As the other thread became exceptionally focused on one topic once it was brought up I wanted a fresh start for the other mentioned taboos that The World's Most Famous Role Playing Game has run across over the years.
It was mentioned in the original post of the aforementioned thread that words like "demon" and "devil" weren't in the 2nd Edition but it wasn't mentioned why.
For those who didn't live through the time when simply playing a roleplaying game meant that you had to defend yourself from accusations of being a satanist from not only people with extreme points of view, but.... well... most people had only heard of it because of those extreme points of view. So if a kid did something violent, stupid or whatever and he had a Monster Manual in his room it would be mentioned.
People were blaming the ills of the world when it involved children on RPGs. Much like they (still) do with movie/television violence and video games today.
So I've alway been under the impression that the alternate names for evil extra-planar beings came about simply as a way to distance the game from "satan" or simply to remove ammunition from extremists.
Is that type of attitude still about for today's kids (18 and under)? Or did aggressively ignoring the idiots who spouted nonsense work? :D
I'm 24, and I've been playing since my mid teens in one form or another. I have to say that while I'd had the occasional eye-roll or "you would" it's not a big deal anymore.
This is particularly true when you consider that people outside of gaming as a whole are likely to lump video games and tabletop games together, and both don't really have a bad rap in my age bracket. The worst I ever see is someone who laughs and rolls their eyes at the idea of roleplaying, not the content involved therein.
But this is coming from a guy with a pixelated super mario mushroom tattooed on my chest.
|
I haven't seen/experienced that type of repression since the mid 80's. As a freashman in college I found a discount D&D store in Worcester (That's Entertainment). A friend still in high school asked me to get a copy of the 1st Ed. Player's Handbook. It was selling there for $7.88 (list price of $14.99 I believe, ok, maybe $12). I tried to give it to him the next time I was home. His parents answered the door and proceeded to condemn me for exposing their son to blasphemous material. I was shocked and scared. Back then I would have been an alter boy at my church if my church had alter boys. Yikes!
I think the world has grown up a bit and when the news tries to raise the satanic flag on D&D now, people loose respect for that station.
Though society still paints us all as geeks and nerds. But at least we gamers are mature enough to laugh at it.
|
|
The Demon and Devil name changes in 2E were stupid. It WAS to counter the fanatics. By using the historical names we were making their meanings weaker. I mean, a bunch of adventurers going off to kill these creatures doesn't mean we are satanists, just the opposite ... if we actually believed these things were real.
Though, I suppose changing the names might be one of the reasons the fanatics dispersed.
The Demon and Devil name changes in 2E were stupid. It WAS to counter the fanatics.
What I find terribly amusing is that despite not using "demon" or "devil" as nouns for much of 2e (it did pop up again later), the 2e material tended to be much darker and grim in its examination and description of the fiends versus 1e IMO.
I think that it makes the game more interesting considering that it gets somewhat away from real life religious beliefs.
It wouldn't have mattered if they'd called them Reds and Blues: once a phenomenon explodes, its detractors crawl out of the woodwork to weave their mischief. Every form of entertainment has its anti-fans. In 2e's case, it happened to be ill-informed and irritable fundamentalists who perpetuated the rumors/misinformation.
I'm glad I didn't have to endure that.
Oh, it started with first edition, Necromancer. 2Es practice was a reaction to the the condemnation of earlier editions.
I think that it makes the game more interesting considering that it gets somewhat away from real life religious beliefs.
You would have to change A LOT of creature names to effectively do that.
Unless you just mean POPULAR real-life religious beliefs.
|
My father taught me how to play the game back in 79 when I was 7 years old. After he got out of the military and away from the main group he played with he stopped playing for good and would call me a devil worshiper for playing the game he taught me to play.
I did not help with movies like this floating around either.
And I'm pretty sure devils and demons were not mentioned solely to pacify the christian population of the planet.
Oh, it started with first edition, Necromancer. 2Es practice was a reaction to the the condemnation of earlier editions.
Yeah, poor wording on my part, I've heard the stories.
From what I understand to be the 'trigger incidents' (James Egbert's multiple failed suicide attempts among others), it seemed like the frenzy grew from parents' grief. The child kills themself and the parent has no idea why, but here's this game they're playing that 'makes no sense' and the imagery/themes bother the parent. The parent can only lash out at the game, because introspection is apparently a sin.
Getting back to the original question (that I should've answered in the first place...):
Is that type of attitude still about for today's kids (18 and under)? Or did aggressively ignoring the idiots who spouted nonsense work?
Ignoring and refuting the nonsense seemed to work, says every gamer I know that experienced the religious assault.
Like I said before, 'glad I didn't have to deal with it.
|
|
I am 41 years old... been playing RPG's since i was about 11 (my own home made one at first). Having my friend over to play "Enchanted World" was never a problem for my folks. When I turned 14 and had money to buy D and D books... well things changed. My folks hated the art work and i was no longer allowed to have freinds come over and play if that was the game.
