If the argument is that certain words are offensive, then the offended get to dictate terms to everybody else.
Any group that wants to play by those rules can kiss my ass.

Someone please tell Paizo that the English language word "sword" is sometimes used colloquially to mean male genitalia. Please ban "swords" and other offensive and culturally Patriarchal innuendo from what is supposed to be an inclusive & safe hobby!

Soul Cage offends me because it is associated with incarceration.  ;D Let the self-flagellation spiral commence!  8)

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 31, 2021, 09:00:29 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on October 31, 2021, 10:22:07 AM
Wait, do they think the use of the term Phylactery offends Jewish people? Is that their "problematic" because if so that is misguided. Jews don't call it a Phylactery (which is a Greek word, not a Hebrew word), they call it a Tefillin. Who exactly is it they think this word offends and who told them it was offensive?

I mean, Amulets and Charms are and were used by real world religions too. Will they ban those terms now too?

If the argument is that it's a real world word, then every word in D&D is offensive and should be taken out.

If the argument is that certain words are offensive, then the offended get to dictate terms to everybody else.
Any group that wants to play by those rules can kiss my ass.

I am really curious who they thought was offended by this word?

Quote from: Mistwell on November 01, 2021, 01:15:47 AM

I am really curious who they thought was offended by this word?

Jews, naturally.

Keep in mind these people tend to be /very/ divorced from reality, let alone their consumer base. They do not have their business priorities in order, because to them capitalism is evil and Pathfinder is just a tool to spread propaganda.

Quote from: Wrath of God on October 31, 2021, 07:27:37 PM

QuoteSource on this?

Thaumaturge playtest for upcoming books on their forums.

QuoteOccultism is one of the 4 schools of magic in Pathfinder 2nd edition. Which I always thought was a terrible and nonsense name, particularly given that "Occult" school of magic is used by Bards, Investigators, and other such classes.

Revamping bard as occult class is MEH. He should be jack of all trades TBH with limited access to all school traditions if anything.
Occult is renamed term for PF1 psychic magic, and I honestly cannot say which one I prefer. In PF1 psychic magic was used by psychics, mesmerists, occultists, mediums and spiritualists.

At least psychic magic had some interesting variances (it didn't use standard verbal/somatic components, for starters).

QuoteAt least psychic magic had some interesting variances (it didn't use standard verbal/somatic components, for starters).

Indeed.
Nevertheless TBH all those additional magic system in D&D variants usually suffers because they are still build on top of classic D&D classes, rather than having whole proper metaphysics build from up to down.

Quote from: PsyXypher on November 01, 2021, 01:58:07 AM

Quote from: Mistwell on November 01, 2021, 01:15:47 AM

I am really curious who they thought was offended by this word?

Jews, naturally.

Keep in mind these people tend to be /very/ divorced from reality, let alone their consumer base. They do not have their business priorities in order, because to them capitalism is evil and Pathfinder is just a tool to spread propaganda.

Eventually they will ban Jews from playing because they make jewish jokes and thats offensive to jews so jews cant play anymore. Because you have to protect those poor minorities. From themselves. Its already started.

Quote from: SHARK on October 30, 2021, 04:09:31 PM
Greetings!

"Baizuo has noted that there are some that have considered the use of the term "Phylactery" in the game as being "problematic"."

It would be nice if some of these owners, developers, writers, management, etc, would just tell people that believe something is "problematic" to fuck it in their ass and shut the fuck up.

How about no one fucking cares if you feel something is "problematic". Cry, sobbing bitch. Welcome to the real world. The real world doesn't care what hurts your feelings, or whatever you feel is "problematic". And you know what else? There's lots of places where anyone crying about things like this would just get curb-stomped to death, right there on the spot. How's that sound for being "problematic"?

Fucking snot-nosed, crybaby bitches. The world is full of offensive, insulting things. I get insulted and offended and believe lots of things are "problematic"--but that doesn't mean the world gives a fuck about what I feel though, isn't that right? Well, why doesn't the world run and gibber and bow the fuck down to whatever *I* think is "problematic"? That's right. Only special individuals have that power and status, evidently.

Our whole society is being run through with a mental an ideological Marxist virus. It's no wonder people are just going off and start fucking killing people randomly, enraged.

Baizuo is a fucking cucked company, and their days are fucking numbered now that they have kneeled down to the fucking troglodyte employees demaning a union.

Who gives a fuck about Baizuo, or what they do with Pathfinder? Baizuo is becoming more an more irrelevant with each passing day.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds the word "problematic" ridiculous. It's just a multi-syllabic way of saying "bad." That's how I mentally translate it when I read crap written by SJWs or those bowing before them. It puts their toddler-like thought processes into stark relief (apologies to toddlers everywhere).

Quote from: PsyXypher on November 01, 2021, 01:58:07 AM

Quote from: Mistwell on November 01, 2021, 01:15:47 AM

I am really curious who they thought was offended by this word?

Jews, naturally.

Keep in mind these people tend to be /very/ divorced from reality, let alone their consumer base. They do not have their business priorities in order, because to them capitalism is evil and Pathfinder is just a tool to spread propaganda.

But, we don't call it a Phalactery! That's a Greek word. What did they do, read a Wikipedia entry or something and never ask someone who is Jewish? I've been around reformed, conservative, orthodox, and even reconstructionist Jews and not a single one has ever used the word Phalactery...unless they were playing D&D and we were fighting a lich.

Quote from: Mistwell on November 01, 2021, 11:21:03 AM

Quote from: PsyXypher on November 01, 2021, 01:58:07 AM

Quote from: Mistwell on November 01, 2021, 01:15:47 AM

I am really curious who they thought was offended by this word?

Jews, naturally.

Keep in mind these people tend to be /very/ divorced from reality, let alone their consumer base. They do not have their business priorities in order, because to them capitalism is evil and Pathfinder is just a tool to spread propaganda.

But, we don't call it a Phalactery! That's a Greek word. What did they do, read a Wikipedia entry or something and never ask someone who is Jewish? I've been around reformed, conservative, orthodox, and even reconstructionist Jews and not a single one has ever used the word Phalactery...unless they were playing D&D and we were fighting a lich.

Indeed. Who even uses the word "phylactery" outside of a D&D context?

Mistwell it's Paizo just plain virtue signalling and hoping to get brownie points from the more Woke elements of the fan base. It's irrelevant if most Jews are not offended by the word, simply that Paizo is going to protect them from being offended. Whether Jews want it or not.

They have Witch as a class are they going to do another attempt at virtue signalling and change the name to Wiccan. Or might as well go back to the 2E name for Demons and Devils while we are at it.

Quote from: rytrasmi on November 01, 2021, 11:01:46 AM

Quote from: SHARK on October 30, 2021, 04:09:31 PM
Greetings!

"Baizuo has noted that there are some that have considered the use of the term "Phylactery" in the game as being "problematic"."

It would be nice if some of these owners, developers, writers, management, etc, would just tell people that believe something is "problematic" to fuck it in their ass and shut the fuck up.

How about no one fucking cares if you feel something is "problematic". Cry, sobbing bitch. Welcome to the real world. The real world doesn't care what hurts your feelings, or whatever you feel is "problematic". And you know what else? There's lots of places where anyone crying about things like this would just get curb-stomped to death, right there on the spot. How's that sound for being "problematic"?

Fucking snot-nosed, crybaby bitches. The world is full of offensive, insulting things. I get insulted and offended and believe lots of things are "problematic"--but that doesn't mean the world gives a fuck about what I feel though, isn't that right? Well, why doesn't the world run and gibber and bow the fuck down to whatever *I* think is "problematic"? That's right. Only special individuals have that power and status, evidently.

Our whole society is being run through with a mental an ideological Marxist virus. It's no wonder people are just going off and start fucking killing people randomly, enraged.

Baizuo is a fucking cucked company, and their days are fucking numbered now that they have kneeled down to the fucking troglodyte employees demaning a union.

Who gives a fuck about Baizuo, or what they do with Pathfinder? Baizuo is becoming more an more irrelevant with each passing day.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds the word "problematic" ridiculous. It's just a multi-syllabic way of saying "bad." That's how I mentally translate it when I read crap written by SJWs or those bowing before them. It puts their toddler-like thought processes into stark relief (apologies to toddlers everywhere).

Greetings!

That's right, my friend! I know, it totally drives me nuts! When did these weak, pathetic, whining people believe that *Them being offended or having their feelings hurt* became so fucking important, or meaningful in any way at all? I also get that, obviously, various elements in our society are catering to and coddling these sick, weak, delusional people--and our whole society is suffering enormously for it, in the process, too. I think it still remains true though, that much of the larger, real world, doesn't tolerate this bullshit, or give a fuck at all, and in fact, is distinctly hostile and violent towards the vast majority of people that believe this nonsense.

What happened to the ideas--the deep truths--that for you to ever succeed in reality as an adult, you simply must grow a thick skin? You have to accept that different people have different values, different expectations, different approaches to doing whatever, than you?

While some have obviously rebelled against the standard expectations, there used to also be a universal standard throughout society that dictated a variety of social norms, and enforced them, regardless of personal, individual opinions or feelings. There has always been a certain degree of tension--and flexibility--between the "Group Standards" and individual preferences or choices, but the essential foundations of behavior, of language, of conduct, of expectations, are there for a reason--so guarantee and enforce a social environment that is generally pleasant, law-abiding, and cooperative.

Fuck with that too much, insist on your fucking "Individualism" too much--and you are just going to get fucking curb-stomped and killed. *BLINK* Just like that. People being "offended" goes both ways--which can be an utter trainwreck and shitshow socially, if these peoplekeep pushing this bullshit.

Yeah, you are a boss at work. You tell an employee to do some task, or change the way they do things, because your the boss and you said so, that's why. Guess what? After lunch, or the next morning, the "offended" employee returns and just unloads on you and blows your fucking head off. Nice, huh?

Or how about you cutting someone off on the freeway, or otherwise "offending" them? Yeah, they pull up next to you, and blaze on you, motherfucker. How's that, bitch?

It's insane, my friend. And yet, we are seeing more and more of precisely these kinds of responses and actions, every day, every week. There simply must be a standard code, and everyone must abide and submit to it, or everyone goes fucking crazy and you can be fucking killed at a moment's notice, for "offending" someone. It's all well and good for all of these crying bitches that dramatically insist they have been "Offended!" Well, what happens when YOU or I, or one of these crying bitches OFFENDS someone else? Yeah, you see how all of this shit rapidly eats away and unravels our entire society?

People are fairly regularly getting shot and killed over arguing over a fucking Walmart parking space now. Or at Cost Co. This has happened again and again, recently. People killing you because you gave them luke-warm French Fries at the McDonalds drive thru. People being killed for offending someone while pumping gas at a gas station. This whole entitlement insanity is just going off the charts.

In gaming, we see this huge sense of entitlement insanity effecting everything too. It's absolutely ridiculous, and yet, the brain-fucked SJW's don't understand why the hobby is feeling more and more "divisive"? Well, I wonder why, jackass? When these SJW morons are offended by anything and everything, it gets to the point of where you have to ask yourself, "Do I need to include these kinds of people at my game table?" More questions arise, too. Why? Why do SJW's need to be tolerated or accepted in any way? They don't. Their arguments, their feelings, their screeching and shrieking like bitches can be simply ignored, but not just ignored--forcibly and passionately rejected. Their kind of emotional entitlement is--as part of the Marxist bullshit--corroding and poisoning our hobby at every level.

Pour some coffee, and light up a good pipe, friend. Or a cigar. I tend to enjoy both. Geesus, our society is going fucking nuts, right before our eyes.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Greetings!

All of these SJW's are cunts. Fuck them. They are humorless, ideological tyrants. Words get used by everyone, around the world. You don't like it? Too fucking bad.

As for Jews, when did phylactery somehow become whatever? It's a Greek word, describing an object. What is there to somehow be offended by? Everyone uses all kinds of words to describe items and objects all the time, using words from different cultures and religions, again, all the damned time. Why is that offensive? Bells, crosses, crucifixes, robes, fez's, turbans, veils, staffs, braziers, whatever. The lists are endless. Someone, somewhere, came up with them, and used them initially to describe some kind of object or item. Fantastic. What does that have anything to do with someone, somewhere, getting offended because that object or name of something is used for the same item or something similar in a fucking game?

Most real Jews I have known tend to have pretty good senses of humour, and seldom have any senses of ridiculous emotional entitlement. Many of the jokes, and humorous asides--and even criticisms!--of Jewish culture comes from JEWS! Jewish money, Jewish mothers, Jewish princesses, the list goes on and on. Jews tell you most of this stuff. Many of them laugh at their own culture and such, and aren't offended by other people referencing them in any way. Likewise, Baptists and Catholics and Evangelicals make fun of themselves and critique things all the time. Geesus, I'm so sick of these emotionally weak and fragile fucking people.

I hope Baizuo goes bankrupt. The sooner the better. ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on November 01, 2021, 12:25:54 PM
Greetings!

All of these SJW's are cunts. Fuck them. They are humorless, ideological tyrants. Words get used by everyone, around the world. You don't like it? Too fucking bad.

As for Jews, when did phylactery somehow become whatever? It's a Greek word, describing an object. What is there to somehow be offended by? Everyone uses all kinds of words to describe items and objects all the time, using words from different cultures and religions, again, all the damned time. Why is that offensive? Bells, crosses, crucifixes, robes, fez's, turbans, veils, staffs, braziers, whatever. The lists are endless. Someone, somewhere, came up with them, and used them initially to describe some kind of object or item. Fantastic. What does that have anything to do with someone, somewhere, getting offended because that object or name of something is used for the same item or something similar in a fucking game?

Most real Jews I have known tend to have pretty good senses of humour, and seldom have any senses of ridiculous emotional entitlement. Many of the jokes, and humorous asides--and even criticisms!--of Jewish culture comes from JEWS! Jewish money, Jewish mothers, Jewish princesses, the list goes on and on. Jews tell you most of this stuff. Many of them laugh at their own culture and such, and aren't offended by other people referencing them in any way. Likewise, Baptists and Catholics and Evangelicals make fun of themselves and critique things all the time. Geesus, I'm so sick of these emotionally weak and fragile fucking people.

I hope Baizuo goes bankrupt. The sooner the better. ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Mel Brooks tells some of the best Jewish jokes.

Nuff said.

Quote from: SHARK on November 01, 2021, 12:25:54 PMAs for Jews, when did phylactery somehow become whatever?

Sorry but I gotta admit: As a Jew, there are some shitty Jews that just wanna complain and get victim points as much as other demographics.

Quote from: sunsteel on October 30, 2021, 12:40:01 PM
It's offensive after almost 50 years now. Paizo is trying to curb the wokies at the gate. Lol!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/comicbook.com/gaming/amp/news/pathfinder-paizo-phylactery-lich-soul-cages/

Oy vey!

Quote from: SHARK on November 01, 2021, 12:25:54 PM

I hope Baizuo goes bankrupt. The sooner the better. ;D

SHARK

Amen to that!

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 01, 2021, 11:32:28 AM
Indeed. Who even uses the word "phylactery" outside of a D&D context?

Comes up stories about the golem of Prague.

Quote from: Abraxus on November 01, 2021, 12:04:55 PM
They have Witch as a class are they going to do another attempt at virtue signalling and change the name to Wiccan. Or might as well go back to the 2E name for Demons and Devils while we are at it.

  "Wicca" was the original name for humanoid shamans with access to magic-user spells in BECMI. TSR later changed it to "Wokani." I'm not sure if it was to avoid offending Gardnerians or to avoid connection to them. :)

Only time will tell before the word Golem is going to be considered " problematic  and offensive "

In their quest to be extreme virtue signallers as possible they come off looking like not just Woke also as amateurish when doing so.

QuotePeople killing you because you gave them luke-warm French Fries at the McDonalds drive thru.

(https://64.media.tumblr.com/bbbc4c4692ab093d257a45d17bb79083/tumblr_pyrgs8USNG1w55jq6o10_540.gifv)

At this point Pope should just publicly anathemised use of "cleric" and "monk" by D&D and forbid Catholic playing until they change nomenclature.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 01, 2021, 05:07:29 PM

At this point Pope should just publicly anathemised use of "cleric" and "monk" by D&D and forbid Catholic playing until they change nomenclature.

I mean, he'd probably get a bunch of Catholics to start playing D&D. The current pope is highly disliked.

Exactly Trad-Catholics while driving out, all this quasi-pentacostals. Just as planned.

Quote from: SHARK on November 01, 2021, 12:13:48 PM
Greetings!

That's right, my friend! I know, it totally drives me nuts! When did these weak, pathetic, whining people believe that *Them being offended or having their feelings hurt* became so fucking important, or meaningful in any way at all? I also get that, obviously, various elements in our society are catering to and coddling these sick, weak, delusional people--and our whole society is suffering enormously for it, in the process, too. I think it still remains true though, that much of the larger, real world, doesn't tolerate this bullshit, or give a fuck at all, and in fact, is distinctly hostile and violent towards the vast majority of people that believe this nonsense.

What happened to the ideas--the deep truths--that for you to ever succeed in reality as an adult, you simply must grow a thick skin? You have to accept that different people have different values, different expectations, different approaches to doing whatever, than you?

While some have obviously rebelled against the standard expectations, there used to also be a universal standard throughout society that dictated a variety of social norms, and enforced them, regardless of personal, individual opinions or feelings. There has always been a certain degree of tension--and flexibility--between the "Group Standards" and individual preferences or choices, but the essential foundations of behavior, of language, of conduct, of expectations, are there for a reason--so guarantee and enforce a social environment that is generally pleasant, law-abiding, and cooperative.

Fuck with that too much, insist on your fucking "Individualism" too much--and you are just going to get fucking curb-stomped and killed. *BLINK* Just like that. People being "offended" goes both ways--which can be an utter trainwreck and shitshow socially, if these peoplekeep pushing this bullshit.

Yeah, you are a boss at work. You tell an employee to do some task, or change the way they do things, because your the boss and you said so, that's why. Guess what? After lunch, or the next morning, the "offended" employee returns and just unloads on you and blows your fucking head off. Nice, huh?

Or how about you cutting someone off on the freeway, or otherwise "offending" them? Yeah, they pull up next to you, and blaze on you, motherfucker. How's that, bitch?

It's insane, my friend. And yet, we are seeing more and more of precisely these kinds of responses and actions, every day, every week. There simply must be a standard code, and everyone must abide and submit to it, or everyone goes fucking crazy and you can be fucking killed at a moment's notice, for "offending" someone. It's all well and good for all of these crying bitches that dramatically insist they have been "Offended!" Well, what happens when YOU or I, or one of these crying bitches OFFENDS someone else? Yeah, you see how all of this shit rapidly eats away and unravels our entire society?

People are fairly regularly getting shot and killed over arguing over a fucking Walmart parking space now. Or at Cost Co. This has happened again and again, recently. People killing you because you gave them luke-warm French Fries at the McDonalds drive thru. People being killed for offending someone while pumping gas at a gas station. This whole entitlement insanity is just going off the charts.

In gaming, we see this huge sense of entitlement insanity effecting everything too. It's absolutely ridiculous, and yet, the brain-fucked SJW's don't understand why the hobby is feeling more and more "divisive"? Well, I wonder why, jackass? When these SJW morons are offended by anything and everything, it gets to the point of where you have to ask yourself, "Do I need to include these kinds of people at my game table?" More questions arise, too. Why? Why do SJW's need to be tolerated or accepted in any way? They don't. Their arguments, their feelings, their screeching and shrieking like bitches can be simply ignored, but not just ignored--forcibly and passionately rejected. Their kind of emotional entitlement is--as part of the Marxist bullshit--corroding and poisoning our hobby at every level.

Pour some coffee, and light up a good pipe, friend. Or a cigar. I tend to enjoy both. Geesus, our society is going fucking nuts, right before our eyes.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

You are absolutely right. We are seeing a decline and a lot of it can be attributed to worship at the altar of individuality and the total intolerance to any "harm" whatsoever. Both of these stem from a rotten core of weakness. I'm not for total conformity, but a little conformity goes a long way to building character and maintaining a cohesive culture and nation. As for harm, these days people are harmed by mere words, often spoken with no ill intent. It is really insane. Light it up, my friend.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 01, 2021, 05:07:29 PM

QuotePeople killing you because you gave them luke-warm French Fries at the McDonalds drive thru.

(https://64.media.tumblr.com/bbbc4c4692ab093d257a45d17bb79083/tumblr_pyrgs8USNG1w55jq6o10_540.gifv)

At this point Pope should just publicly anathemised use of "cleric" and "monk" by D&D and forbid Catholic playing until they change nomenclature.

But Abbot, Vicar and Prelate are ok (for now)...

,

Wait, phylactery is problematic, but "Inquisitor" is not?

Or "Barbarian", for that matter? Or edgelord "Drow"?

Quote from: Abraxus on November 01, 2021, 12:04:55 PM
Mistwell it's Paizo just plain virtue signalling and hoping to get brownie points from the more Woke elements of the fan base. It's irrelevant if most Jews are not offended by the word, simply that Paizo is going to protect them from being offended. Whether Jews want it or not.

They have Witch as a class are they going to do another attempt at virtue signalling and change the name to Wiccan. Or might as well go back to the 2E name for Demons and Devils while we are at it.

TSR found out the hard way that changing deamons and devils to Batri and tanri... didnt work.
It annoyed the existing fanbase that it was done to appease the insane.
And the insane just kept attacking because a demon is a demon and its STILL offensive and to some of the insane its now MORE offensive. Snd to the rest of the insane EVERYTHING is a demon and so you were NEVER going to appease them.

Failure was the only outcome.

Quote from: Novastar on November 02, 2021, 08:55:55 PM
Wait, phylactery is problematic, but "Inquisitor" is not?

Or "Barbarian", for that matter? Or edgelord "Drow"?

Indeed. How do you even have an inquisition in D&D's typical kitchen sink mishmash of fantasy tropes? The historical inquisition was deeply tied into the Christianization of Europe and the cosmic battle between God and Satan, but D&D completely lacks that historical context. If witchcraft is morally neutral a la neo-paganism, then why would inquisitors exist at all?

Barbarian is actually a slur used by the ancient Romans to demean foreigners (it's the equivalent of "ching chong"). Although nowadays it's been romanticized to the point where the word now conjures up images of buff romance novel heroes in sword & sorcery settings. The way D&D specifically uses it is a weird mishmash of sword & sorcery heroes with Norse berserkers.

Yeah, I figure that Paizo is gonna retcon Drow to no longer be dark-skinned at some point because their backstory sounds like the historical racist tale Curse of Ham.

