So I have been recently educated on why the term "golem" being used to describe a humanoid monster construct made out of X, Y or Z is...rather offensive to some people. And I have to say, after getting the whole picture, I get it.
Golem stories are complex things about the path to a spiritual enlightenment, and of discovering that path in the first place (just using super broad strokes, here. Apologies if my summary is inaccurate. Please feel free to correct me if I have made any errors). To have that reduced to "a dude made out of clay/flesh/iron/stone that punches you" is...ouphe.
Has anyone run into this problem at the table? What term could we use instead?
I've just been calling similar monsters in my games things like "stone warriors" or "temple guardians".
This hasn't come up for me, but I see the point. I'd have no problem with swapping the term if it made someone feel better.
I have never run into such a concern, not even on rpg.net. If you're going to use a different term you might as well use 'construct' IMO; the construct type was all but invented for golems.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a weird take on golem myth. The whole point of even the earliest golem stories is that a man without a soul shouldn't exist(Talmudic Jeremiah's golem) or isn't a man(Talmudic Adam's first 12 hours). The most supportive reading of Jeremiah's golem as a metaphor for the necessity of enlightenment, would still leave a golem as a soulless beast.
Later stories are a bit more literal, with people animating statues by putting god's name, or god's word, or truth, on or in the golem and imbuing it with life. They're all blatant metaphors for using evangelism to create allies rather than fighting to win them.
I guess it could be offensive to people without souls.
The point was...let's see if I can accurately summarize it:
We all start out as these living things that are ignorant of their lack of spirit/soul/enlightenment. In fact, we are so ignorant of it that we aren't aware that it's even an option. We're ignorant of our ignorance.
But then there's a moment of awakening, a moment where we're like "oh. There's this whole journey I could go on", and we realize what we are lacking. And so we go from base clay to an actual person, like Adam being shaped from the clay and then being given the breath of life.
To take that and go "ssso...a big clay guy that punches", yeah, I can see how that feels like a reduction, a cheap knock-off of something actually pretty powerful.
Borrowing a term is one thing. Over-simplifying it and presenting it to a larger audience so that your inaccurate, unimportant version becomes more widespread and accepted than the original...that's another.
And yeah, Constructs are probably 75% golems, 20% animated objects and 5% random stuff in terms of significance. I've found that my generalized terms do just fine, because when you see a 9ft stone statue come to life, the words "stone" and "statue" don't really need to be part of it's name. That's rather apparent.
In one game, I referred to some stone soldiers (lvl5 human warriors with a high Str, construct immunities and DR10) as "the Dragon's Teeth". One of the players even got the reference.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That has nothing to do with golem myth, it sounds like modern generic spiritualism.
There's the Adam golem, created and animate, with a soul breathed into him. There's no journey, it's an act of god granting meaning to life.
There's Jeremiah's golem, created with hubris defying god as the sole creator of souls and life.
There's the much theorized and debated instructions for how to make an animate clay man in the Sefer Yetzirah. But there's a reason why attempting to divine the intent and means of god is traditionally restricted to rabbis in groups.
There's the golem of Prague, a 1500s story about Rabbi Eliyahu creating a golem to protect people that then grew out of control. This is the origin of modern golem stories.
Whoever educated you on the topic, was not qualified to do so. The myth has nothing to do with gaining enlightenment through spiritual journeys. I can only speculate why your teacher would tell you to avoid using golem for it's traditional purpose.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That has nothing to do with golem myth, it sounds like modern generic spiritualism.
There's the Adam golem, created and animate, with a soul breathed into him. There's no journey, it's an act of god granting meaning to life.
There's Jeremiah's golem, created with hubris defying god as the sole creator of souls and life.
There's the much theorized and debated instructions for how to make an animate clay man in the Sefer Yetzirah. But there's a reason why attempting to divine the intent and means of god is traditionally restricted to rabbis in groups.
There's the golem of Prague, a 1500s story about Rabbi Eliyahu creating a golem to protect people that then grew out of control. This is the origin of modern golem stories.