I have no idea how kids are treated now days but i do remember all the negativity about D and D in the 80's. Back then some extreem kids were dressing up (somewhere down south) and RP in a cave... they got hurt or loss... something happened nothing D and D related but becuase thats what they were doing at the time... thats what the Media blew Up about.
|
I haven't seen/experienced that type of repression since the mid 80's. As a freashman in college I found a discount D&D store in Worcester (That's Entertainment). A friend still in high school asked me to get a copy of the 1st Ed. Player's Handbook. It was selling there for $7.88 (list price of $14.99 I believe, ok, maybe $12). I tried to give it to him the next time I was home. His parents answered the door and proceeded to condemn me for exposing their son to blasphemous material. I was shocked and scared. Back then I would have been an alter boy at my church if my church had alter boys. Yikes!
I think the world has grown up a bit and when the news tries to raise the satanic flag on D&D now, people loose respect for that station.
Though society still paints us all as geeks and nerds. But at least we gamers are mature enough to laugh at it.
I still remember my mom making me sit through a church sermon on the evils of D&D back in the mid-80's.
As for society choosing to paint me as a geek or nerd, they are more than welcome to it. As a computer programmer, Star Trek fan, ect.. I get stuck with the lable long before anyone knows I still play rpg's.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Demon and Devil name changes in 2E were stupid. It WAS to counter the fanatics.What I find terribly amusing is that despite not using "demon" or "devil" as nouns for much of 2e (it did pop up again later), the 2e material tended to be much darker and grim in its examination and description of the fiends versus 1e IMO.
Personally, I MUCH prefer the named monsters (such as Tanar'ri and Baatezu) over genereic and humano-centric appellations (in 'common' to top it all) of devils and demons. Humans might call them that way for lack of proper knowledge, but I doubt that this is how the fiends would call themselves (even if they are proud of their sobriquet).
Same goes for angels; they may be flattered by the meaning of this word, but I doubt that this is how refer to each others.
Mind you, I'm equally upset about halflings and dwarves. 'halfling' implies they are half of 'something'; why would a race ever identify itself as being half of something else? (unless in their culture they are reaaally proud or shameful of their 'other half') Half-Orcs and Half-Elves at least have a 'half' to refer to and be defined by...
Dwarves? Again compared to whom? To their ancestral enemies the giants? (at which point humans and elves are dwarves too). Compared to the goblins? (wait, dwarves are bigger than goblins) or orcs (depending on the edition and description they are either slightly bigger, slightly smaller or the same size).
I wish more monsters, especially intelligent creatures with a society of their own that predates that of humans, would be referred to by the name they call themselves (even if by humans they are called by another humano-centric sobriquet like halfling, dwarf or demon.
/rant
'findel
I don't mind the different names at all, and in the end it helped create a fantastic idea of factions within the denizens. I just don't agree with WHY.
On Dwarves - The name existed well before it was used by even Tolkien. We named the condition after the folklore. You're putting the cart before the horse here. Dwarves are short, so we call things that are smaller than normal 'dwarfed'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_(Germanic_mythology)
Just for your own edification. "Dwarf" is definately not a humano-centrtic sobriquet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_(Germanic_mythology)
Just for your own edification. "Dwarf" is definately not a humano-centrtic sobriquet.
It isn't about how old they are compared to RPG cultures - demons and angels have been there for longer than the scandinavian Dvergar.
But you said it yourself: dwarf means short. Humans are shorter than a lot of things, yet we don't refer to ourselves as dwarves or short one (or the bald, or the hot-blooded etc).
Therefore, dwarves are short only when compared to something else, same goes for giants. As an intelligent race, we don't define ourselves to what we are in comparison to another race. Humans are less intelligent than elves, yet humans are not called the Stupids.
These names are humano-centric because they take humans as the base reference (for size in this case), but an intelligent race ought to take itself as a base for reference.
'findel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_(Germanic_mythology)
Just for your own edification. "Dwarf" is definately not a humano-centrtic sobriquet.
It isn't about how old they are compared to RPG cultures - demons and angels have been there for longer than the scandinavian Dvergar.
But you said it yourself: dwarf means short. Humans are shorter than a lot of things, yet we don't refer to ourselves as dwarves or short one (or the bald, or the hot-blooded etc).
Therefore, dwarves are short only when compared to something else, same goes for giants. As an intelligent race, we don't define ourselves to what we are in comparison to another race. Humans are less intelligent than elves, yet humans are not called the Stupids.
These names are humano-centric because they take humans as the base reference (for size in this case), but an intelligent race ought to take itself as a base for reference.
'findel
OK, you aren't going to listen. Fine.