Quote from: Omega on November 02, 2021, 09:09:15 PM

Quote from: Abraxus on November 01, 2021, 12:04:55 PM
Mistwell it's Paizo just plain virtue signalling and hoping to get brownie points from the more Woke elements of the fan base. It's irrelevant if most Jews are not offended by the word, simply that Paizo is going to protect them from being offended. Whether Jews want it or not.

They have Witch as a class are they going to do another attempt at virtue signalling and change the name to Wiccan. Or might as well go back to the 2E name for Demons and Devils while we are at it.

TSR found out the hard way that changing deamons and devils to Batri and tanri... didnt work.
It annoyed the existing fanbase that it was done to appease the insane.
And the insane just kept attacking because a demon is a demon and its STILL offensive and to some of the insane its now MORE offensive. Snd to the rest of the insane EVERYTHING is a demon and so you were NEVER going to appease them.

Failure was the only outcome.

Technically, Baatezu and Tanar'ri are still in the lore as the name of specific demonic "races" native to Baator and the Abyss, respectively. The lore is an overcomplicated mess at this point.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 03, 2021, 02:25:53 PMsounds like the historical racist tale Curse of Ham.

I recomend a blank book to ensure that nothing sounds like a historically racist anything else. Historical grievance addressal is one of the most agitating social movements of the past....ever.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 03, 2021, 02:41:08 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 03, 2021, 02:25:53 PMsounds like the historical racist tale Curse of Ham.

I recomend a blank book to ensure that nothing sounds like a historically racist anything else. Historical grievance addressal is one of the most agitating social movements of the past....ever.

Yeah you would support blank white pages with the total white washing of the game.

Typical.

Witch - hardly an offensive class name when you consider 5e's Warlock, which in the tradition is a Witch that has been cast out. This doesn't bother me, it's a game not a religious reference.

This name change reads more like "make it something easier to understand" vs. "Think of the jews!". I agree any focus on protecting jews is virtue signaling. Have we asked any Jewish people or religious leaders how they feel about the use of the word? I'm sure there are Jewish scholars who spend significant time around translations, and they have some expertise in words.

The outrage brigade are blindly swinging cancel-culture witch-hunts like mad barbarians. Everyone is angry and out for blood. There is no reasoning with the mob. Honestly, it's something that terrifies me when thinking about putting my own stuff out there. Critical thinking isn't supposed to = angry negative thinking that results in destruction.

Not sure that "making it easier to understand" is Pathfinder 2e's bag, baby.

Quote from: trechriron on November 03, 2021, 04:49:36 PM
Witch - hardly an offensive class name when you consider 5e's Warlock, which in the tradition is a Witch that has been cast out. This doesn't bother me, it's a game not a religious reference.

This name change reads more like "make it something easier to understand" vs. "Think of the jews!". I agree any focus on protecting jews is virtue signaling. Have we asked any Jewish people or religious leaders how they feel about the use of the word? I'm sure there are Jewish scholars who spend significant time around translations, and they have some expertise in words.

The outrage brigade are blindly swinging cancel-culture witch-hunts like mad barbarians. Everyone is angry and out for blood. There is no reasoning with the mob. Honestly, it's something that terrifies me when thinking about putting my own stuff out there. Critical thinking isn't supposed to = angry negative thinking that results in destruction.

In this case, I have to agree with that company's decision.

Let's face it- and the fact that I might get banned just for pointing this out proves it- ANYTHING that offends any Jewish group or organization is not a smart thing to keep doing. White straight men are fair game, but if the aforementioned-groups start any rumblings, it is best to immediately yield.

I asked on ENW if anyone was actually offended by lich phylacteries, given that apparently no one had complained in 45 years. Two Jewish guys there said they were not offended, but supported the name change anyway.

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on November 03, 2021, 05:51:05 PM
Let's face it- and the fact that I might get banned just for pointing this out proves it- ANYTHING that offends any Jewish group or organization is not a smart thing to keep doing. White straight men are fair game, but if the aforementioned-groups start any rumblings, it is best to immediately yield.

No one was actually offended. The ADL were not coming for Paizo.

Even if jews where offended: so what?

Since when is offense a valid reason for censorship?

Quote from: S'mon on November 03, 2021, 06:01:31 PM
I asked on ENW if anyone was actually offended by lich phylacteries, given that apparently no one had complained in 45 years. Two Jewish guys there said they were not offended, but supported the name change anyway.

Fuck those jews. Feels nice to have people suck you off without even asking eh?

ANY rumblings from that group. As far as I can remember the ADL is trying to claim the Barbary Coast Pirates never really existed because they raided Northern Europe for slaves- even attacking the coasts of Ireland- and that group was involved in the financial aspects, as with the American-African slave trade, but any black activist whom points this out is quickly ruined.

It's the same reason Obama got in trouble for trying to bring attention to The Holodomor, which took place during the WW2 era- yet we supported the evil and murderous Soviet Union. Again, I might get banned for pointing these things out.

If I am going to get banned, then, well, it was nice knowing you all here. I'll also mention that on Youtube is a video made shortly after Trump's 2016 victory: "Is Trump good for the Jews?" This was produced by Jews- if the video is still there look at the comments under it, they are EXCEEDINGLY hostile. This should be a warning that that group's behavior and arrogance is once again getting it into hot water; my Dutch relatives- obviously very liberal- themselves were becoming less than sympathetic- and we are talking about the DUTCH for crying out loud, not a people known for their love of Nazis.

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on November 03, 2021, 06:11:18 PM
ANY rumblings from that group. As far as I can remember the ADL is trying to claim the Barbary Coast Pirates never really existed because they raided Northern Europe for slaves- even attacking the coasts of Ireland- and that group was involved in the financial aspects, as with the American-African slave trade, but any black activist whom points this out is quickly ruined.

It's the same reason Obama got in trouble for trying to bring attention to The Holodomor, which took place during the WW2 era- yet we supported the evil and murderous Soviet Union. Again, I might get banned for pointing these things out.

If I am going to get banned, then, well, it was nice knowing you all here. I'll also mention that on Youtube is a video made shortly after Trump's 2016 victory: "Is Trump good for the Jews?" This was produced by Jews- if the video is still there look at the comments under it, they are EXCEEDINGLY hostile. This should be a warning that that group's behavior and arrogance is once again getting it into hot water; my Dutch relatives- obviously very liberal- themselves were becoming less than sympathetic- and we are talking about the DUTCH for crying out loud, not a people known for their love of Nazis.

"The Jews" are not a monolithic entity.  ;)

Wrong. They are very tribal, network with one another, and will not tolerate any criticism. While we are being told we must be "multi-cultural" and accept floods of "migrants" into white nations Israel has declared itself a Zionist nation, has walls armed with mace cannons, and dual-citizens determine our foreign policy in the Middle East. Now we are being pushed into war with Iran. 

It's a shame I have to be saying this, but after decades of being bashed- as a white straight male albeit not Christian (my beliefs are best described as Eastern)- in media and by groups run by Jews, I just cannot remain silent any longer.

I think the only reason to get banned would be if you continue discussing politics in the rpg section of this forum.

Even though it relates as to WHY that word was being banned from the game? If any and all religious references (e.g. bishop, etc.) would also be banned then fine, but that's not happening.

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on November 03, 2021, 06:53:40 PM
Even though it relates as to WHY that word was being banned from the game? If any and all religious references (e.g. bishop, etc.) would also be banned then fine, but that's not happening.

Its because your repeating one point over and over and literally asking to be banned. Paizo has shown a utter lack of spine and has beggun banning everything pre-emptively.
I don't think the ADL is in any way involved.

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on November 03, 2021, 06:36:56 PM
Wrong. They are very tribal, network with one another, and will not tolerate any criticism. While we are being told we must be "multi-cultural" and accept floods of "migrants" into white nations Israel has declared itself a Zionist nation, has walls armed with mace cannons, and dual-citizens determine our foreign policy in the Middle East. Now we are being pushed into war with Iran. 

It's a shame I have to be saying this, but after decades of being bashed- as a white straight male albeit not Christian (my beliefs are best described as Eastern)- in media and by groups run by Jews, I just cannot remain silent any longer.

This whole post is a white nationalist "dog whistle" attached to a loudspeaker. What a load of crap. This view is so narrow and misinformed I would agitate to have the anti-semitic site you memorized it from - fined for corruption of a minor.

Responding to one tempest in a teacup with another tempest in a teacup is both hilarious and unuseful. There is nothing wrong with modifying language in an attempt to be more respectful. No one TOLD Paizo to do this. Is the constant hand-wringing about cultural appropriation, racist races, subliminal white oppression, and the like... blown way out of proportion? Yes. Should some of the guilt-ridden couch-bound ne'er-do-wells find something actually useful to do besides police everyone on the intertubes? Absolutely.

Is there some grand conspiracy by "The Jews" to ruin the RPG hobby and thereby YOUR LIFE? Nope. That my friend is truly a delusion of yours reinforced by your tiny echo chamber and the constant screaming into a mirror to reinforce that delusion. Maybe focus on what you like about RPGs, the games you want to play, the fun you are having and stop spending so much time imagining you're a victim of a conspiracy?

These are GAMES after all. Meant to be played with people you like. Having fun...

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on November 03, 2021, 06:36:56 PM
Wrong. They are very tribal, network with one another, and will not tolerate any criticism.

You have never met a Jewish person, right?   ???

There are plenty of other religions that wont tolerate criticism.

In my homebrew game, Liches will not use a soul cage to preserve their eternal essence. They will use Nick Cage.

(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fteaandweed.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F04%2FNicolas-Cage.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)

Quote from: Abraxus on November 01, 2021, 02:53:39 PM
Only time will tell before the word Golem is going to be considered " problematic  and offensive "

In their quest to be extreme virtue signallers as possible they come off looking like not just Woke also as amateurish when doing so.

Well, Golem is actually Jewish. Phylacteries are not.

Quote from: kreegan on November 02, 2021, 12:40:32 AM
https://youtu.be/PjCo_gmZJ5E

Do not post blind links without any explanation. This is a warning, do not do it again.

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on November 03, 2021, 06:36:56 PM
Wrong. They are very tribal, network with one another, and will not tolerate any criticism. While we are being told we must be "multi-cultural" and accept floods of "migrants" into white nations Israel has declared itself a Zionist nation, has walls armed with mace cannons, and dual-citizens determine our foreign policy in the Middle East. Now we are being pushed into war with Iran. 

It's a shame I have to be saying this, but after decades of being bashed- as a white straight male albeit not Christian (my beliefs are best described as Eastern)- in media and by groups run by Jews, I just cannot remain silent any longer.

Well, something useful came out of this after all. Bye.

Phylacteries are not a Jewish term, as was already pointed out in the thread.  A phylactery is, properly speaking, a term for something that is used to contain something holy.

So a Jewish Tefillin is a type of Phylactery, as is a Christian reliquary, Muslim amulets that hold verses from the Koran, Indian relic boxes that hold the hair of a guru, Buddhist reliquaries that hold the bones of a bodhisattva, etc.

So, as usual, Paizo are morons.

Quote from: trechriron on November 03, 2021, 08:13:58 PM
There is nothing wrong with modifying language in an attempt to be more respectful.

Disagree. Forcing people with the threat of social ostracisation and bullying over fairly innocent language has become the norm. All in the name of "being more respectful".

Quote
These are GAMES after all. Meant to be played with people you like. Having fun...

It's very white supremacist of you to be so casual about diversity, inclusion and equity in gaming. That should be the most important thing in RPGs. Do better. [/s]

Quote from: Shasarak on November 03, 2021, 09:45:32 PM

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on November 03, 2021, 06:36:56 PM
Wrong. They are very tribal, network with one another, and will not tolerate any criticism.

You have never met a Jewish person, right?   ???

There are plenty of other religions that wont tolerate criticism.

Greetings!

*Sigh* Why does Griswald absolutely insist on sucking on a flamethrower? ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: trechriron on November 03, 2021, 08:13:58 PM
There is nothing wrong with modifying language in an attempt to be more respectful. No one TOLD Paizo to do this.

Not to gang up on you or take this out of context, but there's something to be said about sticking with original terms for things. It preserves an idea's origin and keeps us connected to our history and ancestors. There are countless examples. "Wizard" is said to come from the word "wise." "Magic User" is more utilitarian and encompassing, but it lacks character and is just plain uninteresting IMO. "Mage" carries more interesting connotations, as it goes back to Greek or Persian origin, I think.

"Soul Cage" is utilitarian and dull. "Phalactery" just sounds cool, and I'm sure many people have looked it up and learned something about history, which is a fucking great thing for a game to achieve.

As someone with Polish blood, if a game stole the idea of leaving a chair empty for a religious holiday, I would think "fuck yeah, so cool!" If I were a Greek or Jewish gamer, I would think it pretty fucking awesome that a Phalactery is a thing in game. The people who want to cleanse historic gaming language are not regular gamers and probably not gamers at all.

Quote from: trechriron on November 03, 2021, 08:13:58 PM
There is nothing wrong with modifying language in an attempt to be more respectful.

Clever wording, but not clever enough to be correct.

There's nothing wrong with modifying your own language in an attempt to be more respectful.

Demanding that others do the same at their gaming tables, or proselytizing about it's the "moral" thing to do for the benefit of others is as ugly as it gets.

Of course, letting others dictate to you what "respectful" language is a recipe for ethical suicide.

And none of these practical points address the fact that there's no such thing as "respectful" language other than what is dictated by the social justice crowd. There is nothing intrinsically mean about one word or another; our only guide to what's "respectful" is what the mob declares so, for the sake of control. If there were actually "respectful" language objectively, it wouldn't change every few years. That's manipulation, not respect.

Quote from: Zalman on November 04, 2021, 11:38:17 AM
And none of these practical points address the fact that there's no such thing as "respectful" language other than what is dictated by the social justice crowd.

So - would you say that you are an old gamer, a geriatirc gamer or a senile gamer?  I thinking that choosing polite synonyms is a much older idea than social justice.

Quote from: Zalman on November 04, 2021, 11:38:17 AM

Quote from: trechriron on November 03, 2021, 08:13:58 PM
There is nothing wrong with modifying language in an attempt to be more respectful.

Clever wording, but not clever enough to be correct.

There's nothing wrong with modifying your own language in an attempt to be more respectful.

Demanding that others do the same at their gaming tables, or proselytizing about it's the "moral" thing to do for the benefit of others is as ugly as it gets.

Of course, letting others dictate to you what "respectful" language is a recipe for ethical suicide.

And none of these practical points address the fact that there's no such thing as "respectful" language other than what is dictated by the social justice crowd. There is nothing intrinsically mean about one word or another; our only guide to what's "respectful" is what the mob declares so, for the sake of control. If there were actually "respectful" language objectively, it wouldn't change every few years. That's manipulation, not respect.

"Political correctness is fascism pretending to be good manners."

Quote from: Anselyn on November 04, 2021, 12:42:47 PM

Quote from: Zalman on November 04, 2021, 11:38:17 AM
And none of these practical points address the fact that there's no such thing as "respectful" language other than what is dictated by the social justice crowd.

So - would you say that you are an old gamer, a geriatirc gamer or a senile gamer?  I thinking that choosing polite synonyms is a much older idea than social justice.

Bolding mine.

Old, definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/old (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/old)

Geriatric, definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/geriatric (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/geriatric)

Senile, definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/senile (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/senile)

"polite synonyms"...

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 04, 2021, 12:49:08 PM

Quote from: Anselyn on November 04, 2021, 12:42:47 PM

Quote from: Zalman on November 04, 2021, 11:38:17 AM
And none of these practical points address the fact that there's no such thing as "respectful" language other than what is dictated by the social justice crowd.

So - would you say that you are an old gamer, a geriatirc gamer or a senile gamer?  I thinking that choosing polite synonyms is a much older idea than social justice.

Bolding mine.

Old, definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/old (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/old)

Geriatric, definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/geriatric (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/geriatric)

Senile, definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/senile (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/senile)

"polite synonyms"...

You seem to be hard of comprehension? Pushing it slightly (I know) - Old/geriatric/senile are synonyms.  I think each of those entries gives one option for the meaning to be "old" - if not now but historically - although other layers of meaning are interpreted with the other uses.  It's clear what is polite. 

Not your point GB but above

Quote from: rytrasmi on November 04, 2021, 11:20:00 AM
Not to gang up on you or take this out of context, but there's something to be said about sticking with original terms for things. It preserves an idea's origin and keeps us connected to our history and ancestors.

and - for example:
1797   T. Jefferson Writings (1859) IV. 192   To exchange the roar and tumult of bulls and bears, for the prattle of my grand-children and senile rest.

PS. At least use an English dictionary: https://www.oed.com/ if you want to speak proper like. :o

Given my example may be poor, are there really no examples of modern synonyms for old terms that you can think of - and use in order to be polite?  Speaking as a senescent gamer - cripple, spastic and mongoloid are words that for some reason have fallen out of use to describe people. How did that happen - some 30 years ago?   

Quote from: Anselyn on November 04, 2021, 01:41:29 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 04, 2021, 12:49:08 PM

Quote from: Anselyn on November 04, 2021, 12:42:47 PM

Quote from: Zalman on November 04, 2021, 11:38:17 AM
And none of these practical points address the fact that there's no such thing as "respectful" language other than what is dictated by the social justice crowd.

So - would you say that you are an old gamer, a geriatirc gamer or a senile gamer?  I thinking that choosing polite synonyms is a much older idea than social justice.

Bolding mine.

Old, definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/old (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/old)

Geriatric, definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/geriatric (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/geriatric)

Senile, definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/senile (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/senile)

"polite synonyms"...

You seem to be hard of comprehension? Pushing it slightly (I know) - Old/geriatric/senile are synonyms.  I think each of those entries gives one option for the meaning to be "old" - if not now but historically - although other layers of meaning are interpreted with the other uses.  It's clear what is polite. 

Not your point GB but above

Quote from: rytrasmi on November 04, 2021, 11:20:00 AM
Not to gang up on you or take this out of context, but there's something to be said about sticking with original terms for things. It preserves an idea's origin and keeps us connected to our history and ancestors.

and - for example:
1797   T. Jefferson Writings (1859) IV. 192   To exchange the roar and tumult of bulls and bears, for the prattle of my grand-children and senile rest.

PS. At least use an English dictionary: https://www.oed.com/ if you want to speak proper like. :o

Given my example may be poor, are there really no examples of modern synonyms for old terms that you can think of - and use in order to be polite?  Speaking as a senescent gamer - cripple, spastic and mongoloid are words that for some reason have fallen out of use to describe people. How did that happen - some 30 years ago?

Bolding mine... So they are not really synonyms, much less "polite synonyms". And yet you dare say I am hard of comprehension...

"PS. At least use an English dictionary:" Yeah, because the merriam webster is a famous spanish dictionary (are you this dumb or just playing one?)

"cripple, spastic and mongoloid are words that for some reason have fallen out of use to describe people. How did that happen - some 30 years ago?"

Because we gave in to the same type of imbecile that would latter push to change the new words because the "old" ones were offensive and o on and infinitum.

To the point where now People of Color is somehow "polite" and totally not the same as "Colored People". The latter was also an euphemism for a now gamer word that is considered impolite and will brand you an istophobe if you dare use it.

Let me put it this way so your addled brain might understand: You speak in whatever way YOU feel is okay to do so, I will not try to change the way you speak (might mock you tho), and I'll do the same, and when you or any other of the new moral majority comes trying to imposse their morals on me I tell all to go fuck themselves.

DEAL?

If that was still too hard to understand: Fuck you I won't do what you tell me to.

Quote from: Anselyn on November 04, 2021, 01:41:29 PM
Given my example may be poor, are there really no examples of modern synonyms for old terms that you can think of - and use in order to be polite?  Speaking as a senescent gamer - cripple, spastic and mongoloid are words that for some reason have fallen out of use to describe people. How did that happen - some 30 years ago?

Any word can be used in a derogatory sense. E.g., the word "basic" is presently used as an insult. Challenge: Think of a more bland word to replace "basic" to avoid offending people who have been called called basic.

"Idiot," "moron," "retard," etc. have followed a similar path to your examples. Once widely used and then dropped by professionals due to technical reasons and/or because the public at large started using them as pejoratives. Contrast with the word "witch" which is used by a significant amount of women in a positive sense. And, honestly, good for them. Also, consider the word "Jew." Many non-Jews are hesitant to use word because it has been used as a pejorative by antisemites, so they be "safe" and go with "Jewish" instead. But Jews themselves tend to prefer the word Jew (as far as I can tell), and I think it's right and honorable to stop the assholes from taking your word.

In any case, old, geriatric, and senile are not synonyms.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 04, 2021, 12:44:02 PM
"Political correctness is fascism pretending to be good manners."

George Carlin

Just so. If I were old, geriatric, and senile, it wouldn't matter to me which word you used. I agree with others that they're not synonyms, but someone who is "geriatric" is also "old" and neither is more or less polite. Any of these words may be more or less correct of course.

Quote from: rytrasmi on November 04, 2021, 02:20:27 PM
"Idiot," "moron," "retard," etc. have followed a similar path to your examples. Once widely used and then dropped by professionals due to technical reasons and/or because the public at large started using them as pejoratives.

Exactly, and these days it doesn't even require "the public at large" to use them as pejoratives -- it only takes a few loud Twitterers to declare those words to be pejorative.

It has, and will continue, to happen to every single word ever used for anyone. Because it's a form of control, and that desire for control isn't going away no matter how much we strive to "perfect" our language.

Quote from: Zalman on November 04, 2021, 02:36:35 PM
Exactly, and these days it doesn't even require "the public at large" to use them as pejoratives -- it only takes a few loud Twitterers to declare those words to be pejorative.

It has, and will continue, to happen to every single word ever used for anyone. Because it's a form of control, and that desire for control isn't going away no matter how much we strive to "perfect" our language.

Indeed. Look at the recent faux offense and hand-wringing for "guys."

The perpetually offended or their comrades or masters are inventing new words, like folx and zher, which are eventually going to be--quite rightly in this case--re-tooled by the public as insults. And then what are they going to do? Invent more words? Because that's worked so well in the past /s.

Quote from: rytrasmi on November 04, 2021, 02:58:21 PM

Quote from: Zalman on November 04, 2021, 02:36:35 PM
Exactly, and these days it doesn't even require "the public at large" to use them as pejoratives -- it only takes a few loud Twitterers to declare those words to be pejorative.

It has, and will continue, to happen to every single word ever used for anyone. Because it's a form of control, and that desire for control isn't going away no matter how much we strive to "perfect" our language.

Indeed. Look at the recent faux offense and hand-wringing for "guys."

The perpetually offended or their comrades or masters are inventing new words, like folx and zher, which are eventually going to be--quite rightly in this case--re-tooled by the public as insults. And then what are they going to do? Invent more words? Because that's worked so well in the past /s.