Whoever educated you on the topic, was not qualified to do so. The myth has nothing to do with gaining enlightenment through spiritual journeys. I can only speculate why your teacher would tell you to avoid using golem for it's traditional purpose.
that.
also the Hebrow word 'Golem' is actually referring to the phase where a caterpillar is inside his cocoon. it's used to name the constructs later on as a word to describe something that appear (or should be) inanimate but has life in it.don't see why anyone should be offended by saying cocoon...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a Jew and a gamer, for what that's worth, and I'm not offended. I guess if cultural appropriation is a massive concern, you're probably offended by a whole lot of stuff in D&D/Pathfinder, as Gygax and his posterity really just took every cool thing they could think of and threw it in there. Ninja, Samurai, Cavaliers, Witches, "Barbarians" (wow, really?). They're all fantasy creations based VERY LOOSELY on real world legends and history.
I guess if someone at your particular table is offended by it, either don't use them or use Construct or (borrowing from White Wolf) you could use The Created.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That has nothing to do with golem myth...
Again, I really don't think I'm doing it justice, but I'll try to clarify a little:
The examples you bring up are, at least by a small population, viewed as allegorical. So like, the breath of life/giving of a soul is like...a metaphor for finding the deeper meaning within existence through faith or spirituality?
And then the stories about man-made golems are a nod to how life in it's deeper, truer sense cannot be created (gained) without faith/a soul, so like..the limitations on worldly things?
But you are obviously vastly more informed on this topic than I am.
...the Hebrow word 'Golem' is actually referring to the phase where a caterpillar is inside his cocoon.
That is really interesting.
I've come across a similar issue with the term "phylactery" actually being a vessel that contains holy text...except "phylactery" is a less contemporary term that really means more generally "container", where as the specific "teffalin" would be more accurate in defining the first item....if cultural appropriation is a massive concern, you're probably offended by a whole lot of stuff in D&D/Pathfinder, as Gygax and his posterity really just took every cool thing they could think of and threw it in there. Ninja, Samurai, Cavaliers, Witches...
Right. And I mean...the modern gaming community *is* changing their approach to a lot of that stuff.
Look at 5e's Ravenloft. From what I've read, they really took steps to avoid offensive stereotypes and tropes and presenting different cultures as "exotic".But you bring up an excellent point in "Promethean: the Created". I actually asked these other people what they thought about that game in particular. And they felt like it was great; it's literally a game about golems seeking out humanity and their struggles because they lack it.
It kind of makes me wonder...like, if I just plop a golem in a dungeon room and say "roll Initiative", I can see how that would feel like I'm not really giving the golem-concept much respect. Because I'm not.
Now, I could tell a story about a golem after I do some reading and research and try to make it complex and meaningful. That would almost definitely be better.
But what if I plop a golem in a dungeon room and say "roll Initiative"...but still include some nods to the greater meaning and significance of the concept within that short encounter? Like, maybe it's not the focal point of the story, but I can still try to be informed about it?
I am going to say what I usually say in these cases: "Offense" is a red herring. What matters is harm.
I feel like my previous comment about over-simplifying an idea and presenting it to a larger audience so that your inaccurate, unimportant version becomes more widespread and accepted than the original would qualify as "harm", at least in some ways.
This brings me right back to the wendigo and the skinwalker. There are some people who's cultures have been subjected to physical and cultural extermination. So it feels more significant to mess with their stories and potentially misinform a ton of people? I mean, at least compared to like...stories of King Arthur and dragons and stuff. Those populations at large, their cultures well-documented.
But then there's the concept of living stories versus cultural history. The skinwalker stories are part of a living tradition. Like...maybe it's not *wrong* to write up stats for Jesus Christ with a constant Water Walk ability and DR15/nails, but it feels like it's in poor taste, right?
And the golem stories. Hm. It's not like there's a thriving population who believe you can actually make a clay robot with ancient magic. But if the stories aren't literal, then that doesn't matter so much as the significance of the metaphor.
Thank you everyone for your replies. I'm doing my best to ignore the snarky remarks and sarcasm. I can assure you I am not trying to oppress your gaming experience or creative license. I am just trying to wrap my head around a very complicated topic. These types of threads don't seem to fair very well on these forums, but all the snark and sarcasm is worth it if I can find a few pearls of insight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never run into this personally, but if someone is offended by the term Golem, you can always call them Constructs instead. Or simply make up your own new name to use in lieu of Golem.
Golem Name Generator <--- this is for actual names of golems, but there's no reason you couldn't just rename all Golems as "Dhons" or "Lideons" or "Drudramms".
Hit the random name button til you find something appropriate to rename them and press on.
Arthur doesn't get defended because he has a thriving population, and kabbalist mysticism doesn't get defended because it doesn't have a thriving population? I honestly don't know how many people believe in Arthur myths any more than I know how many people believe in the more magical kabbalah concepts, but it seems weird to target support right in the middle of too high and too low of a population.