Just for your own edification. "Dwarf" is definately not a humano-centrtic sobriquet.
Linked it for you.
And here's a direct quote for your edification.
Quote: "In Germanic mythology, a dwarf (Old English dweorg, Old Norse dvergr, Old High German zwerc and gitwerc) is a being that dwells in mountains and in the earth, and is associated with wisdom, smithing, mining, and crafting. Dwarfs are also sometimes described as short and ugly, although some scholars have questioned whether this is a later development stemming from comical portrayals of the beings."
OK, you aren't going to listen. Fine.
If I am missing something, then please explain rather then telling me to f**k off.
I believe you are referring to the fact that faeries (to which Scandinavian and Germanic dwarves belong) have 'diminished' both in size and power with the coming of Christianity, thus being 'dwarfed' by humankind and giving them a reason, perhaps a pride or a shame, to call themselves 'dwarf'.
But the typical fantasy Dwarves (as far as RPG goes) have nothing to do with that as far as I know. None of the Dwarves history and mythology in all fantasy settings that I know (including Tolkien) seems to suggest that they diminished from higher stature, that they have been 'dwarved'.
Only recently in Races of the Wild did the origin of Halflings suggest a potential link with the name of the race.
'findel
Laurefindel, I demonstrated how a certain point was explained by posting the link for you to read for yourself. And then I went an extra step to add the first sentences from that link in case you could not be bothered to go there yourself.
It seems you are more intent on being unreasonable than actually interested in a debate of any kind. Either that or you simply passed over my post as if I didn't even exist.
However it is, I won't flag your post, as I think Chuck needs to do it. You didn't spout profanity directed at me.
I lived in central florida around the time those Vampire the Masquerade killings. Bunch of kids were LARPing V:M and killed a couple (I think). It definitely discouraged me from telling others that I played and RPG.
For context, I started playing when I was 12 (in 1996), inside a Catholic family, being Catholic myself -to this day-, among Catholic friends, in a Catholic school, and in Chile, a mostly-Catholic country. In other words, Catholicism, Catholicism everywhere.
And I never once had an issue with RPGs being considered bad, evil, satanical, or any of that nonsense. In fact, my school was ripe with players of all ages, to the point we once had a D&D club going on on Thursday afternoon in one of the library's halls. And even one of the priests was a dedicated Ravenloft player, who I remember seeing DM at our club at least once a month (and, as a priest, he was well-versed in Latin, Greek, and all manners of lost languages, so he was great at setting up the mood. He was also a computer geek and used to build steam-powered contraptions during his free time in the school's workshops. A truly amazing man, now working as a missionary in Somalia, I think).
Instead, it was regarded as a great activity for us to engage, since the teachers who understood what they were about saw it as an excellent excercise in creativity (and we started playing just at a time when the chilean Catholic Church insisted in schools using alternate methods to engage the kids in their studies, so it fit like a glove). And those teachers who didn't understand what RPGs were just treated them like any other activity: Don't do it in class (yet with still did it in class, of course. Biology was a great time to cast fireballs at stuff. My grades were so, so bad in that thing, so bad).
Conversely, M:TG got a lot of bad reputation in my school at about the same time, since some parents were concerned that it was too akin to gambling or somesuch, and there was a short time (about 3-4 months) we used to call "The Prohibition", where the school didn't let us play M:TG within the premises. But that was quickly scrapped when the Lay Rector changed (our school had both a Lay Rector and an Ecclesiastical Rector).
I guess part of that was because, well, Chile is rather remote, and roleplaying games really only became widespread in the late 80's-early 90's (I know people that started playing in the late 70's, but they were few and far appart at the time), so people/media here never got to relate the game to ugly or dangerous stuff. And when you take that 80's stereotype from the game, what's left is a truly interesting thing that shines in a time when kids were becoming inceasingly less openly creative and social.
Laurefindel, I demonstrated how a certain point was explained by posting the link for you to read for yourself. And then I went an extra step to add the first sentences from that link in case you could not be bothered to go there yourself.
Sorry Dark Sasha, but your post wasn't there when I wrote my reply. You ninja'd me there, so your post couldn't influence the discussion yet.
I've red the articles (and others as well), but I'm not sure exactly what Chuck is referring to.
Does he refers to the fact that according to mythology, dwarves are described as short and thus merit their name?
Does he refers to the fact that they also bear other names and therefore 'dwarf' isn't really their name but merely what humans call them?
Does he refer to the fact that according to some myths, dwarves are the creators and precede humans, thus their name cannot be humano-centric?
Chuck, I need you guidance here.
Otherwise, all I can see is that dwarves are called as such because they are described as being short. But like beauty, 'shortness' is in the eye of the beholder. Dwarves are short compared to humans. Compared to a cat, they are large. Compared to an ant, they are giants. In fantasy, there are many intelligent races smaller than dwarves. They are only short to races bigger then themselves.