Greetings!

So true, my friend. I think there are two huge problems in this whole social dynamic.

(1) The people that are perpetually *offended* at everything, at all kinds of words--need to grow the fuck up. They need to grow a thicker skin, become stronger and emotionally resilient, and embrace the idea that the world is FULL of people that disagree with YOU--or simply embrace all kinds of things, of attitudes, ways of speaking, whatever, that are different from what you think is nice, sweet, sensitive, or otherwise more appropriate.

(2) The people that are typically targeted and critiqued by the whining, sobbing bitches, they too, need to reach down and grab a hold of their balls. Resoundingly and relentlessly tell the sobbing bitches of society "TOO BAD!" and for them to "SHUT THE FUCK UP!"

All of this changing language though all comes from dialectic Marxist ideology, and is promoted in high schools, colleges, and universities, by "enlightened" and "sensitive" and uber-concerned professors that are fucking hell-bent on insisting that everything and everyone in society operates like we are in perpetual kindergarten. There's also a good chunk of commentators, HR business people, journalists, and that smarmy class of scummy pseudo-intellectuals in other areas of society that champion the same kinds of approaches to life and of ideology. Their corrupted thinking all comes from the same Marxist well of shit though. All of these people seek in different ways, to exercise control and dominance over people around them. Like a kindergarten teacher, scolding her children around her. It's the same arrogant, condescending, "I'm the adult, you are the dirty, uneducated child that needs to listen to me and obey!" That whole attitude always comes through with everything these people talk about.

There are lots of these kinds of smarmy, Marxist idiots throughout society--media, business, HR departments, and especially schools--that simply need to be fired, and not hired to do anything except clean the outhouse. Ultimately, though, the root goes back to school, because all of these people were taught to think this way; they were taught to think that they are superior, and are entitled to instruct others around them in how they should speak, think, and act; and these people have all been brainwashed to believe that they know the best, the most moral and proper way for people everywhere to think, speak, and behave In comes that kindergarten thinking again. It's all terrible Marxist ideology, and the fruit that grows from it. These people are all hopelessly brainwashed, and society will never improve or defeat this kind of problem until these Marxist idiots are rooted out of our society, everywhere.

There's lots of different fruit on the ground, in various industries and contexts, but the root of the problem all goes back to that same founding root. Language, feelings, control, ideology, division, all of these things are described as tools and levers of control and manipulation to infiltrate and destroy society, so as to prepare the society to be overthrown by Communism. Yuri Bhezhmenov--a defecting KGB Officer--described how all of these things are created, exploited, and coordinated, to weaken and destroy societies that oppose Communism. He said this stuff back in 1970. Everything he says you can trace elements of it to even earlier Marxist writings, Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Minh, Simone Bovoir? a bunch of Feminists, Saul Alinsky, (Rules for Radicals). They all speak of the same things, the same hatreds, the same lust for power and control, and the same desire to destroy anyone and everything that opposes them and their "Movement".

It's a good morning for some fresh coffee and a good pipe. It's cold and raining here. ;D

This insanity drives me nuts. So may people have lost their minds, and have had their minds turned to jello!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 04, 2021, 02:02:18 PM
Let me put it this way so your addled brain might understand: You speak in whatever way YOU feel is okay to do so, I will not try to change the way you speak (might mock you tho), and I'll do the same, and when you or any other of the new moral majority comes trying to imposse their morals on me I tell all to go fuck themselves.

But as loud as you sound your nerd trumpet, the poiint is that you have been slow on the uptake of the point here, unlike rytrasmi. I think that means your thought processes are retarded. Does that make you a retard?

Retarded: Look it up in a proper dictionary.
https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/164191?rskey=yN3pIn&result=2&isAdvanced=false#eid

It means:  a. Held back or in check; hindered, impeded; delayed, deferred.

I look forward to you raising your game to mockery as you seem to confuse it with common abuse. Not recognising it when presented with it might suggest you are somewhat of a stranger to it.

QuoteFuck you I won't do what you tell me to.

But - you are already doing as I want. Each day you don't use those words you've already surrendered on.

BTW, I suggest King Canute would be a better handle ...

Quote from: Anselyn on November 04, 2021, 04:41:34 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 04, 2021, 02:02:18 PM
Let me put it this way so your addled brain might understand: You speak in whatever way YOU feel is okay to do so, I will not try to change the way you speak (might mock you tho), and I'll do the same, and when you or any other of the new moral majority comes trying to imposse their morals on me I tell all to go fuck themselves.

But as loud as you sound your nerd trumpet, the poiint is that you have been slow on the uptake of the point here, unlike rytrasmi. I think that means your thought processes are retarded. Does that make you a retard?

Retarded: Look it up in a proper dictionary.
https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/164191?rskey=yN3pIn&result=2&isAdvanced=false#eid

It means:  a. Held back or in check; hindered, impeded; delayed, deferred.

I look forward to you raising your game to mockery as you seem to confuse it with common abuse. Not recognising it when presented with it might suggest you are somewhat of a stranger to it.

QuoteFuck you I won't do what you tell me to.

But - you are already doing as I want. Each day you don't use those words you've already surrendered on.

BTW, I suggest King Canute would be a better handle ...

The same rytrasmi that agrees with me?

Sure champ, the retarded isn't the one thinking that Merriam-Webster isn't an english dictionary.

"abuse" Since you like to stretch definitions to totally change their meaning (like a totally not retarded person would) please point what is the meaning of that word in your word salad. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abuse (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abuse)

But I keep using them, because in my country we still haven't become as retarded as the gringo academia.

And I'll keep mocking you even if you cry that I'm abusing you. Because you deserve it.

Quote from: rytrasmi on November 04, 2021, 02:20:27 PM
Any word can be used in a derogatory sense. E.g., the word "basic" is presently used as an insult. Challenge: Think of a more bland word to replace "basic" to avoid offending people who have been called called basic.

I don't think that use of "basic" has reached this side of the pond - but then I'm not "down with the kids". I think if basic were that insult in the UK then our "bog-standard" would be an alternative. Although that is already  sometimes derogatory but not necessarily so and it's the context that matters. I think it has probably drifted the other way to your "basic".

Quote"Idiot," "moron," "retard," etc. have followed a similar path to your examples. Once widely used and then dropped by professionals due to technical reasons and/or because the public at large started using them as pejoratives. Contrast with the word "witch" which is used by a significant amount of women in a positive sense. And, honestly, good for them. Also, consider the word "Jew." Many non-Jews are hesitant to use word because it has been used as a pejorative by antisemites, so they be "safe" and go with "Jewish" instead. But Jews themselves tend to prefer the word Jew (as far as I can tell), and I think it's right and honorable to stop the assholes from taking your word.

Agreed - linguistic drift from technical term to popular pejorative usage will always happen. I also do have problems with the seeming pre-emptive offence that we see now but don't see it as part of a unique Marxist conspiracy. (Not accusing your goodself of that view.)

I've heard "At this time of year, Jewish people celebate ..." which takes it up a level of weird for me. Especially as you have the question "Do they really, all?" arising from the sweeping assumption that was carefully crafted in one part.

QuoteIn any case, old, geriatric, and senile are not synonyms.

Really? :o

If I can return to phylactery. If I understand correctly, I think that the Monster Manual in December 77 set the modern usage in fantasy more generally. That's from (near enough) 44 years ago. It seems to me that it's entirely possible that a young person in 1977 could have thought a word in something was a bit peculiar or near the knuckle is it were used in the exact sense and context as in 1933 - 44 years before that.  The idea that sensibilites change across one-or-two generatinos shouldn't be surprising anyone.

Quote[Young people] are high-minded because they have not yet been humbled by life, nor have they experienced the force of circumstances.
...
They think they know everything, and are always quite sure about it."

Rhetoric, Aristotle
4th Century BC

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 04, 2021, 04:58:18 PM

Sure champ, the retarded isn't the one thinking that Merriam-Webster isn't an english dictionary.

Well, it's certainly not an english dictionary and I think your failing your "Read English" skill roll again. I think it's probably American?

QuoteBut I keep using them, because in my country we still haven't become as retarded as the gringo academia.

But I don't think I'm a gringo - perhaps define your terms a bit better? Are you speaking Mexican or Spanish?

QuoteAnd I'll keep mocking you even if you cry that I'm abusing you. Because you deserve it.

Thank you. I am very much enjoying it. And you're so very good at it too.

Anselyn, ignoring directed insults or the like:
The problem with 'change verbiage to avoid offense' is a dead end intilectually because offense is purely subjective.
The solution is to teach people not to get offended, not to strike off more and more words off the dictionary to please a fickle public.

The 'We changed it 30 years ago' thing, more shows that to be a utterly flawed philosophy that has led us down a path of hypersensitivity and the censorship of the self or others.

Edit: And I disagree with Geeky calling you names since you seem to be operating out of good faith.

Quote from: Anselyn on November 04, 2021, 05:44:53 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 04, 2021, 04:58:18 PM

Sure champ, the retarded isn't the one thinking that Merriam-Webster isn't an english dictionary.

Well, it's certainly not an english dictionary and I think your failing your "Read English" skill roll again. I think it's probably American?

QuoteBut I keep using them, because in my country we still haven't become as retarded as the gringo academia.

But I don't think I'm a gringo - perhaps define your terms a bit better? Are you speaking Mexican or Spanish?

QuoteAnd I'll keep mocking you even if you cry that I'm abusing you. Because you deserve it.

Thank you. I am very much enjoying it. And you're so very good at it too.

So you're not only retarded but a pompous, snob brit too.

Sorry to inform you this but language evolves and given the numbers such evolution isn't being driven by the UK.

So you think we Mexicans don't speak spanish? Funny cuz the RAE seems to disagree with you.

As for Shrieking Banshee's comment above, I wasn't the one who started calling people "hard of comprehension". But our "totally on good faith" snob brit.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 04, 2021, 06:01:04 PM
Anselyn, ignoring directed insults or the like:
The problem with 'change verbiage to avoid offense' is a dead end intilectually because offense is purely subjective.
The solution is to teach people not to get offended, not to strike off more and more words off the dictionary to please a fickle public.

The 'We changed it 30 years ago' thing, more shows that to be a utterly flawed philosophy that has led us down a path of hypersensitivity and the censorship of the self or others.

Edit: And I disagree with Geeky calling you names since you seem to be operating out of good faith.

You might need to check on who started the namecalling.

Greetings!

The Merriam Webster Dictionary isn't considered authoritative in Britain? ;D

Who knew?

*Shrugs* Oh well. Merriam Webster is considered quite authoritative in any school in America.

Disputing Merriam-Webster as a credible and authoritative Dictionary just makes someone look like a complete moron. Anyone here in America--and I suspect many other places as well--would likely laugh at anyone attempting to maintain such an argument.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 04, 2021, 06:01:04 PM
Anselyn, ignoring directed insults or the like:
The problem with 'change verbiage to avoid offense' is a dead end intilectually because offense is purely subjective.
The solution is to teach people not to get offended, not to strike off more and more words off the dictionary to please a fickle public.

The 'We changed it 30 years ago' thing, more shows that to be a utterly flawed philosophy that has led us down a path of hypersensitivity and the censorship of the self or others.

Edit: And I disagree with Geeky calling you names since you seem to be operating out of good faith.

I agree with Geeky that you seem to be mistaken here. Anselyn make a passive aggressive remark at him, which casts doubt at him being in "Good Faith". Geeky is just being more direct.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 04, 2021, 06:10:23 PM
Sorry to inform you this but language evolves and given the numbers such evolution isn't being driven by the UK.

Hmm. If only we could think of an example from fantasy gaming where language has evolved ....

Quote from: SHARK on November 04, 2021, 06:33:36 PM
Greetings!

The Merriam Webster Dictionary isn't considered authoritative in Britain? ;D

Who knew?

*Shrugs* Oh well. Merriam Webster is considered quite authoritative in any school in America.

Disputing Merriam-Webster as a credible and authoritative Dictionary just makes someone look like a complete moron. Anyone here in America--and I suspect many other places as well--would likely laugh at anyone attempting to maintain such an argument.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Well my good fellow, we all know those damn colonials can't speak the Queens English! Would you care for a cup of tea?

Quote from: SHARK on November 04, 2021, 06:33:36 PM
Greetings!

The Merriam Webster Dictionary isn't considered authoritative in Britain? ;D

Who knew?

Who knew?

Ah, SHARK, you cant expect to randomly change English words and then be expected to be an authoritative source on the English language.

I mean if you cant spell Armour Class properly then what can you do?  Merriam Webster had one job!

Dictionary definitions for linguistic debates is a stupid thing to do.

Otherwise feminist means just respecting women.

Quote from: SHARK on November 04, 2021, 06:33:36 PM
Disputing Merriam-Webster as a credible and authoritative Dictionary just makes someone look like a complete moron. Anyone here in America--and I suspect many other places as well--would likely laugh at anyone attempting to maintain such an argument.

Evening SHARK!

I must say that I imagine SHARK to be a persona you play well here - and likewise I feel obliged to play a snobby Brit at times.  As much as anything to illustrate the the internet is not congruent with America.

You are of course right about Merriam-Webster: 268 milliion US native speakers have the majority. So what does the credible and authoritive source say: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phylactery.

Definition of phylactery
1 : either of two small square leather boxes containing slips inscribed with scriptural passages and traditionally worn on the left arm and on the head by observant Jewish men and especially adherents of Orthodox Judaism during morning weekday prayers

2 : amulet

So, I guess (1.) means the default or major usage?  This is certanily the first thing you find if you look up phylactery having read it for the first time in a fantasy setting.  That might strike someone as odd? I'm so glad it means amulet too.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 04, 2021, 06:46:07 PMWell my good fellow, we all know those damn colonials can't speak the Queens English! Would you care for a cup of tea?

Well, you have it right. It does take years of practice to develop the full patronising imperialist outlook.  That's why our SJWs are so keen to decolonise our curricula and culture. Just as well, eh! You must approve?

So, the new D&D film (For 2023 - according to IMDB!) has Brit actors, Hugh Grant, Daisy Head and Regé-Jean Page in it. Which one(s) of them are going to be baddies?

Quote from: SHARK on November 04, 2021, 06:33:36 PM
Greetings!
The Merriam Webster Dictionary isn't considered authoritative in Britain? ;D

I guess it would be considered authoritative for American English.
We'd probably regard the Oxford English Dictionary as the most authoritative, but we have a pretty strong tradition that dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive. Newspapers typically have their own style guides.

Quote from: Anselyn on November 04, 2021, 07:13:55 PM
Evening SHARK!

I must say that I imagine SHARK to be a persona you play well here

I assure you that SHARK is exactly the same in private correspondence!  ;D

Quote from: S'mon on November 04, 2021, 07:34:56 PM
We'd probably regard the Oxford English Dictionary as the most authoritative, but we have a pretty strong tradition that dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive. Newspapers typically have their own style guides.

I am also happy to acknowledge that Webster's was published 56 years before the first parts of the OED so that's some kind of seniority. We should offer our enthusiastic contrafibularities to Johnson for his work of 1775 but it didn't establish a brand.

But - the OED was worked on by Tolkien and so is cleary blessed beyond all others, especially for full etymology, history and usage.

Quote from: S'mon on November 04, 2021, 07:37:43 PM

Quote from: Anselyn on November 04, 2021, 07:13:55 PM
Evening SHARK!

I must say that I imagine SHARK to be a persona you play well here

I assure you that SHARK is exactly the same in private correspondence!  ;D

Greetings!

Yes, my friend, that's right! ;D I try to always be authentic!

Silly quibbling about dictionaries aside though, I suppose I have always had a strong respect for dictionaries, as I have always loved words, vocabulary, and languages. I've always loved the Oxford dictionaries as well.

And I *do* spell ARMOUR as, well, ARMOUR.

Along with many other words that I write using the Imperial standards. In college, on more than one occasion, I had some nitwit wanker student attempt to "correct" me during in-class discussions and reviews of our written work, in regards to my word usage and spelling--and I simply sat back and enjoyed my professor's breaking out some English Style manual and explaining to these students that yes, I was in fact entirely correct in every way. While British Imperial standards are sometimes different, and American colloquialisms and styles are academically acceptable--the British Imperial Standards for English are never considered to be wrong or incorrect in any way, but merely a different style approach within English writing.

The look of crushing defeat and embarrassment on the student's face as the professor explicitly corrected them, was...*pure joy* for me. Fucking illiterate wanker. ;D

In fairness, many, many American students have *zero* real education in real history, and so many things, whether it is geography or writing standards, but certainly there is an ignorance of most things British. They simply are not exposed to a whole lot for much of their official years of education, especially K through 12. I've had two friends, one from Britain, and one from Germany, for example, as well as various professors, explain that most American students are functionally 2 to 5 years behind most European students for anything K through 12, and don't seem to become equivalently educated as a European student until a year or two into college here. Our colleges and universities have always been good, so that's a saving grace and something to be grateful for, but the grade-school education...yeah, that leaves much to be desired, for certain. Sad and disappointing, I must say.

Of course, in the very recent years, I'm now not so certain that the quality of American universities has been maintained at all, but seems to have precipitously declined, and taken a hard leap off a cliff. ;D

From what you have explained, as well as others like our friend Shasarak down in New Zealand, monstrous stupidity definitely seems to be spreading though, and gaining momentum everywhere.

Cheers, S'mon!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on November 04, 2021, 08:41:07 PM
From what you have explained, as well as others like our friend Shasarak down in New Zealand, monstrous stupidity definitely seems to be spreading though, and gaining momentum everywhere.

Yes - when I went to University it was definitely the case that we started out a couple years ahead of USA, our school A levels were roughly equivalent to US first 2 years at college, but UK end product after 3 years at UK University was similar to US end product after 4 years at University.

But now we have slacker school standards + mass higher education, so there is both a lot of remedial teaching at University level, and University standards are slipping too, though not uniformly. I'll go from teaching a pretty tough traditional Contract Law class to a "so how do you feel about X?" type class.  ;D The worst thing is "My Graduate Journey" where they are invited to reflect on their feelings about *themselves* - and get huge marks for presenting papier mache, collages et al - this in a Law degree.

Quote from: S'mon on November 05, 2021, 03:33:56 AM
Yes - when I went to University it was definitely the case that we started out a couple years ahead of USA, our school A levels were roughly equivalent to US first 2 years at college, but UK end product after 3 years at UK University was similar to US end product after 4 years at University.

I met my partner when she did her Junior Year Abroad from the US in the UK, in the 80s. Her comments at the time are the same as yours above. A-levels are a very narrow focus though. I think there's a lot to be said for the IB as a good balance of breadth and depth. When I teach students who took Maths, Further Maths and Physics for A-level, there are times when it would be nice if they had read a few books in recent years ...

QuoteBut now we have slacker school standards + mass higher education, so there is both a lot of remedial teaching at University level, and University standards are slipping too, though not uniformly. I'll go from teaching a pretty tough traditional Contract Law class to a "so how do you feel about X?" type class.  ;D The worst thing is "My Graduate Journey" where they are invited to reflect on their feelings about *themselves* - and get huge marks for presenting papier mache, collages et al - this in a Law degree.

We've been having "Curriculum Transformation". My university has decided that students should acquire "an inquiring mind" by the end of the course, and the OFS are keen that all graduates have core literacy skills. Didn't these used to be entry requirements?

My gamer colleague and I who teach first year "maths methods for physics" have been entertaining ourselves by setting important questions with real world application. Like -  If you roll 6 6-sided dice, what's the probabilty that you obtain two or more sixes?  If you generate two random integers in the range 1 to 20, what's the probabilty that one of them will be 15 or greater.  ;)   

Quote from: Anselyn on November 05, 2021, 04:25:42 AM

Quote from: S'mon on November 05, 2021, 03:33:56 AM
Yes - when I went to University it was definitely the case that we started out a couple years ahead of USA, our school A levels were roughly equivalent to US first 2 years at college, but UK end product after 3 years at UK University was similar to US end product after 4 years at University.

I met my partner when she did her Junior Year Abroad from the US in the UK, in the 80s. Her comments at the time are the same as yours above. A-levels are a very narrow focus though. I think there's a lot to be said for the IB as a good balance of breadth and depth. When I teach students who took Maths, Further Maths and Physics for A-level, there are times when it would be nice if they had read a few books in recent years ...

QuoteBut now we have slacker school standards + mass higher education, so there is both a lot of remedial teaching at University level, and University standards are slipping too, though not uniformly. I'll go from teaching a pretty tough traditional Contract Law class to a "so how do you feel about X?" type class.  ;D The worst thing is "My Graduate Journey" where they are invited to reflect on their feelings about *themselves* - and get huge marks for presenting papier mache, collages et al - this in a Law degree.

We've been having "Curriculum Transformation". My university has decided that students should acquire "an inquiring mind" by the end of the course, and the OFS are keen that all graduates have core literacy skills. Didn't these used to be entry requirements?

I agree that A-levels encourage too narrow a focus, exacerbated by traditional University degrees. I did (1990-91) Latin Classical History Physics & 2 Maths A levels, and the latter lot definitely suffered from mixing arts & science subjects (so eg no Chemistry) - as you know we're 'supposed' to do either all-arts or all-science. Arts subjects are easier so not dependent on mutual support, but the Science path definitely expected a tight focus.

I agree that students ought to be starting with core literacy skills. We can help them develop critical thinking skills (as well as knowledge acquisition skills - equally important!), but those without the capacity for an 'inquiring mind' shouldn't really be at University.
I encountered a student recently who seemed to lack basic literacy and could not read the name of a case off the white board screen in front of him. He claimed to have been unfairly failed the previous year, he said they didn't believe he'd submitted his own work. I could see why they didn't believe him.

Quote from: trechriron on November 03, 2021, 04:49:36 PM
Witch - hardly an offensive class name when you consider 5e's Warlock, which in the tradition is a Witch that has been cast out. This doesn't bother me, it's a game not a religious reference.

Last iteration of the SJW disease there was some grumbling about the word Witch used in gaming, and in general, and then alot of use of Wiccan at their suggestion... until THAT was complained about and someone said "fuck it" and went back to witch - and round and round we go.

You can never appease. Because its never enough. And because eventually the next wave of SJW loonery turns on the old. Every damn time.

And you can not just come up with a new name because someone will complain that this is just a code word for whatever they want to be offended about. See the great Orc outrage.

Quote from: RPGPundit on November 03, 2021, 10:34:36 PM
Phylacteries are not a Jewish term, as was already pointed out in the thread.  A phylactery is, properly speaking, a term for something that is used to contain something holy.

So a Jewish Tefillin is a type of Phylactery, as is a Christian reliquary, Muslim amulets that hold verses from the Koran, Indian relic boxes that hold the hair of a guru, Buddhist reliquaries that hold the bones of a bodhisattva, etc.

So, as usual, Paizo are morons.

1 & 2: Didnt Dragon have an article on variant Lich foci? If not. Then this sort of stuff is great material for one. All the weird sorts of containers that might be used. Much like there were Dragon Articles on variant spellbooks, everything from preserved leaves to sheets of metal or even stone and other things.

3: We already knew that. Any semblance of sentience over at Bozo is rapidly fading. Seems like they are trying to out-WOTC WOTC.

Paizo could have just added more options. Instead they did exactly as predicted. You can bet more will follow.

Quote from: S'mon on November 05, 2021, 04:48:38 AM
- as you know we're 'supposed' to do either all-arts or all-science.

Yes. I had a friend at my traditionalist grammar school who had to fight to be allowed to take both A-level maths _and_ economics (and history) before taking PPE.  He's now quite an important person at the Institute of Economic Affairs.

Quote from: Omega on November 05, 2021, 04:55:42 AM
You can never appease. Because its never enough. And because eventually the next wave of SJW loonery turns on the old. Every damn time.

Here's the kicker: in the age of the internet, a literal handful of consistently active voices outweigh hundreds of lazy ones.  And if that handful start throwing out the right words (like pretty much any of the "ism"s), and people flock to their banner because they don't want to be seen as an "ist" who supports the "ism".  Furthermore, to be fully honest here, some of the complaints those SJWs have are based around a nugget of truth.  Orcs as black people is offensively stupid, but by the same token there's an honest lack of actual African-themed support in D&D.  Female space marines in 40k is pandering, but female Imperial Guard figures and Eldar and Tau hegemonists would be appreciated (or I like to think so). 

But yes, trying to appease a minority of people whose greatest virtue is being loud is a terrible idea. 

Quote from: Omega on November 05, 2021, 04:55:42 AMAnd you can not just come up with a new name because someone will complain that this is just a code word for whatever they want to be offended about. See the great Orc outrage.

I think D&D should -own- the Orc Outrage.  "We've heard your complaints, and we've listened.  We're making orcs and drow morally diverse, and removing ability limitations and bonuses, to better reflect the African American experience within D&D.  #OrcsAreBlackPeopleAndThatsOkay"

That's what the critics want right?  :-)

Quote from: Habitual Gamer on November 05, 2021, 09:05:16 AM
That's what the critics want right?  :-)

They just want to break things and hurt people.

"There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always— do not forget this, Winston— always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever. "

Quote from: S'mon on November 05, 2021, 09:18:53 AM

Quote from: Habitual Gamer on November 05, 2021, 09:05:16 AM
That's what the critics want right?  :-)

They just want to break things and hurt people.

"There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always— do not forget this, Winston— always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever. "

"Some men just want to watch the world burn."

Quote from: Habitual Gamer on November 05, 2021, 09:05:16 AMFurthermore, to be fully honest here, some of the complaints those SJWs have are based around a nugget of truth.

Nope. Its based around a lie, and the reason why SJWs keep getting ground is that people reject the consequences of said lie, but can't reject that lie itself.

Should D&D have more Africa and should 40K have more women? The question should be on the same intelectual calibur as 'Should D&D and 40K have more people in green pants?'.

As long as the lie of 'Diversity and representation are sacrosanct' has been thrust into peoples minds deep enough, then the SJWs will always take that lie to its logical conclusion.

Things canbe diverse or represent groups, for the same reason pants can be green. But in no way it should be seen as somekind of virtue.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 05, 2021, 09:48:12 AM

Quote from: Habitual Gamer on November 05, 2021, 09:05:16 AMFurthermore, to be fully honest here, some of the complaints those SJWs have are based around a nugget of truth.

Nope. Its based around a lie, and the reason why SJWs keep getting ground is that people reject the consequences of said lie, but can't reject that lie itself.

Should D&D have more Africa and should 40K have more women? The question should be on the same intelectual calibur as 'Should D&D and 40K have more people in green pants?'.

As long as the lie of 'Diversity and representation are sacrosanct' has been thrust into peoples minds deep enough, then the SJWs will always take that lie to its logical conclusion.

Things canbe diverse or represent groups, for the same reason pants can be green. But in no way it should be seen as somekind of virtue.

I'm surprised the WH40K Tau/subject races hasn't been identified as colonialism and burned as such. Perhaps "Kroot are Africans (or some other group that fared poorly from European colonialism)" hasn't been thrown up...or maybe it has and I just haven't looked.

Quote from: rytrasmi on November 04, 2021, 11:20:00 AM
... "Soul Cage" is utilitarian and dull. "Phalactery" just sounds cool, and I'm sure many people have looked it up and learned something about history, which is a fucking great thing for a game to achieve. ...

And I don't disagree. This is a tempest in a teapot. I'm still confused regularly by why virtual signaling is somehow greater than actual activism (or simply modifying one's perspective and behavior). It's starting to make me giggle when I see it. Like one might when a desperate young pre-pubescent kid is pining for their first love. Heart's in the right place - execution is generally poor.

I also think Phalactery is way cooler than Soul Cage. I'm just pointing out that they likely were not prompted by anyone to change it. This is how the white-knight syndrome works. Guilt leads to anguish, anguish leads to reaching, reaching leads to suffering. I personally believe their heart is in the right place. They want to be more sensitive to peoples' culture. On the tin, that's not a bad thing. But the execution is poor. This is reaching in my opinion, and not really helping anyone.

Instead of renaming everything, why not invite some people of those ethnicities to write a supplement like they did with Mwangi Expanse? That to me is useful activism. Give a voice to people who are might otherwise not have one. Run a sale where a % goes to a good cause. Have the Paizo crew volunteer en-masse for supporting a demonstration (snacks, water, money...) or use their voice to organize funding one. Lots of stuff we can do to help fight for equality.

Changing the name of some magic item in your RPG is likely not one of them.

Quote from: trechriron on November 05, 2021, 02:00:45 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on November 04, 2021, 11:20:00 AM
... "Soul Cage" is utilitarian and dull. "Phalactery" just sounds cool, and I'm sure many people have looked it up and learned something about history, which is a fucking great thing for a game to achieve. ...

And I don't disagree. This is a tempest in a teapot. I'm still confused regularly by why virtual signaling is somehow greater than actual activism (or simply modifying one's perspective and behavior). It's starting to make me giggle when I see it. Like one might when a desperate young pre-pubescent kid is pining for their first love. Heart's in the right place - execution is generally poor.

I also think Phalactery is way cooler than Soul Cage. I'm just pointing out that they likely were not prompted by anyone to change it. This is how the white-knight syndrome works. Guilt leads to anguish, anguish leads to reaching, reaching leads to suffering. I personally believe their heart is in the right place. They want to be more sensitive to peoples' culture. On the tin, that's not a bad thing. But the execution is poor. This is reaching in my opinion, and not really helping anyone.

Instead of renaming everything, why not invite some people of those ethnicities to write a supplement like they did with Mwangi Expanse? That to me is useful activism. Give a voice to people who are might otherwise not have one. Run a sale where a % goes to a good cause. Have the Paizo crew volunteer en-masse for supporting a demonstration (snacks, water, money...) or use their voice to organize funding one. Lots of stuff we can do to help fight for equality.

Changing the name of some magic item in your RPG is likely not one of them.

So, sensitivity readers and/or racial segregation on culture.
What's stoping those people that "might not have a voice" from doing their stuff? Is there any law or rule where they can't do their own stuff unless it's as wage slaves for Paizo/WotC/etc?
I agree on donating money to a good cause, but I don't think my definition of a good cause coincides with yours. For instance Burn Loot Murder isn't a good cause and never was.
Demonstrations... For or against what? Not all demonstrations/causes are created equal.
Equality... I think you really mean equity or equal outcomes...  "Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free."

Edited to add:

I do agree that it's pure virtue signaling, I disagree they have their hearts in the right place, because they have drunk the CRT koolaid.

Quote from: trechriron on November 05, 2021, 02:00:45 PMThat to me is useful activism. Give a voice to people who are might otherwise not have one.

So 95% of the planet? I reject the notion that 'Pity Representation' is based in a sound or good ethics system.
You cannot represent all the unheard voices. You can decide that some of them are 'pure' and then grant them money and status based off of internal whims. Its a toxic and evil philosophy.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 05, 2021, 02:22:51 PM

Quote from: trechriron on November 05, 2021, 02:00:45 PMThat to me is useful activism. Give a voice to people who are might otherwise not have one.

So 95% of the planet? I reject the notion that 'Pity Representation' is based in a sound or good ethics system.
You cannot represent all the unheard voices. You can decide that some of them are 'pure' and then grant them money and status based off of internal whims. Its a toxic and evil philosophy.

"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important" Thomas Sowell

Greetings!

Hmmm..."Equality"? Equality in what? And Equality for whom?

What does "Equality" have to do with RPG's? Or RPG publishing? What does "Equality" have to do with a company using the term of Phylactery?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on November 05, 2021, 04:37:09 PM
Greetings!

Hmmm..."Equality"? Equality in what? And Equality for whom?

What does "Equality" have to do with RPG's? Or RPG publishing? What does "Equality" have to do with a company using the term of Phylactery?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Obviously Liches of Colour can not afford to get a real Phylactery because of systemic Lich oppression so forcing everyone to use Soul Cages enables everyone who wants to be a Lich to fulfill their potential.

Finally Equality.

There's a Soul Train joke in here somewhere, I'm sure of it...

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 04, 2021, 07:08:59 PM
Dictionary definitions for linguistic debates is a stupid thing to do.

Yep.

Quote from: Pat on November 05, 2021, 08:00:59 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 04, 2021, 07:08:59 PM
Dictionary definitions for linguistic debates is a stupid thing to do.

Yep.

Haha,


Wut?  ???

I have to admit, some voices here are making good sense. I do find the hand-wringing to be overly dramatic. I'm one of those bleeding-heart types that wants to see the good in people.

Equality or equity is a good clarification. I like that. I am seeking equity. Where everyone has an equal opportunity.

I didn't mean to suggest people should force others to adopt their language. I don't agree with that at all. And changing the term to "Soul Cage" was a poor choice IMHO. Everyone should just call it "Phylactery" and ignore the virtue signaling. Paizo can't MAKE you change what you call it.

The rest of the sabre rattling here about CRT, communism, and conspiracy theories about SJWs taking our RPGs I will leave for a discussion elsewhere in the forum.  :o

Quote from: trechriron on November 05, 2021, 10:17:32 PM
I have to admit, some voices here are making good sense. I do find the hand-wringing to be overly dramatic. I'm one of those bleeding-heart types that wants to see the good in people.

Equality or equity is a good clarification. I like that. I am seeking equity. Where everyone has an equal opportunity.

I didn't mean to suggest people should force others to adopt their language. I don't agree with that at all. And changing the term to "Soul Cage" was a poor choice IMHO. Everyone should just call it "Phylactery" and ignore the virtue signaling. Paizo can't MAKE you change what you call it.

The rest of the sabre rattling here about CRT, communism, and conspiracy theories about SJWs taking our RPGs I will leave for a discussion elsewhere in the forum.  :o

Bolding mine:

"Equal opportunity" to do what? to be what? I'm dead serious, how are you going to get that when humans are born with different capacities?

Is equity to put racial/sexual/etc quotas on hiring? How is that not open racial/sexual/etc discrimination?

How are you going to know when said equality of opportunity has been achieved?

Lets take TTRPGs as an example, do you agree there are too many white straight males developing/playing them?

Are you aware of the equality paradox? The experiment has been done, the more free/equal a society is the more the differences in interest are amplified.

Back to TTRPGs, besides improving the education for ALL there's exactly zero you can do to have more of X developing the games, besides running games for people for free on ( I dunno, your public library?) where you bring the dice for everyone and let them keep em plus giving them the books there's exactly zero you can do to have more of X playing the games.

What's the correct number of stronk independent wahmen that don't need no fish developing/playing TTRPGs?

What's the correct number of blacks, latinos, etc developing/playing TTRPGs?

Are you aware that in the black comunities in the USA certain activities are seen as "acting white"? There's a societal pressure from other blacks in the community not to engage in those activities. How are you going to change that?

As far as I'm aware there's not a single law (that's being enforced in current day) on the books in the USA (and all the west) that discriminates against women/blacks/latinos/etc. Quite the opposite, it's illegal to do so.

And yet we still have mostly straight white males (puagh!) developing/playing TTRPGs.

Could that be because of a difference in interests?

Or can you point to evidence of discrimination?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 05, 2021, 03:00:48 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 05, 2021, 02:22:51 PM

Quote from: trechriron on November 05, 2021, 02:00:45 PMThat to me is useful activism. Give a voice to people who are might otherwise not have one.

So 95% of the planet? I reject the notion that 'Pity Representation' is based in a sound or good ethics system.
You cannot represent all the unheard voices. You can decide that some of them are 'pure' and then grant them money and status based off of internal whims. Its a toxic and evil philosophy.

"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important" Thomas Sowell

He ain't wrong...  The good Dr. Sowell needs way more exposure in schools because he's *never* not been correct in his observations.

Quote from: trechriron on November 05, 2021, 10:17:32 PM
I have to admit, some voices here are making good sense. I do find the hand-wringing to be overly dramatic. I'm one of those bleeding-heart types that wants to see the good in people.

Equality or equity is a good clarification. I like that. I am seeking equity. Where everyone has an equal opportunity.

I didn't mean to suggest people should force others to adopt their language. I don't agree with that at all. And changing the term to "Soul Cage" was a poor choice IMHO. Everyone should just call it "Phylactery" and ignore the virtue signaling. Paizo can't MAKE you change what you call it.

The rest of the sabre rattling here about CRT, communism, and conspiracy theories about SJWs taking our RPGs I will leave for a discussion elsewhere in the forum.  :o

Except it's not about that.  It's about people who have nothing important to contribute shouting "look at me," like the attention whores that they are.

Instead of kowtowing to their ridiculous demands (which beget nothing more than even more ridiculous demands), people need to grow a backbone and bluntly and publicly tell them to mind their own fucking business. There are people out there who have real grievances - these aren't those people.  Most of these activist SJW types are nothing more than butt-hurt whiny cunts who deserve nothing but our derision.

Quote from: trechriron on November 05, 2021, 02:00:45 PM
Instead of renaming everything, why not invite some people of those ethnicities to write a supplement?

That's the most racist suggestion I've heard all week ... and I even read the news yesterday!

"Are you one of those ethnicities? We need more of you people to write games for us."

"Some of our best game designers are Jews!"

I still think we should be calling it a horcrux.

Quote from: Zalman on November 06, 2021, 10:27:07 AM

Quote from: trechriron on November 05, 2021, 02:00:45 PM
Instead of renaming everything, why not invite some people of those ethnicities to write a supplement?

That's the most racist suggestion I've heard all week ... and I even read the news yesterday!

"Are you one of those ethnicities? We need more of you people to write games for us."

"Some of our best game designers are Jews!"

That will never happen because the wokies know that people of those ethnicities would themselves use "offensive" language...  How dare a black man use words that white liberals have declared offensive to black men...

Removing WORDS that certain people find offensive changes D&D completely. "Cleric" or "Druid" or "Barbarian" immediately strike up a nasty discussion of "culturally-offensive". Some modern cultures call Muslims "barbarian". Some modern cultures still use "Cleric" to describe various priests. Some cultures would call "Druids" modern eco-terrorists with anarchistic leanings. All of it plays into the Twitterati's constant moaning about what is "Right And Good."

I would offer them a clean approach to Anarchism but the Twitterati would just call me a "jaded Leftist" who doesn't respect their leaning towards fashionable consumerism. This is why I avoid Twitter: there's no real logic being recognized there. It's just "what they want and what they don't want is cultural terrorism".

Fuck. These. People.

Quote from: Theory of Games on November 06, 2021, 07:08:47 PM
Removing WORDS that certain people find offensive changes D&D completely. "Cleric" or "Druid" or "Barbarian" immediately strike up a nasty discussion of "culturally-offensive". Some modern cultures call Muslims "barbarian". Some modern cultures still use "Cleric" to describe various priests. Some cultures would call "Druids" modern eco-terrorists with anarchistic leanings. All of it plays into the Twitterati's constant moaning about what is "Right And Good."

I would offer them a clean approach to Anarchism but the Twitterati would just call me a "jaded Leftist" who doesn't respect their leaning towards fashionable consumerism. This is why I avoid Twitter: there's no real logic being recognized there. It's just "what they want and what they don't want is cultural terrorism".

Fuck. These. People.

Pretty sure they'd call you an "Alt-Right White Nationalist Nazi CHUD Troll" or something, but yes you've got the right idea otherwise. These people are aligned with all the worst aspects of Chaos: Destroying established structures (good or bad), no end goal and constantly changing their focus to keep going. The only end goal is when they eat themselves like the Ouroboros.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 05, 2021, 10:39:47 PM

Quote from: trechriron on November 05, 2021, 10:17:32 PM
I have to admit, some voices here are making good sense. I do find the hand-wringing to be overly dramatic. I'm one of those bleeding-heart types that wants to see the good in people.

Equality or equity is a good clarification. I like that. I am seeking equity. Where everyone has an equal opportunity.

I didn't mean to suggest people should force others to adopt their language. I don't agree with that at all. And changing the term to "Soul Cage" was a poor choice IMHO. Everyone should just call it "Phylactery" and ignore the virtue signaling. Paizo can't MAKE you change what you call it.

The rest of the sabre rattling here about CRT, communism, and conspiracy theories about SJWs taking our RPGs I will leave for a discussion elsewhere in the forum.  :o

Bolding mine:

"Equal opportunity" to do what? to be what? I'm dead serious, how are you going to get that when humans are born with different capacities?

Is equity to put racial/sexual/etc quotas on hiring? How is that not open racial/sexual/etc discrimination?

How are you going to know when said equality of opportunity has been achieved?

Easy.
Read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut way back in 1961.
Everyone is forced to be equal. You can sure as hell bet there are loons in the woke community who will use that as a road map to the future - instead of a warning. We already have a faction pushing to force everyone to be gay.
Remember. There is no limit to how insane these things pretending to be human beings will get.

Ray Bradbury had a few on this too with his future where books are burned because they might upset someone. Cemeteries are dug up and burned because they might frighten someone.

Quote from: Omega on November 07, 2021, 01:58:29 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 05, 2021, 10:39:47 PM

Quote from: trechriron on November 05, 2021, 10:17:32 PM
I have to admit, some voices here are making good sense. I do find the hand-wringing to be overly dramatic. I'm one of those bleeding-heart types that wants to see the good in people.

Equality or equity is a good clarification. I like that. I am seeking equity. Where everyone has an equal opportunity.

I didn't mean to suggest people should force others to adopt their language. I don't agree with that at all. And changing the term to "Soul Cage" was a poor choice IMHO. Everyone should just call it "Phylactery" and ignore the virtue signaling. Paizo can't MAKE you change what you call it.

The rest of the sabre rattling here about CRT, communism, and conspiracy theories about SJWs taking our RPGs I will leave for a discussion elsewhere in the forum.  :o

Bolding mine:

"Equal opportunity" to do what? to be what? I'm dead serious, how are you going to get that when humans are born with different capacities?

Is equity to put racial/sexual/etc quotas on hiring? How is that not open racial/sexual/etc discrimination?

How are you going to know when said equality of opportunity has been achieved?

Easy.
Read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut way back in 1961.
Everyone is forced to be equal. You can sure as hell bet there are loons in the woke community who will use that as a road map to the future - instead of a warning. We already have a faction pushing to force everyone to be gay.
Remember. There is no limit to how insane these things pretending to be human beings will get.

Ray Bradbury had a few on this too with his future where books are burned because they might upset someone. Cemeteries are dug up and burned because they might frighten someone.

I've read both, Yeah, we're living in a cyberpunk dystopia with none of the cool things.

Another forum gave me bullshit reasons we can't use "horcrux."

"J.K. Rowling will sue us!" No she fucking can't you fucking morons, you can't copyright a word goddammit. I've found several books on google using it without being sued. Fuck you.

"J.K. Rowling is problematic!" So that means you can't use a fucking neologism she coined? Every author is problematic if you comb through their works and biographies for evidence. All languages and all words are problematic by that standard, because they all descend from societies where women were property and children were sacrificed. Fuck you woke morons.

but. but why?

Is a phylactery somehow sexual? Is it racist, misogynystic or it discriminates againts other necromancers(...wonderfull people i hear)? Who even knows anymore.

QuoteAnother forum gave me bullshit reasons we can't use "horcrux."

"J.K. Rowling will sue us!" No she fucking can't you fucking morons, you can't copyright a word goddammit. I've found several books on google using it without being sued. Fuck you.

"J.K. Rowling is problematic!" So that means you can't use a fucking neologism she coined? Every author is problematic if you comb through their works and biographies for evidence. All languages and all words are problematic by that standard, because they all descend from societies where women were property and children were sacrificed. Fuck you woke morons.

I won't use horcrux because that name sucks. Depends of culture of lich I'd use babestu, bujeog, jimat, ruhkafesi, aldhakhayir, príhovor or aiya iku.
, 

Horcrux is a dull name. It only sounds cool if your a HP fan.

I'll take the (sanatized) SNL term of "junk in a box" over soul cage, especially if the lich in question is abard and sings about how he became a lich. Perhaps he has a dried up partner and we get to hear "mummy lover" after that...

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 07, 2021, 09:54:38 AM
Horcrux is a dull name. It only sounds cool if your a HP fan.

Fair enough.

What do think of animarium? From Latin anima "soul" + -arium "container."

Why would there be only one word.

Let's make dozens.

For instance in High Elven it can be fëamírë and in Wood Elven faecolch.

Call it a "Soul Gem" and make jokes about the Lich in question being a powerful magical girl.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 07, 2021, 11:44:53 AM
Why would there be only one word.

Let's make dozens.

For instance in High Elven it can be fëamírë and in Wood Elven faecolch.

Yes. Soul jar, soul gem, soul cage, soul container, horcrux, animarium, sool jim, etc.

The beauty of natural languages is that there are multiple ways to name and describe things. It's something that I feel geek/nerd culture has forgotten in its rampant OCD

While we're at it, let's add names to the D&D lich to be more inclusive of liches that aren't undead wizards with soul cages. Koschies, voldemorts, elder liches, lich mages, lich knights, lich priests, skeleton mages, necrolytes, zombie masters, corpses...

I always thought "zombie" was anachronistic in a European fantasy setting, since the monster itself is of Afro-Caribbean origin. Clark Ashton Smith called them liches. http://www.eldritchdark.com/writings/short-stories/61/the-empire-of-the-necromancers

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 07, 2021, 11:25:59 AMWhat do think of animarium? From Latin anima "soul" + -arium "container."