Granted: there are also many intelligent races larger than dwarves in fantasy other than humans. So the term humano-centric might not be correct (perhaps its elf-centric). But my point remains: one is only short compared to something taller, and I can't see the dwarves (or any other race for that matter) giving themselves a name that describes them in relation to another race. I could understand if there where only two races, that one race would call itself the 'tall ones' and the other the 'short ones', but this isn't the case.
The term dwarves (and halfling) certainly sounds a lot more like something the humans (or elves, or giants, or any other 'tall' race) call the dwarfish race rather than what the dwarves call themselves. They may be perfectly comfortable with this appellation and may even promote it to strangers, preferring to keep their own name secret (as in Tolkien's Middle Earth). As for Halflings, they may have a name that nobody cares to learn (like the hobbits of Tolkien's Middle Earth), but I wish that monstrous manuals and rulebooks would use those names instead of their sobriquets, or at acknowledge that they are sobriquets.
The later may actually be the case, I'd have to check...
Laurefindel, I demonstrated how a certain point was explained by posting the link for you to read for yourself. And then I went an extra step to add the first sentences from that link in case you could not be bothered to go there yourself.
Sorry Dark Sasha, but your post wasn't there when I wrote my reply. You ninja'd me there, so your post couldn't influence the discussion yet.
I've red the articles (and others as well), but I'm not sure exactly what Chuck is referring to.
I think his point was that the word 'dwarf' didn't MEAN 'short', but rather came to mean 'short' when humans referred to short humans as 'dwarfed' because dwarves were generally viewed as shorter than humans.
IOW the use of dwarf for short is a secondary meaning, not a primary one. Dwarf means magical mountain dwelling humanoid creature, not 'short thing'.
According to Dictionary.com, "Dwarf" comes from the Middle English word "Dwerf", which in turn goes back to other words, probably corroborating what has been said. But what's important here is "Dwerf".
Dwerf.
DWERF.
Think of it, now think of a character who's a dwerf.
I've red the articles (and others as well), but I'm not sure exactly what Chuck is referring to.Does he refers to the fact that according to mythology, dwarves are described as short and thus merit their name?
Does he refers to the fact that they also bear other names and therefore 'dwarf' isn't really their name but merely what humans call them?
Does he refer to the fact that according to some myths, dwarves are the creators and precede humans, thus their name cannot be humano-centric?
Chuck, I need you guidance here.
I'm not Chuck, obviously, but I believe the point he was making is that the use of the term "dwarf" for describing a individual of reduced stature was derived from the "dwarf" mythological creature that had shortness as a characteristic, not the other way around.
We didn't name the mythological beings dwarves because they were short, we called short humans dwarfs because they resembled the mythological being. The word "dwarf" meant the creature from Norse myth first, and then later came to be applied to humans with growth disorders.
Does that help clear things up?
Words can change meaning over time. Maybe "Dwarf" is what the dwarven people call themselves (At the time the word meaning "the People" instead of short). Though dwarves are short (as compared to humans), and humans eventually began to call other short things dwarf-like, and eventually just shortened that to "dwarfs". SO over time, "Dwarf" had its meaning changed for "The People" to just meaning short.
As for halfling, in the Forgotten Realms halfling is just what everybody else call them. Their name for themselves is Hin.
Dwarf and Halfling are just the Common translations of the dwarven and halfling word for themselves. In Races of Stone (a book for 3.5 D&D), there is a sample of the dwarven language. Using that, their name for themselves could be Azrin, meaning Children of Rock or Children of the Stone. "Dwarf" is just the common translation amoungst non-dwarves. Just like how we call the people from Japan Japanese, despite the Japanese calling the country Nippon. And just like in Tolkiens writings, where its "dwarfs" to most everyone, but Khazâd to the dwarves themselves.
Actually, Laurefindel, the point that Dark Sasha is trying to get across is that the words 'giant' and 'dwarf' were first used as the names of races of beings. They were, receptively, abnormally large and small by comparison to the average human. Eventually, the words evolved from their original premiss, as proper names, to common terms used to describe the scale of one item in relation to another.
Halfling is originally a term used by the Scots to denote an adolescent, someone between a child and an adult. Tolkien used the term himself when describing his hobbits, and for legal reason that term cannot be used by a publisher.
Actually, Laurefindel, the point that Dark Sasha is trying to get across is that the words 'giant' and 'dwarf' were first used as the names of races of beings.
... and then the meaning was transferred into our language as a qualitative based on the aspect of that race? So the chicken came before the egg so to speak. I get it now.
That's interesting. The etymology is different in french.
As for halfling, it is also used to describe a breed of small horses (large ponys actually, the halflinger) and with other animals as well, but still, the term still means half of something else (be it a fully grown man or a full height horse).