I think every setting with liches should have their own thing for phylactery. But phylactery has become so synonymous in any setting that uses them that its not exactly a problem for it to be phylactery.

Animarium isn't bad. I would have something like 'Mortality Pin' going off the russian stories. Because its a pin that keeps your soul on the mortal plane.

Koshei is a persons name, its like calling a Witch a 'Baba Yaga'. If there are to be baba yagas its generally in satire.


(Skip to 11:05 if you want Baba Yagas).

Monster names don't really make sense and are largely arbitrary. I find trying to make them named proper is too...clinical?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 07, 2021, 12:12:06 PM
I always thought "zombie" was anachronistic in a European fantasy setting, since the monster itself is of Afro-Caribbean origin. Clark Ashton Smith called them liches. http://www.eldritchdark.com/writings/short-stories/61/the-empire-of-the-necromancers

   Horror Hero seemed to pick up on this back in 1994 and called them "animated cadavers" in their Victorian setting. The Ravenloft novel I, Strahd: The War Against Azalin has Strahd actually learning the term 'zombie' from Azalin, whose background is from Greyhawk. :)

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 07, 2021, 12:59:19 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 07, 2021, 11:25:59 AMWhat do think of animarium? From Latin anima "soul" + -arium "container."

I think every setting with liches should have their own thing for phylactery. But phylactery has become so synonymous in any setting that uses them that its not exactly a problem for it to be phylactery.

Animarium isn't bad. I would have something like 'Mortality Pin' going off the russian stories. Because its a pin that keeps your soul on the mortal plane.

Koshei is a persons name, its like calling a Witch a 'Baba Yaga'. If there are to be baba yagas its generally in satire.

(Skip to 11:05 if you want Baba Yagas).

Monster names don't really make sense and are largely arbitrary. I find trying to make them named proper is too...clinical?

I was trying to invent a generic name that apply regardless of the exact form the animarium took or what purpose it was used for. So a tefillin or "mortality pin" or death knight's sword or live snake or cursed ring or that cursed crown from Lodoss War would be examples of animarium objects. The term could also be applied to an object used to imprison the souls of victims. This lends an element of unpredictability to the animarium too, because they are not made equal.

I actually got the idea for using koschie from Grimm tv show, which uses it as a type of monster, and from wiktionary which claims "kostěj" (koschei) is a Czech translation of the D&D lich. Although I prefer something like voldemort because it's derived loosely from "La vol de la mort" or "the theft from death" referring to the ill-gotten immortality. Altho "heartless immortal" from Palladium works too. The ATU tale type "giant without a heart" might be slightly unwieldy.

Altho it's fairly common in mythology for some unique to lend them name to others like them, such as Lamia being a Queen of Libya and a race of monsters or Pegasus being a specific winged horse and the name for a whole breed of them. It's also common for D&D in particular to recycle of the names of unique mythical monsters for monster races cloned from them like the medusae and minotaurs. Even if names already existed (e.g. gorgons) or the recycled name doesn't make sense with the new lore (minotaur means "king's bull" or "bull of the king").

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 07, 2021, 04:53:38 PMI actually got the idea for using koschie from Grimm tv show, which uses it as a type of monster, and from wiktionary which claims "kostěj" (koschei) is a Czech translation of the D&D lich.

It comes more from eastern european folklore. Koshei the deathless, a Lich/Deathnight combo.

Anyway, I think Lich by itself is fine. Comes from Lichyard, and by itself refers to a Spellcaster with a specific soul-holding item that makes you evil. There are plenty of other evil types of undead, but I feel that Lich is pretty Iconic and cool.

Honestly I somewhat feel like we are trying to give a new name to something that was fine for the past 50 years or so. So what if its language roots no longer make perfect sense? Thats 95.99999997% of language anyway.

If I where to make original undead, I would make original undead. Liches by themselves are products of 'mass production' so their general similarity makes sense to me.

Please remember to keep this thread to the subject related to gaming.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 07, 2021, 05:38:13 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 07, 2021, 04:53:38 PMI actually got the idea for using koschie from Grimm tv show, which uses it as a type of monster, and from wiktionary which claims "kostěj" (koschei) is a Czech translation of the D&D lich.

It comes more from eastern european folklore. Koshei the deathless, a Lich/Deathnight combo.

Anyway, I think Lich by itself is fine. Comes from Lichyard, and by itself refers to a Spellcaster with a specific soul-holding item that makes you evil. There are plenty of other evil types of undead, but I feel that Lich is pretty Iconic and cool.

Honestly I somewhat feel like we are trying to give a new name to something that was fine for the past 50 years or so. So what if its language roots no longer make perfect sense? Thats 95.99999997% of language anyway.

If I where to make original undead, I would make original undead. Liches by themselves are products of 'mass production' so their general similarity makes sense to me.

I would have suggested that the type of person willing to essentially sacrifice their own life to gain undead immortality would more then likely have been evil to start with and then adding the negative energy taint on top of that would finish off the rest.

Quote from: Shasarak on November 07, 2021, 06:07:30 PMI would have suggested that the type of person willing to essentially sacrifice their own life to gain undead immortality would more then likely have been evil to start with and then adding the negative energy taint on top of that would finish off the rest.

Not exactly. Arrogance (phah, the dangers of undeath must be overstated), ignorance (undeath makes you evil?), a desire to accomplish something else (I need to protect my grandchildren), or just a general human fear of death.

I had always thought the insistence that Necromancy was evil was due to two things:

1: You're going against the natural order.

2: You're messing with corpses, and a lot of cultures have serious respect for the dead.

Also, I was under the impression that the requirements to be a lich involved some INCREDIBLY evil things. Like sacrificing an infant or a bunch of virgins. The idea that killing something solely for your own benefit is the epitome of evil. Like becoming a Dragon in Dark Sun (which involves mass murder on top of sucking the life out of the world for 20 something levels), it's just unavoidable.

D&D has always had this thing about making immortality (in the biological sense) incredibly difficult to achieve or impossible, not to mention almost always evil. I remember there was a potion in 2nd that would reduce your age, and if tested would have diminished effect.

I think they should just remove liches entirely because liches are offensive to dead people.

Greetings!

You know, I don't understand this constant, deep need on the part of many people in the gaming hobby to *insist* that traditionally evil, wicked, savage and terrifying villains like vampires and liches should somehow not be EVIL.

The artistic interpretation or "reimagining* of them is that they are somehow an exception, or thy are misunderstood, or they experienced trauma in their childhood or early adult years, and blah, blah, blah.

NO. They are evil, terrifying and EVIL monsters. Some things, like Halflings, or Gnomes, or Minotaurs even, can be reinterpreted to an extent, and everything is fine, and even interesting and fun.

Reinterpreting some other things though...just comes off as stupid to me. Instead of having a terrifying, evil villain opposing the adventurers, somehow the vampire or lich is a tragic, misunderstood figure that the adventurers should cry over and seek to "understand them".

Fireball them all. Again, and again, and again. ;D

I think it makes for better game and adventure design to maintain particular standards, and a campaign that keeps such traditional icons of villainy makes for a stronger, more vivid, and memorable campaign.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 07, 2021, 09:54:38 AM
Horcrux is a dull name. It only sounds cool if your a HP fan.

It would be like wanting to call the phylactery now... Midichloeians!

It beyond stupid to try and shoehorn in a word from a totally unrelated work.

Though this does bring up the question.

Just where did Gary or whomever came up with it get the term and useage? Another one of those odd medieval re-uses of names like the Gorgon?

Also. D&D has bounced around on what exactly the thing is called anyhow? Soul Gem is an early one. Assuming one even exists.
In the AD&D MM there is no mention at all of any such item.
Looks like the term and item appeared first apparently in the 2e MM?

Quote from: SHARK on November 07, 2021, 09:25:03 PM
Greetings!

You know, I don't understand this constant, deep need on the part of many people in the gaming hobby to *insist* that traditionally evil, wicked, savage and terrifying villains like vampires and liches should somehow not be EVIL.

Its nothing new really and movies have been doing this for ages. And stage plays have been doing the opposite, portraying heroes as villains for centuries.

Also keep in mind that in BX and AD&D that alignment listed was a general guideline. Not set in stone. The AD&D entry for a Liche is Neutral (evil) meaning that they are predominantly neutral and tend to be evil. But as the MM says, alignment is only the characteristic bent of such creatures. Not how all are, as shown in various modules.

The problem is that players keep wanting to read alignments as an absolute. When it was not. Not helped by later writers who could not see past this either and so perpetuate and magnify the problem.
Though 3e had a good approach in that the listed alignment had an append to it to  indicate how often a creature example cleaved to its listed alignment, so an elf was usually chaotic good, a drow was usually neutral evil. And so on.

And the DM can always do whatever with the monsters.

IMO, Vampires and Liches have a similar idea behind them; those who'd drain life from others to make their own richer.

I think you can get a lot of mileage with that concept.

Quote from: PsyXypher on November 08, 2021, 12:59:15 AM
IMO, Vampires and Liches have a similar idea behind them; those who'd drain life from others to make their own richer.

I think you can get a lot of mileage with that concept.

Except if they are sparkly angst ridden vampires. Then they are useless.

Quote from: PsyXypher on November 07, 2021, 08:11:24 PMAlso, I was under the impression that the requirements to be a lich involved some INCREDIBLY evil things. Like sacrificing an infant or a bunch of virgins. The idea that killing something solely for your own benefit is the epitome of evil. Like becoming a Dragon in Dark Sun (which involves mass murder on top of sucking the life out of the world for 20 something levels), it's just unavoidable.

I personally believe the greatest evil one is capable of is convincing yourself of your moral infalibility, but there is space for different kinds of interpretation of liches.

QuoteI would have suggested that the type of person willing to essentially sacrifice their own life to gain undead immortality would more then likely have been evil to start with and then adding the negative energy taint on top of that would finish off the rest.

Yeah, liches are described as born from vile rituals, human sacrifice and so on - well like Voldemort I guess - so there's always strong aspect of choice there. You don't become lich by accident I guess.

QuoteNot exactly. Arrogance (phah, the dangers of undeath must be overstated), ignorance (undeath makes you evil?), a desire to accomplish something else (I need to protect my grandchildren), or just a general human fear of death.

Yes. But you need human sacrifice for lichdom so even noble intentions won't help.

QuoteYou know, I don't understand this constant, deep need on the part of many people in the gaming hobby to *insist* that traditionally evil, wicked, savage and terrifying villains like vampires and liches should somehow not be EVIL.

The artistic interpretation or "reimagining* of them is that they are somehow an exception, or thy are misunderstood, or they experienced trauma in their childhood or early adult years, and blah, blah, blah.

NO. They are evil, terrifying and EVIL monsters. Some things, like Halflings, or Gnomes, or Minotaurs even, can be reinterpreted to an extent, and everything is fine, and even interesting and fun.

Reinterpreting some other things though...just comes off as stupid to me. Instead of having a terrifying, evil villain opposing the adventurers, somehow the vampire or lich is a tragic, misunderstood figure that the adventurers should cry over and seek to "understand them".

But Shark, I see no push for reinterpretation of lich really, there were some positive energy rare equivalents, but generally speaking I see no sympathy for lich.
Now sympathy for vampires is born from gothic fiction, when they stopped being just form of ghouls let's say and become mysterious and possibly sexy Romanian aristocrates. And of course as vampirism is curse you can accuire in most fiction against own will - that adds another layer to call potentially sympathetic vampire.

At this point it's not even re-interpretation in my opinion. Good or at least tormented and full of inner turmoil vampire was with us for a long long time, almost as long as modern concept of vampire. And it facts it works really well in my opinion - thematically it's like deep well of themes, and options, and dramas.

Now of course still vampire dedicated to evil will be terrible opponent, but the same human alive evil high level wizard will be terrible opponent. Vampires are cursed humans in most fiction including D&D, holding their own personality and soul they had while being alive. So I generally treat them as humans (still of course much more likely to succumb to evil). Same go with afflicted were-people if we talk about this topc.

QuoteI think it makes for better game and adventure design to maintain particular standards, and a campaign that keeps such traditional icons of villainy makes for a stronger, more vivid, and memorable campaign.

Is it. Maybe I watched and read too much stories, but for me most of classical monsters are more of bore and chore at this point. Give me weird unconventional villain with weird abilities any day instead.

QuoteIMO, Vampires and Liches have a similar idea behind them; those who'd drain life from others to make their own richer.

I think you can get a lot of mileage with that concept.

Difference of course is vampires are generally victims of terrible curse, while liches are dedicated self-made men.
But then there are exceptions:

In The Witcher universe vampire are inhuman shapeshifting abberations brought to Witcher!World by Convergence of Spheres.
They are omnivorse as men, but much more stronger and magical, and blood for them is strong intoxicant, so most vampire praying on humans are drunkards and junkies (there is abstinent vampire in stories that get clean after he get caught by angry mob, after drunkedly flying on full speed into wall, and then spend 300 years regenerating himself from small scraps they left around.

There's an interesting theory I had once: liches are spawned from a desperate desire to control everything, even one's own lifespan, whereas vampires are often the result of NOT being able to control yourself.

As far as 'good' undead, they should be few and far between (unless you're running an Eberron campaign, since the deathless fill that slot perfectly). It is an inherently wrong act to try to subvert the natural state of things and the cycle of life and death. There can be exceptions; a guardian entity might not be evil, but such creatures should be bound to their tasks in such a way that it limits their influence (FR's baelnorns are a good example of this; most are hidden away, whiling away the millennia and will actually pay for news of the outside world).

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 08, 2021, 05:52:20 AMYes. But you need human sacrifice for lichdom so even noble intentions won't help.

It varies on setting (generally it does require some sketchy components but not always human sacrifice), but If I had a quarter for every person that sacrificed others, convinced it was for greater good and noble intentions, I would be a billionaire.

"Il just sacrifice convicted criminals, they where going to die anyway. As a immortal, il be able to protect the country much better then the existing king'.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 08, 2021, 05:52:20 AM
[Vampires are people, too.]

Don't vampires need to drink human blood and thereby kill people? Victim of a curse, sure...but the good thing to do would be to walk out into the sunlight: sacrifice yourself to save your village. No matter how kind or charming a vampire is, it's still evil due to pride or selfishness.

Vampires are spirits puppeting corpses.

On the original topic, gaming-wise, it seems like a trivial detail what the name of a lich's soul cage or container is. It isn't mentioned in BECMI D&D, for example, and I don't recall any outcry about that. I think the more interesting follow-up topic is about uses of liches and undead more broadly:

Quote from: PsyXypher on November 07, 2021, 08:11:24 PM
I had always thought the insistence that Necromancy was evil was due to two things:

1: You're going against the natural order.

2: You're messing with corpses, and a lot of cultures have serious respect for the dead.

Also, I was under the impression that the requirements to be a lich involved some INCREDIBLY evil things. Like sacrificing an infant or a bunch of virgins. The idea that killing something solely for your own benefit is the epitome of evil. Like becoming a Dragon in Dark Sun (which involves mass murder on top of sucking the life out of the world for 20 something levels), it's just unavoidable.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 08, 2021, 08:03:52 AM
There's an interesting theory I had once: liches are spawned from a desperate desire to control everything, even one's own lifespan, whereas vampires are often the result of NOT being able to control yourself.

As far as 'good' undead, they should be few and far between (unless you're running an Eberron campaign, since the deathless fill that slot perfectly). It is an inherently wrong act to try to subvert the natural state of things and the cycle of life and death. There can be exceptions; a guardian entity might not be evil, but such creatures should be bound to their tasks in such a way that it limits their influence (FR's baelnorns are a good example of this; most are hidden away, whiling away the millennia and will actually pay for news of the outside world).

I think the extent to which undead are evil is very setting dependent. Eberron is one exception - but there are potentially plenty of other settings with good undead. My son's setting I've been playing with is Incan-inspired fantasy, where past kings are mummies full of ancestral wisdom to help guide the present. Many cultures have at least some association of positive ghosts, undead, and/or death gods - like Isis collecting the body parts of Osiris to raise him from the dead, and Koschei the Deathless in Russian folk tales - who is frightening but not purely evil.

I don't buy that it's inherently wrong to subvert the natural state of things. By this logic, anyone who does magic is evil, along with any magical creatures. But in many settings, magic isn't evil -- and often, magic is a part of the natural order. There are magical beings that may represent positive order to the world - like Chinese dragons, the Thunder Bird, or the Fae to some pagan traditions.

Regarding PsyXypher's comment -- I can find no mention of sacrificing an infant or virgins. The AD&D2 book "Van Richten's Guide to Liches" has a description of the process, which involves a bunch of money and magic plus a heart that is preferably from a sentient creature. Killing a sentient creature just to use its heart would be evil, but using a donated heart or the heart of an enemy killed for other reasons isn't evil. Here's the full description:

http://voltor.narod.ru/vr/vr05_02.htm

I think Koschei the Deathless is an interesting model for a neutral or ambiguous lich. He is frightening, and sometimes a rival or problem, but also sometimes a source of aid or wisdom for heroes. I'm now pondering including a neutral lich in one of my Land of New Horizons adventures along these lines.

But there is an inherent, though not explicit necessarily, notion that necromancy and the undead *requires* "life-energy" to sustain itself.

Of course this is not universally true - but it's prevalent enough to be combined with corruption, entropy and decay enough to give it a highly unambiguous predatory aspect.

And if "evil" and "good" have any meaning in your setting other than words to bandy around for the sake of bickering, the very nature of what "necromantic" energy is given its capacity to "animate" and even fuel the needs of the undead, I think stretch the limits of "neutrality".

Not that it *couldn't* be done. But I don't think you could be "good" and be a Necromancer with the standard assumptions of D&D, at least over the long haul. The idea that spells are simply "powers" blinds people the reality that the assumption is a lot of study and practice goes into learning these arts, and such things will inevitably go south at some point.

And that's just talking about non-sentient undead. Once you get into sentient Undead... assuming all the traditional tropes are in place, it's pretty difficult to maintain much less utilize without crossing some very thin boundaries.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 08, 2021, 08:03:52 AM
There's an interesting theory I had once: liches are spawned from a desperate desire to control everything, even one's own lifespan, whereas vampires are often the result of NOT being able to control yourself.

As far as 'good' undead, they should be few and far between (unless you're running an Eberron campaign, since the deathless fill that slot perfectly). It is an inherently wrong act to try to subvert the natural state of things and the cycle of life and death. There can be exceptions; a guardian entity might not be evil, but such creatures should be bound to their tasks in such a way that it limits their influence (FR's baelnorns are a good example of this; most are hidden away, whiling away the millennia and will actually pay for news of the outside world).

The only good undead is a dead undead  ;)

Quote from: rytrasmi on November 08, 2021, 12:12:09 PM

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 08, 2021, 05:52:20 AM
[Vampires are people, too.]

Don't vampires need to drink human blood and thereby kill people? Victim of a curse, sure...but the good thing to do would be to walk out into the sunlight: sacrifice yourself to save your village. No matter how kind or charming a vampire is, it's still evil due to pride or selfishness.

Does the vampire need to drink enough blood to kill the victim?  I wonder if a vamp had a "herd" of humans that he could take a little bit of blood from several of them l to satisfy the hunger, and yet leave the humans healthy? 

I think the Vampire: Masquerade game had something like this (only played it once back in 1991).

But the D&D vampire drains levels, or does necrotic damage (depending on the edition) so there is a life-energy/soul draining component to their blood drinking.

Quote from: jhkim on November 08, 2021, 02:52:25 PM

Regarding PsyXypher's comment -- I can find no mention of sacrificing an infant or virgins. The AD&D2 book "Van Richten's Guide to Liches" has a description of the process, which involves a bunch of money and magic plus a heart that is preferably from a sentient creature. Killing a sentient creature just to use its heart would be evil, but using a donated heart or the heart of an enemy killed for other reasons isn't evil. Here's the full description:

Was more of an assumption than a statement of fact.

Also, when I referred to going against the natural order of things, I meant the fact that reanimating a corpse effectively takes it out of the life cycle, so it can nourish the soil, the soil can't grow plants and those plants can't feed animals and so on.

Though you're right about setting dependent-ness. I remember a 4chan Greentext talking about one guy played a Necromancer who preached necromancy as a replacement for dangerous labor. Tragically, his life's work was ruined by adventurers from another campaign his GM was running.

Quote from: tenbones on November 08, 2021, 03:42:59 PM
But there is an inherent, though not explicit necessarily, notion that necromancy and the undead *requires* "life-energy" to sustain itself.

Of course this is not universally true - but it's prevalent enough to be combined with corruption, entropy and decay enough to give it a highly unambiguous predatory aspect.

Vampires feed on blood, but most other undead don't feed like this in traditional myth and fantasy. For example, elder Hamlet's ghost is scary, but he isn't draining the life force of the living to get his revenge. Likewise for other ancestral spirits, revenants, and folk tale figures. Even in D&D, liches - along with ghosts, mummies and many others - aren't portrayed as predatory. They're often evil, but they don't have to kill the living to survive.

Outside of D&D, as I said, there are plenty of good-aligned undead, from Osiris to Mexican spirits of the dead to Koschei to Baron Samdi. Much of European Christian myth tend to portray ghosts and other undead as evil, but there are many pagan and non-European counter-examples. There's also 20th century fantasy going back many decades, long before any modern trends like Twilight. Casper the Friendly Ghost started in 1945, Deadman in 1967, and Blade in 1973.

Quote from: tenbones on November 08, 2021, 03:42:59 PM
And if "evil" and "good" have any meaning in your setting other than words to bandy around for the sake of bickering, the very nature of what "necromantic" energy is given its capacity to "animate" and even fuel the needs of the undead, I think stretch the limits of "neutrality".

Not that it *couldn't* be done. But I don't think you could be "good" and be a Necromancer with the standard assumptions of D&D, at least over the long haul. The idea that spells are simply "powers" blinds people the reality that the assumption is a lot of study and practice goes into learning these arts, and such things will inevitably go south at some point.

What specific assumption are you taking here, aside from the supposed predatory requirement? Even some sort of required predatory behavior doesn't strike me as inherently evil. There are predatory races like cat-people that have to eat meat, but they are usually not portrayed as inherently evil.

Quote from: PsyXypher on November 08, 2021, 05:22:06 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 08, 2021, 02:52:25 PM
Regarding PsyXypher's comment -- I can find no mention of sacrificing an infant or virgins. The AD&D2 book "Van Richten's Guide to Liches" has a description of the process, which involves a bunch of money and magic plus a heart that is preferably from a sentient creature. Killing a sentient creature just to use its heart would be evil, but using a donated heart or the heart of an enemy killed for other reasons isn't evil.

Was more of an assumption than a statement of fact.

Also, when I referred to going against the natural order of things, I meant the fact that reanimating a corpse effectively takes it out of the life cycle, so it can nourish the soil, the soil can't grow plants and those plants can't feed animals and so on.

Though you're right about setting dependent-ness.

Right. It depends on the cosmology / theology of the setting, which will vary. Some cultures deliberately set corpses out for them to be eaten by scavengers and decomposers - so re-animating a fleshy corpse might be evil for them, though not necessarily skeletons or ghosts. But many cultures deliberately attempt to keep corpses whole rather than allowing them to be eaten by scavengers and decomposers. The Incans, like the Egyptians, often mummified their dead to prevent decomposition. Christian practices vary, but many sects emphasized keeping the corpse whole - such as storing them in sealed crypts.

Quote from: PsyXypher on November 08, 2021, 05:22:06 PM
I remember a 4chan Greentext talking about one guy played a Necromancer who preached necromancy as a replacement for dangerous labor. Tragically, his life's work was ruined by adventurers from another campaign his GM was running.

It's an interesting concept. I played a similar character in a steampunk one-shot game recently, though he came to a similar end.

Quote from: jhkim on November 08, 2021, 05:35:53 PM

Quote from: tenbones on November 08, 2021, 03:42:59 PM
But there is an inherent, though not explicit necessarily, notion that necromancy and the undead *requires* "life-energy" to sustain itself.

Of course this is not universally true - but it's prevalent enough to be combined with corruption, entropy and decay enough to give it a highly unambiguous predatory aspect.

Vampires feed on blood, but most other undead don't feed like this in traditional myth and fantasy. For example, elder Hamlet's ghost is scary, but he isn't draining the life force of the living to get his revenge. Likewise for other ancestral spirits, revenants, and folk tale figures. Even in D&D, liches - along with ghosts, mummies and many others - aren't portrayed as predatory. They're often evil, but they don't have to kill the living to survive.

Outside of D&D, as I said, there are plenty of good-aligned undead, from Osiris to Mexican spirits of the dead to Koschei to Baron Samdi. Much of European Christian myth tend to portray ghosts and other undead as evil, but there are many pagan and non-European counter-examples. There's also 20th century fantasy going back many decades, long before any modern trends like Twilight. Casper the Friendly Ghost started in 1945, Deadman in 1967, and Blade in 1973.

Quote from: tenbones on November 08, 2021, 03:42:59 PM
And if "evil" and "good" have any meaning in your setting other than words to bandy around for the sake of bickering, the very nature of what "necromantic" energy is given its capacity to "animate" and even fuel the needs of the undead, I think stretch the limits of "neutrality".

Not that it *couldn't* be done. But I don't think you could be "good" and be a Necromancer with the standard assumptions of D&D, at least over the long haul. The idea that spells are simply "powers" blinds people the reality that the assumption is a lot of study and practice goes into learning these arts, and such things will inevitably go south at some point.

What specific assumption are you taking here, aside from the supposed predatory requirement? Even some sort of required predatory behavior doesn't strike me as inherently evil. There are predatory races like cat-people that have to eat meat, but they are usually not portrayed as inherently evil.

Dude, you need to study Mexican customs/beliefs before talking.

Only one day, (two really because children and adults are separated) the spirits of your dead family wander in the world of the living and are given offerings of their favourite food/drinks/toys alongside flowers, candles (so they can find their way with the zempazutchil and the light). It's more worship of the ancestors than any undead shit.

The vampires in nahuatl culture were not undead but Nahuales, like the tlahuelpuchi.

Ghosts aren't undead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts_in_Mexican_culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts_in_Mexican_culture)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire_folklore_by_region#The_Americas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire_folklore_by_region#The_Americas)

I don't remember a single undead in precolumbian myth in all of México. Blood suckers, and sucubi but not undead.

Bolding mine

Lets see, hunting animals to eat/dress isn't an evil act, would you say the same about hunting sentient beings?

Lets take your example, cat people, they eat meat, which so far has no moral charge. If they hunt down wolf people to eat them? is that the same as hunting wild boars? What about hunting humans to eat them?

In the real world we have real bloodsucking animals that suck blood to live, animals aren't moral agents lacking the capacity to make moral judgments. Therefore their acts are neither moral nor immoral but amoral.

Now back to the vampire, if it drinks human blood (or any other sentient species) it's at best a parasite and at worst a predator.

Lets go with the parasite first: Is it amoral to drink the blood of unwilling sentient victims to stay alive? No, it's immoral because it violates consent.

Now lets take the predator: Is it amoral to drink the blood of any sentient being and thus killing it probably creating another predator in the process? No, it's immoral since the only time killing is a moral thing to do is when defending yourself against unprovoked and unjustified violence.

But then again I'm not a progressive.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 08, 2021, 06:15:28 PM
Dude, you need to study Mexican customs/beliefs before talking.

Only one day, (two really because children and adults are separated) the spirits of your dead family wander in the world of the living and are given offerings of their favourite food/drinks/toys alongside flowers, candles (so they can find their way with the zempazutchil and the light). It's more worship of the ancestors than any undead shit.

The vampires in nahuatl culture were not undead but Nahuales, like the tlahuelpuchi.

Ghosts aren't undead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts_in_Mexican_culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts_in_Mexican_culture)

There is nothing in that link to say that ghosts either are undead or are not undead, or that contradicts anything that I said. In D&D, "undead" is a broad game category that includes not just physical creatures like vampires and liches, but also incorporeal spirits of the dead like ghosts, wraiths, and spectres. That's not a modern D&D thing - it's been true since at least AD&D1.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 08, 2021, 06:15:28 PM
Now back to the vampire, if it drinks human blood (or any other sentient species) it's at best a parasite and at worst a predator.

Lets go with the parasite first: Is it amoral to drink the blood of unwilling sentient victims to stay alive? No, it's immoral because it violates consent.

Now lets take the predator: Is it amoral to drink the blood of any sentient being and thus killing it probably creating another predator in the process? No, it's immoral since the only time killing is a moral thing to do is when defending yourself against unprovoked and unjustified violence.

By your definition, pretty much every adventurer I have ever seen is evil -- because they both harm and kill other sentient beings, usually not in pure self-defense. More broadly:

(1) In many if not most myths, vampires can drink the blood of non-sentient animals - not just humans. This is the behavior of some fictional good vampires like Angel (from the TV series), who typically drinks sheep or pig blood. In English, "predator" is an animal that hunts other animals - not something that specifically eats only sentient beings.

(2) Even if the rules are that they can only gain sustenance from sentient beings, the vampire could feed only from either willing donors or targets that they would harm for other reasons. Willing donors are not impossible -- much of the whole modern medical system uses donated blood and other organs to keep others alive.

There will be more such changes. Because it never stops. But it looks like Paizo is doomed anyway, with those crazy union demands.

It will spread from thing to thing, and nobody is going to stop them.

Quote from: jhkim on November 08, 2021, 07:36:46 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 08, 2021, 06:15:28 PM
Dude, you need to study Mexican customs/beliefs before talking.

Only one day, (two really because children and adults are separated) the spirits of your dead family wander in the world of the living and are given offerings of their favourite food/drinks/toys alongside flowers, candles (so they can find their way with the zempazutchil and the light). It's more worship of the ancestors than any undead shit.

The vampires in nahuatl culture were not undead but Nahuales, like the tlahuelpuchi.

Ghosts aren't undead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts_in_Mexican_culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts_in_Mexican_culture)

There is nothing in that link to say that ghosts either are undead or are not undead, or that contradicts anything that I said. In D&D, "undead" is a broad game category that includes not just physical creatures like vampires and liches, but also incorporeal spirits of the dead like ghosts, wraiths, and spectres. That's not a modern D&D thing - it's been true since at least AD&D1.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 08, 2021, 06:15:28 PM
Now back to the vampire, if it drinks human blood (or any other sentient species) it's at best a parasite and at worst a predator.

Lets go with the parasite first: Is it amoral to drink the blood of unwilling sentient victims to stay alive? No, it's immoral because it violates consent.

Now lets take the predator: Is it amoral to drink the blood of any sentient being and thus killing it probably creating another predator in the process? No, it's immoral since the only time killing is a moral thing to do is when defending yourself against unprovoked and unjustified violence.

By your definition, pretty much every adventurer I have ever seen is evil -- because they both harm and kill other sentient beings, usually not in pure self-defense. More broadly:

(1) In many if not most myths, vampires can drink the blood of non-sentient animals - not just humans. This is the behavior of some fictional good vampires like Angel (from the TV series), who typically drinks sheep or pig blood. In English, "predator" is an animal that hunts other animals - not something that specifically eats only sentient beings.

(2) Even if the rules are that they can only gain sustenance from sentient beings, the vampire could feed only from either willing donors or targets that they would harm for other reasons. Willing donors are not impossible -- much of the whole modern medical system uses donated blood and other organs to keep others alive.

1.- Challenged over your ignorance of Mexican prehispanic (I know, I know) myth you withdraw to D&D. Yep, In D&D things work in a certain way, but you were talking about our myths, my comment answer to our myths not to how D&D handles shit (ussually very baddly).

2.- Back to myths are we? In some myths I'm sure that's true, but that's nowhere in your original post I'm answering to. Predator means the same in every language as far as I know, but predator means there's no willing donor doesn't it? You can have one or the other not both. I made a very big effort to try and differentiate animals from sentient beings, not sure why you think this is you pwoning me.

3.- And we're back to games, correct, a vampire could feed from willing donors, making him a parasite, if the feeding ends up creating another undead bloodsucker I would still say this is evil. LOL, so me donating my organs after my death or donating blood is the same as a vampire biting me... Because something that can (as most myths claim) mesmerize it's victims somehow doesn't negate or at least put in doubt the whole free will thingy.

In every myth I know of vampires are evil, you can twist yourself into a pretzel and in your games do whatever. Doesn't mean that the whole postmodernist thing of negating Evil & Good exist even in fictional form FFS is something that ends up turning everything into moral grey mush.

Boring moral grey mush.

Don't you love it when white saviors try to explain your own culture to you, Geeky?

LOL.

(I've always been fascinated by the Day of the Dead celebrations. I should insert something similar into my game world just to mess with the players a bit.)

Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 09, 2021, 08:11:12 AM
Don't you love it when white saviors try to explain your own culture to you, Geeky?

LOL.

(I've always been fascinated by the Day of the Dead celebrations. I should insert something similar into my game world just to mess with the players a bit.)

Or why if a non-white person is not offended by something why they should be. Or how a handful of Jewish players who are offended means everyone and anyone within the Jewish community is offended by the word.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 07, 2021, 05:38:13 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 07, 2021, 04:53:38 PMI actually got the idea for using koschie from Grimm tv show, which uses it as a type of monster, and from wiktionary which claims "kostěj" (koschei) is a Czech translation of the D&D lich.

It comes more from eastern european folklore. Koshei the deathless, a Lich/Deathnight combo.

Anyway, I think Lich by itself is fine. Comes from Lichyard, and by itself refers to a Spellcaster with a specific soul-holding item that makes you evil. There are plenty of other evil types of undead, but I feel that Lich is pretty Iconic and cool.

Honestly I somewhat feel like we are trying to give a new name to something that was fine for the past 50 years or so. So what if its language roots no longer make perfect sense? Thats 95.99999997% of language anyway.

If I where to make original undead, I would make original undead. Liches by themselves are products of 'mass production' so their general similarity makes sense to me.

Normally I'd agree about the language drift, but it only has that meaning in D&D and derived fiction because Gygax didn't know what it meant when he recycled it from the Kothar stories. I'd prefer to use lich instead of zombie because it sounds evocative and is less anachronistic (insofar as that makes sense).

I think we can have our cake and eat it too by adding qualifiers to the name to reflect that the D&D lich is merely one type of lich. For example, lich mage or elder lich or something. Altho that's probably more appropriate for an original fantasy fiction rather than trying to retrofit D&D.

Even the D&D definition is undergoing some linguistic drift. I've seen it used for magical girls and as a generic name for undead in youtube videos. The D&D meaning is steadily watering down.

EDIT: Also, the word "lichyard" and other pre-D&D words (https://onelook.com/?lang=all&w=lich*) using "lich" are not using it in the same sense (i.e. an undead wizard with a soul jar), but in a generic sense of "death" and "corpse" depending on the exact context. Lichfield  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichfield)is not the "Field of Undead Wizards with Soul Jars," it's the "the field of dead bodies."

It's like the argument about orcs. It's your campaign. Make your undead however you like.

Your vampires can be like those freakshow nightmares from Lumley's Necroscope; or spirits puppeting a preserved corpse; or damned souls; or some strange biological offshoot. It's your game.

(personally, my go-to for unnerving undead has always been a toss up between the mohrg and the bodak)

Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 09, 2021, 09:56:01 AM
It's like the argument about orcs. It's your campaign. Make your undead however you like.

Your vampires can be like those freakshow nightmares from Lumley's Necroscope; or spirits puppeting a preserved corpse; or damned souls; or some strange biological offshoot. It's your game.

(personally, my go-to for unnerving undead has always been a toss up between the mohrg and the bodak)

My argument is semantic. To put it simply, I am disappointed that we can't use words like phylactery or lich in their original real world meanings because the fandom is full of autists who would find it confusing even though real language is chock full of ambiguities like that. The English word "set" has 430 distinct meanings. (https://www.vernonmorningstar.com/news/morning-start-the-english-word-with-the-most-definitions-is-set/)

I'm not saying we should stop calling them phylacteries and liches, since in a pedantic way they still count. The D&D lich is still a dictionary lich (i.e. a corpse), just with a ton of extra baggage tacked on (reanimated, wizard, soul jar). And it's profane phylactery is still a dictionary phylactery (i.e. a protected container of holy relics) in the same sense that a Satanic mass is still a mass.

That's semantics. Words can have multiple meanings, and there are multiple words to describe a given object.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 09, 2021, 08:11:12 AM
Don't you love it when white saviors try to explain your own culture to you, Geeky?

LOL.

(I've always been fascinated by the Day of the Dead celebrations. I should insert something similar into my game world just to mess with the players a bit.)

O yeah, I love it, but it's got less to do with saviours than with ignorance, sadly most Americans are deeply ignorant of their own culture and even moreso about any one else's.

Just remember that the parade is something invented by Hollywood for a Bond movie in recent years. As far as I know the custom has more in common with the Japanese worship of the ancestors, and if I'm not mistaken there was (originally) some type of punishment for failing to do so, your dearly departed ghosts became angry I think.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 09, 2021, 10:10:02 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 09, 2021, 09:56:01 AM
It's like the argument about orcs. It's your campaign. Make your undead however you like.

Your vampires can be like those freakshow nightmares from Lumley's Necroscope; or spirits puppeting a preserved corpse; or damned souls; or some strange biological offshoot. It's your game.

(personally, my go-to for unnerving undead has always been a toss up between the mohrg and the bodak)

My argument is semantic. To put it simply, I am disappointed that we can't use words like phylactery or lich in their original real world meanings because the fandom is full of autists who would find it confusing even though real language is chock full of ambiguities like that. The English word "set" has 430 distinct meanings. (https://www.vernonmorningstar.com/news/morning-start-the-english-word-with-the-most-definitions-is-set/)

I'm not saying we should stop calling them phylacteries and liches, since in a pedantic way they still count. The D&D lich is still a dictionary lich (i.e. a corpse), just with a ton of extra baggage tacked on (reanimated, wizard, soul jar). And it's profane phylactery is still a dictionary phylactery (i.e. a protected container of holy relics) in the same sense that a Satanic mass is still a mass.

That's semantics. Words can have multiple meanings, and there are multiple words to describe a given object.

As an Autist that has no problem with you using whatever word in whatever way let me ask you:

Your complaint is not being able to use the original meaning of a word while still using the D&D one? In the game?

So I'm the GM and I'm telling the party they find A Lich and they don't know what the fuck I'm talking about because it has several meanings, so I need to especify what do I mean by Lich. This time.

Yeah, I can see how that would make the game faster & more fun for everybody

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 08, 2021, 08:51:50 PM
Challenged over your ignorance of Mexican prehispanic (I know, I know) myth you withdraw to D&D. Yep, In D&D things work in a certain way, but you were talking about our myths, my comment answer to our myths not to how D&D handles shit (ussually very baddly).

I still don't see how you disagree with anything I said about the myth. You don't disagree that ghosts aren't all evil in Mexican myth. Instead your claim is that "ghosts aren't undead" - but undead isn't a term used in myth.

In Mexican prehispanic myth, I've read the Popol Vuh which is the most extensive primary source, along with a scattering of secondary sources. In the Popol Vuh, lots of the action in the underworld with the Xibalban lords is about crossing the line with death, like Blood Moon getting pregnant from a head hanging from a tree, or Xbalanque and Hunahpu ​instructing seers on how to treat their bodies to be raised again after death.

I'd agree that Day of the Dead has similarities to ancestor worship in Japan or China. (Less so Korea, as far as I know.)

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 08, 2021, 08:51:50 PM
And we're back to games, correct, a vampire could feed from willing donors, making him a parasite, if the feeding ends up creating another undead bloodsucker I would still say this is evil. LOL, so me donating my organs after my death or donating blood is the same as a vampire biting me...

In the modern day, if someone has a bone marrow condition where they require regular blood transfusions, does this mean that they are now an evil parasite?

Conversely, suppose in a fantasy game, there was a magic ritual that could save the life of one person by using the fresh heart of another person. Would this would be inherently evil black magic, in your view?

From my view, neither of those are inherently evil. They can be used for evil, but they are in themselves neutral.

Quote from: jhkim on November 09, 2021, 12:29:15 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 08, 2021, 08:51:50 PM
Challenged over your ignorance of Mexican prehispanic (I know, I know) myth you withdraw to D&D. Yep, In D&D things work in a certain way, but you were talking about our myths, my comment answer to our myths not to how D&D handles shit (ussually very baddly).

I still don't see how you disagree with anything I said about the myth. You don't disagree that ghosts aren't all evil in Mexican myth. Instead your claim is that "ghosts aren't undead" - but undead isn't a term used in myth.

In Mexican prehispanic myth, I've read the Popol Vuh which is the most extensive primary source, along with a scattering of secondary sources. In the Popol Vuh, lots of the action in the underworld with the Xibalban lords is about crossing the line with death, like Blood Moon getting pregnant from a head hanging from a tree, or Xbalanque and Hunahpu ​instructing seers on how to treat their bodies to be raised again after death.

I'd agree that Day of the Dead has similarities to ancestor worship in Japan or China. (Less so Korea, as far as I know.)

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 08, 2021, 08:51:50 PM
And we're back to games, correct, a vampire could feed from willing donors, making him a parasite, if the feeding ends up creating another undead bloodsucker I would still say this is evil. LOL, so me donating my organs after my death or donating blood is the same as a vampire biting me...

In the modern day, if someone has a bone marrow condition where they require regular blood transfusions, does this mean that they are now an evil parasite?

Conversely, suppose in a fantasy game, there was a magic ritual that could save the life of one person by using the fresh heart of another person. Would this would be inherently evil black magic, in your view?

From my view, neither of those are inherently evil. They can be used for evil, but they are in themselves neutral.

You have read some of the myth, that's Mayan myth, not all myths were Maya.

Correct, undead isn't a term used in Mexican myth, but we were talking about the undead, and that has a very distinct meaning.

The only thing's you'll find that Almost fit as a Vampire are Nahuales (living sorcerers/witches) and the ghosts that are really like succubi.

Lets see your ritual: How was the fresh heart obtained? if it comes from murdering someone to get it, it is evil.

Same as we would say about the way China goes about getting organs from the huygurs.

Lets change your spell so it resembles somewhat a vampire: To restitute your health the spell uses fresh blood, so far not inherently evil as long as there's no free will violation/murder involved.

Now lets say the spell makes you need fresh blood constantly and those who "willingly" donate it will end up like you needing "donors".

To put it simply: If the vampire can creat scions, then it's ev il, it's the same as knowingly giving someone AIDS.

Quote from: jhkim on November 08, 2021, 05:35:53 PM
Vampires feed on blood, but most other undead don't feed like this in traditional myth and fantasy. For example, elder Hamlet's ghost is scary, but he isn't draining the life force of the living to get his revenge. Likewise for other ancestral spirits, revenants, and folk tale figures. Even in D&D, liches - along with ghosts, mummies and many others - aren't portrayed as predatory. They're often evil, but they don't have to kill the living to survive.

The difference is that animals are non-sentient. Sentient undead are predating specifically on other sentients, usually against their will, for more than just nourishment often. Again I stipulate it's not universal - but it's the NORM. At BEST you're skirting evil.

Liches don't have to kill to survive *by the rules* - they kill because they're evil. If you're arguing that is not due to their condition - I'm not convinced since by definition Necromancy deals with doing exactly that. Seems like you're purposing leaving out some very significant details to make a vapid point.

Quote from: jhkim on November 08, 2021, 05:35:53 PMOutside of D&D, as I said, there are plenty of good-aligned undead, from Osiris to Mexican spirits of the dead to Koschei to Baron Samdi.

Cherry-picked individuals are by definition outliers to the norm. And even Osiris, Koschei and Baron Samedi are less "undead" than being divine representation of the concept of Death within the context of the circle of life, not specifically "undead" as represented in this conversation. From a gaming standpoint - I'm sure they'd have different views, surely, but "good" and "evil" would certainly govern their positions on how they treated "undead" - and that would define them. Osiris is generally Good and his governance over the sphere of Death would probably be very specific on how necromancy would be used.

Mortals are not *capable* of the feats these entities are.

Quote from: jhkim on November 08, 2021, 05:35:53 PMMuch of European Christian myth tend to portray ghosts and other undead as evil, but there are many pagan and non-European counter-examples. There's also 20th century fantasy going back many decades, long before any modern trends like Twilight. Casper the Friendly Ghost started in 1945, Deadman in 1967, and Blade in 1973.

Again - all exceptions that prove the rule. Your point? Casper was nice. His other ghost-friends were evil assholes.

Quote from: jhkim on November 08, 2021, 05:35:53 PMWhat specific assumption are you taking here, aside from the supposed predatory requirement? Even some sort of required predatory behavior doesn't strike me as inherently evil. There are predatory races like cat-people that have to eat meat, but they are usually not portrayed as inherently evil.

That with the predatory requirement due to their condition and the very fundamental fuel of their power - that inherent "evil" as a moral necessity seems trivial to the point of you'll find it much more productive to examine "good" exceptions to the rule than trying to piecemeal why undeath is evil.

The moral value judgement of "good" always requires more effort - undeath status or not.

Quote from: tenbones on November 09, 2021, 01:51:32 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 08, 2021, 05:35:53 PMMuch of European Christian myth tend to portray ghosts and other undead as evil, but there are many pagan and non-European counter-examples. There's also 20th century fantasy going back many decades, long before any modern trends like Twilight. Casper the Friendly Ghost started in 1945, Deadman in 1967, and Blade in 1973.

Again - all exceptions that prove the rule. Your point? Casper was nice. His other ghost-friends were evil assholes.

My point is that whether good undead are even possible - and how frequent they are - is setting dependent.

Specifically, I'm interested in how people see the evilness of undead because I'm helping develop a D&D setting where undead and necromancy specifically are not associated with evil. They can be evil, just like the living can be evil, but it isn't seen as a core part of what they are. It's an Incan-inspired fantasy setting, called "Land of New Horizons" - where there is a huge empire, and the emperors of the past are wise mummies who still act to help their descendants - and ghosts along with other spirits are often appealed to for advice or aid. In historical Incan tradition, the emperors were considered immortal, and upon physical death, their mummies still were treated as if they were active - and had a palace and servants to attend them.

I haven't done anything with liches yet, but now I'm picturing a lich as a wizard in a tower who is consulted in some adventure.

Quote from: jhkim on November 09, 2021, 02:39:17 PM"Land of New Horizons" - where there is a huge empire, and the emperors of the past are wise mummies who still act to help their descendants - and ghosts along with other spirits are often appealed to for advice or aid. In historical Incan tradition, the emperors were considered immortal, and upon physical death, their mummies still were treated as if they were active - and had a palace and servants to attend them.

Well if their immortal, why are they not in charge then? Why would a emperor with centuries of experience let some upstart child do anything?

Im not fundementally opposed to 'Good' undead, but if immortality is so common, it kinda takes the punch out of death, and thus the wind out of life.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 09, 2021, 02:46:35 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 09, 2021, 02:39:17 PM"Land of New Horizons" - where there is a huge empire, and the emperors of the past are wise mummies who still act to help their descendants - and ghosts along with other spirits are often appealed to for advice or aid. In historical Incan tradition, the emperors were considered immortal, and upon physical death, their mummies still were treated as if they were active - and had a palace and servants to attend them.

Well if their immortal, why are they not in charge then? Why would a emperor with centuries of experience let some upstart child do anything?

Im not fundementally opposed to 'Good' undead, but if immortality is so common, it kinda takes the punch out of death, and thus the wind out of life.

In Tolkien, the Istari and the elves were all immortal. Elrond is over 6000 years old, despite being half-elf. So there are a lot more immortals running around in Middle Earth than in Land of New Horizons. And I don't think the immortality takes the wind out of life in his books. They are special and have a different perspective.

As for the emperors in New Horizons - they rule for a normal human lifetime, including marrying and having descendants. It's a tough job - and after their living body gives out, they retire to instead kibbitz from the sidelines - like Yoda and Kenobi.

Quote from: jhkim on November 09, 2021, 03:04:25 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 09, 2021, 02:46:35 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 09, 2021, 02:39:17 PM"Land of New Horizons" - where there is a huge empire, and the emperors of the past are wise mummies who still act to help their descendants - and ghosts along with other spirits are often appealed to for advice or aid. In historical Incan tradition, the emperors were considered immortal, and upon physical death, their mummies still were treated as if they were active - and had a palace and servants to attend them.

Well if their immortal, why are they not in charge then? Why would a emperor with centuries of experience let some upstart child do anything?

Im not fundementally opposed to 'Good' undead, but if immortality is so common, it kinda takes the punch out of death, and thus the wind out of life.

In Tolkien, the Istari and the elves were all immortal. Elrond is over 6000 years old, despite being half-elf. So there are a lot more immortals running around in Middle Earth than in Land of New Horizons. And I don't think the immortality takes the wind out of life in his books. They are special and have a different perspective.

As for the emperors in New Horizons - they rule for a normal human lifetime, including marrying and having descendants. It's a tough job - and after their living body gives out, they retire to instead kibbitz from the sidelines - like Yoda and Kenobi.

Incompetent comparison. The Istari and the elves weren't human. Nor was Elrond (not entirely); he embraced his elven lineage.

You honestly think a ruler would be content to rule for a mere human lifetime and then retire, knowing full well he'll be transformed into a tougher form and live theoretically forever? What a load of crap.

Quote from: jhkim on November 09, 2021, 02:39:17 PM

Quote from: tenbones on November 09, 2021, 01:51:32 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 08, 2021, 05:35:53 PMMuch of European Christian myth tend to portray ghosts and other undead as evil, but there are many pagan and non-European counter-examples. There's also 20th century fantasy going back many decades, long before any modern trends like Twilight. Casper the Friendly Ghost started in 1945, Deadman in 1967, and Blade in 1973.

Again - all exceptions that prove the rule. Your point? Casper was nice. His other ghost-friends were evil assholes.

My point is that whether good undead are even possible - and how frequent they are - is setting dependent.

Specifically, I'm interested in how people see the evilness of undead because I'm helping develop a D&D setting where undead and necromancy specifically are not associated with evil. They can be evil, just like the living can be evil, but it isn't seen as a core part of what they are. It's an Incan-inspired fantasy setting, called "Land of New Horizons" - where there is a huge empire, and the emperors of the past are wise mummies who still act to help their descendants - and ghosts along with other spirits are often appealed to for advice or aid. In historical Incan tradition, the emperors were considered immortal, and upon physical death, their mummies still were treated as if they were active - and had a palace and servants to attend them.

I haven't done anything with liches yet, but now I'm picturing a lich as a wizard in a tower who is consulted in some adventure.

Depends on the cosmological setup. If Necromancy is a means to an end - the way of the means matters.

WHY does necromancy exist at all? If the idea is that there are spirits and an afterworld, the nature of what "necromancy" is in the setting matters. If it's just speaking or communicating with the dead - it's less of an issue (but it's still an issue since the context of "spirit" needs defining too. Such as why does this state even exist vs. going past Go! to the Afterlife.)

If the force that allows necromancy as an "art" to exist at all, is corruptive - then your pathway to hell lays paved before you. All the good in the world will slowly eat away at the practitioner over a length of time. The question is when does that limit hit. Is it easy to practice? Is it seductive? Does it promise (truly or falsely) great possibilities for just a little bit more investment (and sacrifice?) - when does the promise of the greater good justify the evil means?

Very few fictional narratives of magic compare to these obvious tropes. And it's that way for a reason - death is the final state most people perceive (oddly many don't until it's way too late: see Darwin Awards). The control over this function of reality (however illusory) is on its face a very powerful proposition. How you wanna set those standards in your own setting is up to you. I find that at best it will highlight the worst aspects of people over time.

In normal fiction - necromancy is corruptive because ultimately it tends to lead people to believing they can cheat death - and the processes themselves that allow the cheating to happen requires great and evil acts.

Quote from: jhkim on November 09, 2021, 03:04:25 PMIn Tolkien, the Istari and the elves were all immortal.

And the Elves ruled and where the primary movers and shakers while there was more magic juju. Overall they still had a alien outlook on life.
And Istari are angels given rules not to interfere. And the most powerful of their number did and tried to take over the world.
And even then they where still organic creatures with a sense of touch, smell and taste.

What your talking about in LOTR are the Ring Wraiths. Those where living humans given immortality. Humans by and large very much fear death.

If becoming emperor means immortality, then you bet bloodline fueds would be ten times worse.

Anyway this doesn't mean your setting is bad. But even assuming a non-evil default outlook, immortality would fuck with a regular humans psychology. Immortality+loss of most sense and bodily desire would make most rabid.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 09, 2021, 03:08:04 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 09, 2021, 03:04:25 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 09, 2021, 02:46:35 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 09, 2021, 02:39:17 PM"Land of New Horizons" - where there is a huge empire, and the emperors of the past are wise mummies who still act to help their descendants - and ghosts along with other spirits are often appealed to for advice or aid. In historical Incan tradition, the emperors were considered immortal, and upon physical death, their mummies still were treated as if they were active - and had a palace and servants to attend them.

Well if their immortal, why are they not in charge then? Why would a emperor with centuries of experience let some upstart child do anything?

Im not fundementally opposed to 'Good' undead, but if immortality is so common, it kinda takes the punch out of death, and thus the wind out of life.

In Tolkien, the Istari and the elves were all immortal. Elrond is over 6000 years old, despite being half-elf. So there are a lot more immortals running around in Middle Earth than in Land of New Horizons. And I don't think the immortality takes the wind out of life in his books. They are special and have a different perspective.

As for the emperors in New Horizons - they rule for a normal human lifetime, including marrying and having descendants. It's a tough job - and after their living body gives out, they retire to instead kibbitz from the sidelines - like Yoda and Kenobi.

Incompetent comparison. The Istari and the elves weren't human. Nor was Elrond (not entirely); he embraced his elven lineage.

You honestly think a ruler would be content to rule for a mere human lifetime and then retire, knowing full well he'll be transformed into a tougher form and live theoretically forever? What a load of crap.

I'd think that becoming an undead being might profoundly alter the beings thoughts/feelings/desires sufficiently that they might be more comparable to elves than to humans.

An undead emperor might step down under the logic that it makes them a bigger target.

The role of Emperor itself would probably become just a puppet position dictated by the elders (similarly to what happened in Japan during a period of time).

The elders would war amongst each other for the right thing to do.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 09, 2021, 03:08:04 PM
You honestly think a ruler would be content to rule for a mere human lifetime and then retire, knowing full well he'll be transformed into a tougher form and live theoretically forever? What a load of crap.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 09, 2021, 03:34:03 PM
Anyway this doesn't mean your setting is bad. But even assuming a non-evil default outlook, immortality would fuck with a regular humans psychology. Immortality+loss of most sense and bodily desire would make most rabid.

Ghostmaker - it sounds like you challenging what I think an immortal mummy would be like in real life. But this is frickin fantasy, and has nothing to do with what I think about logical extrapolation. It's not even my setting - it's my son's that I'm helping add some material to.

In the setting, the transformation of emperors is a holy process, overseen by the gods. I think it should be seen as akin to Yoda and Kenobi turning into Force ghosts. That didn't make them into fucked-up rabid spirits pining over their lack of bodies. Instead they were sources of wisdom and support for the living.

Quote from: jhkim on November 09, 2021, 04:08:27 PMIn the setting, the transformation of emperors is a holy process, overseen by the gods.

So they are not really their orginal people, but puppets for gods to give advice through. Well that solves that issue. So going against an elder is going against a gods will? Then why have an Emperor at all?

Stars Wars cosmology isn't really well thought out. But being a Force ghost meant more ascending to a higher plane, and most of the supplemental material made even showing up as a force ghost was a short period of duration type deal. They couldn't actually do anything, and the advice they could give was very limited. They where more a projection from heaven (talking to a spirit) then people who avoid facing the hounds of hell and rot inside a corpse's shell.

The second Ghost Yoda could call down force lightning-it made everything make no sense and indeed made him a psycho.

Edit: Also not everybody could/would become a force ghost.

Quote from: GhostmakerIt is an inherently wrong act to try to subvert the natural state of things and the cycle of life and death.

But evil in D&D is not inherently wrong. In facts it's equal cosmic force to Good, Law, and Chaos, all equal peers to each other, all eternal, and creating reality by mutual interactions. D&D elevates Evil to metaphysical status unknown to any sane religons.

Quote from: Shrieking BansheeIt varies on setting (generally it does require some sketchy components but not always human sacrifice), but If I had a quarter for every person that sacrificed others, convinced it was for greater good and noble intentions, I would be a billionaire.

"Il just sacrifice convicted criminals, they where going to die anyway. As a immortal, il be able to protect the country much better then the existing king'.

Dukes of Baator are impressed by your impeccable barrister logic, and cannot way for a day where you shall join their ranks.

Quote from: rytrasmiDon't vampires need to drink human blood and thereby kill people? Victim of a curse, sure...but the good thing to do would be to walk out into the sunlight: sacrifice yourself to save your village. No matter how kind or charming a vampire is, it's still evil due to pride or selfishness.

Primo, suicide is sin also :P Secondo - why do we assume you need to kill people by drinking their blood. Average adult human have quite a lot of blood in his veins, I think enough to fill tummies of like 8 vampires or something.

Quote from: Shrieking BansheeVampires are spirits puppeting corpses.

In some settings.

QuoteBut the D&D vampire drains levels,

As long as they feed on famous heroes they should be fine.

QuoteThe difference is that animals are non-sentient.

That's disputed claim.

QuoteYou honestly think a ruler would be content to rule for a mere human lifetime and then retire, knowing full well he'll be transformed into a tougher form and live theoretically forever? What a load of crap.

Those who refuse may end de-undeaded maybe.

QuoteSo they are not really their orginal people, but puppets for gods to give advice through. Well that solves that issue.

Quite the contrary. They were not original people while leaving their eternal essence trapped and tattered by vicious humours and passions of life. Turned into Wise Mummies they finally were free to exist as every rational souls should - unfettered by corruptive chaotic... life.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 09, 2021, 04:29:00 PMDukes of Baator are impressed by your impeccable barrister logic, and cannot way for a day where you shall join their ranks.

Bad people generally aren't born that way. Pride cometh before the fall.


The just absolute issue with 'Good Undead' is that nobody thinks corpses are cool. Nobody wants to be a corpse. Corpses are never directly worshipped almost ever because they represent disease and decay. Nobody likes disease or decay. Societies with mummies or cadaver worship worship the spiritual representation of the person. Mummification is preservation to make the corpse less of a corpse.

The reason undead is almost universally evil, is because your turning somebody into a rotting body. A fate worse then death. A lich is a person crazy enough that the fear of death even drives them to the insane idea of becoming a walking corpse. A vampire is still being a walking corpse, just masquerading it with stolen life.

If I where to D&D-ify or literalize a corpse worshipping society and not have them be crazy, i would make them have animated momuments or ghostly memories or something. Something with a focus on the spiritual aspect of the person-not the rotting corporeal.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 09, 2021, 04:17:33 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 09, 2021, 04:08:27 PMIn the setting, the transformation of emperors is a holy process, overseen by the gods.

So they are not really their orginal people, but puppets for gods to give advice through. Well that solves that issue. So going against an elder is going against a gods will? Then why have an Emperor at all?

As I see it, being a holy process doesn't mean that the target is turned into a mouthpiece for the gods. Holy processes include things like communion, confession, or investiture of a priest. In a fantasy setting, the process is divine magic and can give the target spiritual insight - but after the holy process is complete, the target still has free will. Someone may get a holy vision, and that vision will change how they think - but after the vision is over, they could still misinterpret the vision or become corrupt.

I'd say it's the same thing for New Horizon emperors. When their mortal body perishes, they undergo a ritual and have a divine vision that makes their mortal concerns seem small and petty. They still have free will - and they can still make mistakes or grow more corrupt later. Still, the experience will deeply influence and change them.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 09, 2021, 04:17:33 PM
Stars Wars cosmology isn't really well thought out. But being a Force ghost meant more ascending to a higher plane, and most of the supplemental material made even showing up as a force ghost was a short period of duration type deal. They couldn't actually do anything, and the advice they could give was very limited. They where more a projection from heaven (talking to a spirit) then people who avoid facing the hounds of hell and rot inside a corpse's shell.

I recall there also being supplementary material where they could affect things via the Force -- like Patrick Swayze lifting the penny in Ghost. And canonically, they aren't omniscient angels. In ROTJ, the Force ghosts turn out to be *wrong*. Kenobi and Yoda advice against it, but Luke ignores them and still tries to redeem his father - and he succeeds in spite of their advice.

That's how I see the past emperors. They aren't avoiding the hounds of hell - they are accepting their sacred duty, and talking to them is like talking to a spirit - they have had divine insight that ordinary mortals haven't. However, they aren't omniscient, and they can still be wrong or even be corrupted. But this is more like Tolkien than Game of Thrones -- nobles like Galadriel and Aragorn and such aren't all assholes just out for themselves. There are true believers, which makes sense since divine magic is more present.

Quote from: jhkim on November 09, 2021, 05:00:19 PMI'd say it's the same thing for New Horizon emperors. When their mortal body perishes, they undergo a ritual and have a divine vision that makes their mortal concerns seem small and petty. They still have free will - and they can still make mistakes or grow more corrupt later. Still, the experience will deeply influence and change them.

Now its just beggining to sound like brainwashing. Just brainwash the living Emperor then. It seems like a curse then, when your desires and ambitions are stripped away to live a senseless existence.

I feel this is bending over backwards to literalize the respect of mummies. No Egyptian emperor imagined themselves as a mummy in the afterlife. And I know less about South America, but I doubt any of them worshipped corpses directly, and more the spirit of the person.

I have seen settings with ancestors assisting the living that I liked, but their influence was always limited, and the older they got the more they bowed out of life as a whole. And none of them where undead.

Edit: If your god can grant you eternal life and enlightenment on the mortal plane, why not just go the extra 10% and just not make you a disease carrying corpse (just make your sterile or something).

QuoteI recall there also being supplementary material where they could affect things via the Force

Everything has been covered by supplemental material by one point in time (I use random creature generators to see if star wars has done it, and its true about 50% of the time). Most of it is crap and stupid.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 09, 2021, 04:58:54 PM
The just absolute issue with 'Good Undead' is that nobody thinks corpses are cool. Nobody wants to be a corpse. Corpses are never directly worshipped almost ever because they represent disease and decay. Nobody likes disease or decay. Societies with mummies or cadaver worship worship the spiritual representation of the person. Mummification is preservation to make the corpse less of a corpse.

The reason undead is almost universally evil, is because your turning somebody into a rotting body. A fate worse then death.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 09, 2021, 04:58:54 PM
If I where to D&D-ify or literalize a corpse worshipping society and not have them be crazy, i would make them have animated momuments or ghostly memories or something. Something with a focus on the spiritual aspect of the person-not the rotting corporeal.

But historically, Incans *did* venerate the mummified corpses of their past emperors. For them, an emperor becoming a living mummy was not seen as a horrific fate, but rather a holy duty. It's not just Incas - there are other cultures that have positive celebration of symbolic skulls, skeletons, and ghosts. I'd tend to agree that no one likes decay - that's why the corpses were mummified. But mummies, skulls, skeletons, and such were not symbols of disease and decay - they were reminders of beloved ancestors.

Europeans had parallel practices as well. Keeping close the body parts of saints was a very common practice in medieval Europe. That was the inspiration for the Teeth of Dahlver Nahl in the original DMG, a good artifact where you would put teeth of a dead holy cleric into your own mouth. Many early Christians believed in resurrection into one's previous dead body, so kept corpses preserved in dry crypts. In others, there would be piles of skulls with a cross as a holy site, like from this crypt in Paris.

(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/stack-skulls-bones-white-cross-260nw-1837080796.jpg)

This is going against the trend of original D&D and the majority of Western fantasy, but I think it does fit with Incan and other culture, and I think it's an interesting twist.

Not all undead feature decay. Spectral/ethereal undead don't, and neither do some preserved bodies, like the animus that was found in Greyhawk's Great Kingdom. Some forms of vampires.amd ghouls don't feature decayed bodies either.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 09, 2021, 05:09:25 PM
I feel this is bending over backwards to literalize the respect of mummies. No Egyptian emperor imagined themselves as a mummy in the afterlife. And I know less about South America, but I doubt any of them worshipped corpses directly, and more the spirit of the person.

No, the Incans really did venerate the mummified corpse. Here's one description from quick search, but it's well documented from many places.

QuoteIn 1533 the first Spaniards to reach Cusco, capital of the sprawling Inca Empire, discovered temples covered with gold plates, altars and fountains similarly glimmering and architecture whose stonework rivaled or surpassed anything comparable in Europe. But the greatest surprise came when two soldiers entered one well-constructed palace of a dead emperor and found that he and his deceased wife were—in the eyes of the Inca—still alive.

In the palace's inner sanctum they found an old woman wearing a gold mask, waving a fan to keep flies off the immobile pair. The couple were no longer breathing but sat upright, perfectly mummified. They and their attendants wanted for nothing: Family members interpreted their wishes and benefited from the wealth the dead still owned. During holy festivals the dead ancestors were paraded behind the living emperor, their history and achievements adding to those of the living.

See more at the source here: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/fascinating-afterlife-perus-mummies-180956319/

Anyone still playing or defending Paizo games at this point is a cuck. Pure and simple. No further commentary necessary.

Quote from: jhkim on November 09, 2021, 05:34:23 PMNo, the Incans really did venerate the mummified corpse. Here's one description from quick search, but it's well documented from many places.

I feel thats a materialistic take on a spiritual thing.

Its like saying Jews worship paper, and a fantasy version of jews would have paper golems be their guides.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 09, 2021, 05:42:45 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 09, 2021, 05:34:23 PMNo, the Incans really did venerate the mummified corpse. Here's one description from quick search, but it's well documented from many places.

I feel thats a materialistic take on a spiritual thing.

Its like saying Jews worship paper, and a fantasy version of jews would have paper golems be their guides.

I agree that it's a materialistic take on a spiritual thing. However, I think the more direct parallel would be having demons be physical horned beings with real pitchforks that can be fought with swords, as opposed to symbolic representations of human sin.

I do think there is a danger of trivialization. If fighting demons becomes just a tactical exercise in how much damage output you can have against their armor class and hit points, it loses the point of the symbol. On the other hand, fighting demons in D&D is fun - and no one is expecting that it be an accurate representation of Christian belief.

QuoteAnyone still playing or defending Paizo games at this point is a cuck. Pure and simple. No further commentary necessary.

Well I'd rather cuck to woke company whose game I enjoy and can unwoke by my GM-rulings mystical power, than cuck to people I cannot ignore stupid political believes and actions of authors.

QuoteThe just absolute issue with 'Good Undead' is that nobody thinks corpses are cool. Nobody wants to be a corpse. Corpses are never directly worshipped almost ever because they represent disease and decay. Nobody likes disease or decay. Societies with mummies or cadaver worship worship the spiritual representation of the person. Mummification is preservation to make the corpse less of a corpse.

The reason undead is almost universally evil, is because your turning somebody into a rotting body. A fate worse then death. A lich is a person crazy enough that the fear of death even drives them to the insane idea of becoming a walking corpse. A vampire is still being a walking corpse, just masquerading it with stolen life.

Why should tastes and biases of mortals hold any power over absolute Good or Evil of Undeath. Maybe most mortals are just unEnlightened enough :P

QuoteNow its just beggining to sound like brainwashing. Just brainwash the living Emperor then. It seems like a curse then, when your desires and ambitions are stripped away to live a senseless existence.

It's not brainwashing. It's pure perfect spiritual evolution and first step is abandoning desires and ambitions, because they are EVIL. IMPURE. Petty mortal shit.
Any sane religion shall tell you so - flesh worshipper.

QuoteHowever, I think the more direct parallel would be having demons be physical horned beings with real pitchforks that can be fought with swords, as opposed to symbolic representations of human sin.

Demons never in Abrahamic mythology were symbolic representations. They were very real beings - though indeed not physical, and not horned :P

Quote from: jhkim on November 09, 2021, 05:59:56 PMI agree that it's a materialistic take on a spiritual thing.

I think literalistic is the word im thinking about. I still don't think the dead living with the living is a good idea in any way without having to twist so many points as to make it meaningless. In addition as an adventure point I feel it takes away from adventure potential.

But it got me thinking about bodily treatment in historical contexts, so Im willing to walk back some of what I said.

Quote from: tenbones on November 08, 2021, 03:42:59 PM
But there is an inherent, though not explicit necessarily, notion that necromancy and the undead *requires* "life-energy" to sustain itself.

Of course this is not universally true - but it's prevalent enough to be combined with corruption, entropy and decay enough to give it a highly unambiguous predatory aspect.

D&D is the usual exception in that creating undead can come from a variety of sources, good and bad.

Theres also undead created by curses who may not have been bad people and may be fighting the curse in some way. Others just seen to get over-written with a new evil personality and whomever they were before is gone other than appearance pretty much.

Then there are those who become undead through sheer force of will. Good or bad. Vengeful spirits, lost loves, etc.

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on November 08, 2021, 04:58:52 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on November 08, 2021, 12:12:09 PM

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 08, 2021, 05:52:20 AM
[Vampires are people, too.]

Don't vampires need to drink human blood and thereby kill people? Victim of a curse, sure...but the good thing to do would be to walk out into the sunlight: sacrifice yourself to save your village. No matter how kind or charming a vampire is, it's still evil due to pride or selfishness.

Does the vampire need to drink enough blood to kill the victim?  I wonder if a vamp had a "herd" of humans that he could take a little bit of blood from several of them l to satisfy the hunger, and yet leave the humans healthy? 

I think the Vampire: Masquerade game had something like this (only played it once back in 1991).

But the D&D vampire drains levels, or does necrotic damage (depending on the edition) so there is a life-energy/soul draining component to their blood drinking.

Depends on the vampire. Theres tons of variations on it. Everything from the feeding is not fatal outright, but the victem gets weaker and weaker with each visitation. All the way to draining someone to a withered husk. And in between you have things like it takes X number of visitations to kill or turn a victem.

Theres also the form a vampires weaknesses take. Like for example you rarely see the one where they have to stop and count grains of salt scattered on the doorstep, and other such oddities. Same for method of killing them. Some are very specific and some are pretty simple really. Even weakness to silver or not ping pongs.

All that said these are things you can bet the woke cult will eventually turn on with some new lunatic hallucination. Like they already have. "Vampires are sexual predators!" is the current one that keeps getting tossed around and even pops in in the opening designer screed for Curse of Strahd.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 09, 2021, 06:54:06 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 09, 2021, 05:59:56 PMI agree that it's a materialistic take on a spiritual thing.

I think literalistic is the word im thinking about. I still don't think the dead living with the living is a good idea in any way without having to twist so many points as to make it meaningless. In addition as an adventure point I feel it takes away from adventure potential.

But it got me thinking about bodily treatment in historical contexts, so Im willing to walk back some of what I said.

Cool. Which other historical contexts are you thinking of? Putting in the picture of the pile of skulls from the Paris crypts made me think some about how one might capture that side of medievalism in an adventure.

Regarding the Incan fantasy - I'm not sure what part of adventure potential you're thinking of. I've been working up a number of adventure ideas in the setting. My son's already written up an adventure for levels 1-3, and one for level 7-9. I'm thinking of another low-level one and a mid-level one to add to them.

Quote from: jhkim on November 10, 2021, 05:23:57 PM
Cool. Which other historical contexts are you thinking of?

Lenin.

QuoteRegarding the Incan fantasy - I'm not sure what part of adventure potential you're thinking of.

Not incan fantasy, but too much 'God Presence'. Gods just zapping enlightenment into people. Just feels like it makes a setting too safe. Your gonna have to contrive reasons for things to be bad on a national level for instance. Which was something that Eberron had exactly and it was very unsatisfying.

Why would you want to be governed by some fleshy young upstart and not the immortal enlightened ancient ancestors stripped of petty desires.

Star Wars force logic is flimsy, but if Force ghost-ism was something everybody got (it wasn't a state of mind you had to earn), and they could stick around for long periods of time, the galaxy would have been very different.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 10, 2021, 05:36:59 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 10, 2021, 05:23:57 PM
Regarding the Incan fantasy - I'm not sure what part of adventure potential you're thinking of.

Not incan fantasy, but too much 'God Presence'. Gods just zapping enlightenment into people. Just feels like it makes a setting too safe. Your gonna have to contrive reasons for things to be bad on a national level for instance. Which was something that Eberron had exactly and it was very unsatisfying.

Why would you want to be governed by some fleshy young upstart and not the immortal enlightened ancient ancestors stripped of petty desires.

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting, but it sounds like you're approaching this from the point of view of speculative fiction -- i.e. if magic powers existed, what would really happen?  This is more the approach of some settings inspired by modern fantasy.  But I feel that for settings inspired by folklore - whether that's fairy tales or Arthurian legend or Incan myth - it's important for style that the world feel like magic and the divine are all around. For example, a medieval Christian knight would feel that "God Presence" is very much a thing in his world. In an Arthurian game, I wouldn't want for it to seem otherwise. The contrivances for a "God Presence" setting are exactly the real religious issues of "why is there evil in the world" which believing characters face.

Specifically for New Horizons, I don't intend for things to be bad on a national level. The empire is fucking huge, with a population around 10 to 20 million like the Incan empire at its peak - encompassing an area the size of all of Western Europe. There is room for very large-scale problems without ever threatening the empire itself. D&D is traditionally "Wild West" - and here the "Wild West" is the frontiers of the empire - which is where most adventures will happen. Just like actual Wild West adventures aren't very constrained by the U.S. national government.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 10, 2021, 05:36:59 PM
Star Wars force logic is flimsy, but if Force ghost-ism was something everybody got (it wasn't a state of mind you had to earn), and they could stick around for long periods of time, the galaxy would have been very different.

OK, but I don't see how this applies to New Horizons. Jedi in Star Wars - like elves in Middle Earth - are far more common than past emperors in New Horizons. There's less than a dozen past emperors in the whole empire, and they generally stay in their funereal palaces. It's a significant bit of background, but not something that will be a part of most adventures.

Quote from: jhkim on November 10, 2021, 06:28:25 PM
Sorry if I'm misinterpreting, but it sounds like you're approaching this from the point of view of speculative fiction -- i.e. if magic powers existed, what would really happen?

I will admit, I would not be interested in a game that runs on Mythological rules because I feel that dice or character building at all doesn't belong in such a world. Its like running a RPG musical. Music follows a very different logic from a d20.

At the very least providing a sense of internal logic for a myth is I find important for a character to make informed decisions from.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 10, 2021, 06:48:05 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 10, 2021, 06:28:25 PM
Sorry if I'm misinterpreting, but it sounds like you're approaching this from the point of view of speculative fiction -- i.e. if magic powers existed, what would really happen?

I will admit, I would not be interested in a game that runs on Mythological rules because I feel that dice or character building at all doesn't belong in such a world. Its like running a RPG musical. Music follows a very different logic from a d20.

At the very least providing a sense of internal logic for a myth is I find important for a character to make informed decisions from.

What you're talking about is stuff that is very far removed from player decisions, though.

I feel like what you are advocating is that all of the background of the world needs to conform to comprehensible rules, and the *characters* can't believe in anything mystical or mythic. By this standard, then settings like Star Wars, Middle Earth, and Pendragon aren't workable as gaming - because the characters believe in mythic principles larger than themselves. i.e. If I run a Middle Earth RPG, then I should have stats and mechanics that define exactly what Sauron does, and that needs to be the attitude of the characters as well.

In New Horizons, there is no expectation that divine intervention will feature in adventures. The characters will fight NPCs and monsters according to knowable rules. Still, the characters still believe in gods and spirits and myth - and that guides their view of the world.

That's been how I run games set in Star Wars and Middle Earth and Pendragon as well.

Quote from: jhkim on November 11, 2021, 03:07:16 PMWhat you're talking about is stuff that is very far removed from player decisions, though.

Speaking as a player: I prefer when I can discover more about a setting and the answer isn't 'Because'.

What I meant is that in russian myths/fairytales things often happen 3 times. There are 3 hydras to defeat (one after the other), 3 wives of the hydras, and 3 jelous brothers.
Thats because its meant to be said in song.
You could not really have the the rule of 3s work in a tabletop RPG the same way without characters working into it. And if they are working into it the dice and random chance would be a hinderance.

QuoteI feel like what you are advocating is that all of the background of the world needs to conform to comprehensible rules, and the *characters* can't believe in anything mystical or mythic.

Thats a conflation of two different things. You don't need the details to a molecular level, but things need to make sense within itself is my viewpoint.

QuoteBy this standard, then settings like Star Wars, Middle Earth, and Pendragon aren't workable as gaming

Star Wars isn't Mythical in its internal logic, neither is Middle Earth (outside of broad strokes), and I have no idea about Pendragon.

Middle earth has impressive or epic things in it, but the things inside of it are by and large governed by very stringent internal logic.

QuoteThat's been how I run games set in Star Wars and Middle Earth and Pendragon as well.

Alright. But as a player and a GM when I answer to a players question 'Why is X and not Y' I don't generally say 'Because its mythological'. Thats not any different then 'Just don't ask about X element'.

It doesn't feel mythological. Just internally inconsistent.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 11, 2021, 04:15:36 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 11, 2021, 03:07:16 PMWhat you're talking about is stuff that is very far removed from player decisions, though.

Speaking as a player: I prefer when I can discover more about a setting and the answer isn't 'Because'.

What I meant is that in russian myths/fairytales things often happen 3 times. There are 3 hydras to defeat (one after the other), 3 wives of the hydras, and 3 jelous brothers.
Thats because its meant to be said in song.
You could not really have the the rule of 3s work in a tabletop RPG the same way without characters working into it. And if they are working into it the dice and random chance would be a hinderance.

I cant believe that Russian mythology ripped off Planescapes Rule of 3 so blatantly.

Typical!

Quote from: Shasarak on November 11, 2021, 06:16:10 PMI cant believe that Russian mythology ripped off Planescapes Rule of 3 so blatantly.

Typical!

Its a time travel thing. In the future there are more stringent international copyright laws, so russia time travellers went into the past so they could get away with it.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 11, 2021, 06:58:41 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on November 11, 2021, 06:16:10 PMI cant believe that Russian mythology ripped off Planescapes Rule of 3 so blatantly.

Typical!

Its a time travel thing. In the future there are more stringent international copyright laws, so russia time travellers went into the past so they could get away with it.

Yeah, I think I saw that movie.

I mean documentary.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 11, 2021, 04:15:36 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 11, 2021, 03:07:16 PMBy this standard, then settings like Star Wars, Middle Earth, and Pendragon aren't workable as gaming

Star Wars isn't Mythical in its internal logic, neither is Middle Earth (outside of broad strokes), and I have no idea about Pendragon.

Middle earth has impressive or epic things in it, but the things inside of it are by and large governed by very stringent internal logic.

I feel like we're talking past each other here. The intent with Land of New Horizons is to be high fantasy in a similar manner to Star Wars or Middle Earth. Overall, I think that it is comparable. I don't feel that there is any more mysticism or "God Presence" in New Horizons than in either of these worlds. Yes, New Horizons has its immortal past emperors - but Middle Earth has a bunch of millenia-old elves - plus old demi-gods like Tom Bombadil, the Istari, and of course Sauron who has very widespread effects. Star Wars in the Old Republic period has hundreds of Jedi around.

I feel like what you're complaining about is that logically, the Jedi should have used their mind control and other powers to take over and rule the galaxy as it's overlords. The only reason why they don't is mysticism - that Jedi have a code of ethics that comes from their connection to the Force. But by that standard, the influence of The Force is God Presence, isn't it?

The past emperors in the tomb-palaces have consistent rules that govern them as much so as elves or Jedi.

Quote from: jhkim on November 11, 2021, 07:13:10 PMI feel like we're talking past each other here. The intent with Land of New Horizons is to be high fantasy in a similar manner to Star Wars or Middle Earth. Overall, I think that it is comparable. I don't feel that there is any more mysticism or "God Presence" in New Horizons than in either of these worlds. Yes, New Horizons has its immortal past emperors - but Middle Earth has a bunch of millenia-old elves - plus old demi-gods like Tom Bombadil, the Istari, and of course Sauron who has very widespread effects. Star Wars in the Old Republic period has hundreds of Jedi around.

Outside of Tom (who is more interested in nature), the demi-gods of LOTR actually are so involved in the plot they are either primary characters are secondary characters. And the elves are leaving because there is a lack of magic juju. They ARE the plot.

The reasons they do or do not do things is generally governed by internal logic. Only in the broadest strokes do things go into 'Its like this because its like this'.

QuoteI feel like what you're complaining about is that logically, the Jedi should have used their mind control and other powers to take over and rule the galaxy as it's overlords. The only reason why they don't is mysticism

Ethics isn't mysticism (in a direct sense). But yes, if the Jedi could enlighten people through force zaps (not mind control them since thats what you posit is happening), then why don't they? But they can't. And the ones that do mind control/mind cloud are the central antagonists and central to the plot.

But the Jedi may be good spiritual advisors, but not great rulers. Which is why they generally advised (but also did engage in violence and enforcement). If the force only picked out rulers-then yeah by and large only jedi would rule.

Because all those settings posit enlightenment/wisdom as something earned or deserved. While zapping enlightenment into past immortal emperors (deserving or not) feels more like a workaround for the fact that by default it would be a terrible idea if it happened to everybody.

I feel it would make more sense if it didn't last forever (the emperors crumble eventually), and it was a thing chosen by the family in place of the gods (similarly to how the family was what kept the incan ancestors alive).

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 11, 2021, 11:45:45 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 11, 2021, 07:13:10 PM
I feel like what you're complaining about is that logically, the Jedi should have used their mind control and other powers to take over and rule the galaxy as it's overlords. The only reason why they don't is mysticism

Ethics isn't mysticism (in a direct sense). But yes, if the Jedi could enlighten people through force zaps (not mind control them since thats what you posit is happening), then why don't they? But they can't. And the ones that do mind control/mind cloud are the central antagonists and central to the plot.

But the Jedi may be good spiritual advisors, but not great rulers. Which is why they generally advised (but also did engage in violence and enforcement). If the force only picked out rulers-then yeah by and large only jedi would rule.

Because all those settings posit enlightenment/wisdom as something earned or deserved. While zapping enlightenment into past immortal emperors (deserving or not) feels more like a workaround for the fact that by default it would be a terrible idea if it happened to everybody.

But I haven't discussed at all about what is earned/deserved -- and you haven't asked. I would absolutely say that in New Horizons, enlightenment/wisdom is something earned and deserved, not something casually zapped into people. The emperors aren't undeserving schmucks who happen to be high born - any more than Aragorn or Galadriel are undeserving schmucks who just happen to be high born. If an emperor screwed up and designated an undeserving heir, then the empire would decline and perhaps fall.

I feel like the problem you're running into is a clash of high fantasy and more modern-day views of nobility.

In real life, I don't believe in having hereditary noble rulers. However, it's a tradition of high fantasy - and I think it's internally consistent. In Middle Earth, Aragorn was both born to be the true king and a deserving person. The same goes for King Arthur in Arthurian myth (and Pendragon the game). Like those, this is supposed to be a high fantasy game of fighting monsters and doing good, not grimdark backstabbing like Game of Thrones or Warhammer.

Quote from: jhkim on November 12, 2021, 01:59:39 PMBut I haven't discussed at all about what is earned/deserved -- and you haven't asked. I would absolutely say that in New Horizons, enlightenment/wisdom is something earned and deserved, not something casually zapped into people.

But you did

QuoteWhen their mortal body perishes, they undergo a ritual and have a divine vision that makes their mortal concerns seem small and petty. They still have free will - and they can still make mistakes or grow more corrupt later. Still, the experience will deeply influence and change them.

And you posited this point in response to my concerns that immortal rulers would squabble and cause conflict.

QuoteI feel like the problem you're running into is a clash of high fantasy and more modern-day views of nobility.

Im not G.R.R Martin. Its more the context. If Aragorn was immortal, and blessed with even more magical enlightenment from Eru-Iluviatar: why would he step down? The immortal elven rulers by and large did not step down.
Your combining a bunch of disparate elements I by and large follow and like into a single collection I think works against itself.

Shrieking Banshee -- I've been writing answers off the cuff, so sorry if I've miscommunicated. Taking your suggestions here:

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 11, 2021, 11:45:45 PM
I feel it would make more sense if it didn't last forever (the emperors crumble eventually), and it was a thing chosen by the family in place of the gods (similarly to how the family was what kept the incan ancestors alive).

I don't have any problem with these, and I'd be open to adopting them. Maybe past emperors slowly fade from a mummy to a demi-lich and then disappear after 500 years. And it makes sense that the family would have to go through the proper rites for an emperor to be mummified and thus kept in place. Going through mummification is a spiritual experience - like Jedi training, say - but it isn't an overt choice or act by the gods.

I don't quite see how it makes a difference, though, particularly for your main complaint. The fading would make no practical difference in the present of the setting since the empire is less than 500 years old. And all of the past emperors would be chosen by their family.  Your previous issue was:

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 12, 2021, 03:19:09 PM
Im not G.R.R Martin. Its more the context. If Aragorn was immortal, and blessed with even more magical enlightenment from Eru-Iluviatar: why would he step down? The immortal elven rulers by and large did not step down.
Your combining a bunch of disparate elements I by and large follow and like into a single collection I think works against itself.

If your changes were true, I don't see how that answers the question. The just-dead emperor only has four more centuries around and he has the support of his family. Why would he step down in that case?

I think the answer in the real setting would be the same regardless of whether I incorporate your changes or not. A living emperor isn't a horrible tyrant - he is like the Elvish kings or Aragorn or Jedi - an ethical ruler who takes his beliefs and responsibilities seriously. Upon dying, the emperor goes through a sacred ritual performed by his family that is deeply profound on a spiritual level. He arises disconnected from Earthly needs and desires like food or romance. He probably feels more call to sleep close to the earth and/or watch the stars. He has lived a full life and has children he loves and trusts - including his chosen heir. He retires because he now wants to focus on less worldly affairs, and because the job of ruling has been difficult.

Quote from: jhkim on November 12, 2021, 06:17:27 PMHe probably feels more call to sleep close to the earth and/or watch the stars. He has lived a full life and has children he loves and trusts - including his chosen heir. He retires because he now wants to focus on less worldly affairs, and because the job of ruling has been difficult.

Fair enough. Thats an explanation. Eventual psychological disconnection with the living. But in a benign way instead of a insane way.

Thats all very reasonable. Its just different then 'Because its mythological'.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 09, 2021, 12:22:42 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 09, 2021, 10:10:02 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 09, 2021, 09:56:01 AM
It's like the argument about orcs. It's your campaign. Make your undead however you like.

Your vampires can be like those freakshow nightmares from Lumley's Necroscope; or spirits puppeting a preserved corpse; or damned souls; or some strange biological offshoot. It's your game.

(personally, my go-to for unnerving undead has always been a toss up between the mohrg and the bodak)

My argument is semantic. To put it simply, I am disappointed that we can't use words like phylactery or lich in their original real world meanings because the fandom is full of autists who would find it confusing even though real language is chock full of ambiguities like that. The English word "set" has 430 distinct meanings. (https://www.vernonmorningstar.com/news/morning-start-the-english-word-with-the-most-definitions-is-set/)

I'm not saying we should stop calling them phylacteries and liches, since in a pedantic way they still count. The D&D lich is still a dictionary lich (i.e. a corpse), just with a ton of extra baggage tacked on (reanimated, wizard, soul jar). And it's profane phylactery is still a dictionary phylactery (i.e. a protected container of holy relics) in the same sense that a Satanic mass is still a mass.

That's semantics. Words can have multiple meanings, and there are multiple words to describe a given object.

As an Autist that has no problem with you using whatever word in whatever way let me ask you:

Your complaint is not being able to use the original meaning of a word while still using the D&D one? In the game?

So I'm the GM and I'm telling the party they find A Lich and they don't know what the fuck I'm talking about because it has several meanings, so I need to especify what do I mean by Lich. This time.

Yeah, I can see how that would make the game faster & more fun for everybody

It's not my fault that Gygax trained fantasy gamers to automatically think "lich" equals the ridiculously specific concept "an undead wizard with a soul jar" and arbitrarily crowded out all other possible uses of the word, such as "Clark Ashton Smith's word for zombie." Would you prefer that I used a different spelling like "lytche" or something to distinguish it? (At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if I have to use cheap tricks like that to keep readers' pattern recognition from kicking in.)

Your example is disingenuous. A decent GM would clarify from the onset that s/he was using "lich" in a different fashion than the MM says and provide a glossary for players to reference. Said GM would also use qualifiers for different varieties of liches to avoid confusion, similarly to how other monster families do: e.g. dragons are divided by color, age category, etc. If the game was called Labyrinths & Liches then we might have long lists of variants like so (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Lich). Given the ridiculous variety in that list alone (not counting the many varieties not listed there that I've personally read about, like akaliches, sound liches, arcane liches, awakened demiliches, etc), I wouldn't be surprised if we had a "menial slave lich" that was indistinguishable from a MM zombie. Altho I prefer a name that sounds really pretentious and on-the-nose, like "lich corpse cadaver" (patterned after the French-Haitian "zombie corps cadavre").

Also, what GM says "you see a lich"? That's so boring and meta-gamey. A decent GM would say "you see a withered corpse dressed in moldering finery, floating a few inches above the ground. It holds a large book in its hand and its eyes glow with an eerie green light. It points a finger at you and utters a curse, sending a ball of sickly green light hurtling towards you."

In real life words routinely have multiple meanings that require context to discern. For example, a "chimera" is both a mythological monster and a real world biological concept and I don't see fantasy gamers getting confused by the multiple meanings. There are random generation tables for chimera components (https://landofnod.blog/2011/07/06/chim-chimera-cheree/) and I don't see gamers getting confused that every possible combination doesn't have a unique name.

Anyway, I readily admit that my suggestion isn't going to catch on. I don't expect it to. It's far more likely that it would be renamed "voldemort" or "koschie" or "undead wizard with a soul jar" in fifty or a hundred years.