The allegorical meaning of traditional golem myth is still at odds with this idea of a spiritual journey. Jeremiah's golem didn't go soul searching, he asked to be killed, either because only god can grant souls or he doesn't want to undermine god as the sole creator. If you are meant to identify with the golem, it's a very bleak story. I think in another version the golem is destroyed on sight with a word. I can't think of a population that believes that it's an allegory about soul searching, I haven't heard of it and I'm a bit of a religion nerd. Did they site anything or recommend a book?
There's no real problem with using the golem concept for a soul searching story, it fits well and falls in line with much more modern versions of the golem story like Frankenstein or Short Circuit. I even understand being perturbed that someone's story deviates from the version you're most familiar with, that can be an awful feeling particularly if the story is important to you. I'm a little unsure why someone would feel personally attacked by that change though, so I wouldn't know how to make adjustments to accommodate them.
I am a little annoyed that golems don't follow the creation and destruction instructions that have been written about. I'd much rather tell them to turn to dust or smudge out the word on their forehead than crack them open with an adamantine hammer.
Arthur doesn't get defended because he has a thriving population, and kabbalist mysticism doesn't get defended because it doesn't have a thriving population?
Hey, I'm just trying to piece together a lot of different ideas myself, here. This is all very much a developing theory for me, and I'm almost constantly out of my depth.
From everything I've been reading and hearing, it's like...okay, so if a culture's stories are only known to a small population, then it's easier for them to get warped and damaged in a way that the actual culture has no say in.But then there's also a separate thing where it's like...the difference between history and living belief?
I can't think of a population that believes that it's an allegory about soul searching, I haven't heard of it and I'm a bit of a religion nerd. Did they site anything or recommend a book?
Not specifically, no. Just their own religious experiences.
I think what's important at this point is to clarify that the golem stories are not part of my culture, so I really don't want to try and define what they mean or anything. It's more about the fact that I've heard at least some people express concern that the stories are reduced, simplified and misrepresented, and that they feel this is harmful to their culture in some way.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The term Golem has been used to refer to various different concepts and creatures in multiple different cultures and religions for centuries. The oldest of which referring to a soulless constructed being, and is often synonymous to Homunculus. The most common usage comes from around the Middle Ages, referring to living statues or animated suits of armor. This is the version that is typically used in fantasy. The version you are referring to however, is a more modern concept, only really finding usage in the last couple hundred years. The idea of a golem being a stage in spiritual enlightenment was brought up in a few different religions as a way to help newcomers to start a journey to enlightenment. To claim that the fantasy usage of the term Golem serves only to “ over-simplifying an idea and presenting it to a larger audience so that your inaccurate, unimportant version becomes more widespread and accepted than the original” is completely inaccurate in this case… the fantasy usage is a much older concept, while the actual original usage is synonymous to Homunculus.
Various different “fantasy creatures” hold origins from various different culture beliefs and folk tails. Many even share names with different creatures from other cultures. From time to time a fantasy story or game will surface that uses a different cultures version of a creature, and those used to one particular version of which’s origin is well known to them may feel is an Afro t to their beliefs. However, the writers usage of the creature may very well be true to the culture they chose adapted it from. Would they be in the wrong to do so? Of course not.
Your mention of Wendigos and Skinwalkers invites a perfect example even… there are tales of creatures known as Wendigos in several cultures around the world, not all of them speak of the same creature however. In some a Wendigo is a giant lanky creature that lurks behind trees waiting for travelers to become lost so that it may devour them. Some claim Wendigos to be winter spirits, depending on the culture they may be malevolent or benevolent. A few even describe them as furred beasts. But where your mention creates a prime example is that in a few Native American beliefs a Wendigo is described as a Skinwalker. Various different cultures around the world have tales of skinwalkers, each with their own name. Also, the same tribes that have these particular beliefs about Wendigos also share stories of “Skinwalkers” which they describe as ancient warriors of the tribe who were blessed by the spirits with the ability to become a sacred animal. While most cultures view Skinwalkers as beings that wear the skin of a once living person replacing them for one reason or another.
Chell Raighn, would you be able to point me to a source regarding either of these things? I have seen and heard nothing along those lines, but would very much be interested in learning more.
It's hard for me to get past the fact that I've read multiple people from native tribal cultures essentially say "this story isn't yours. Don't take it, don't talk about it. You are not welcome to it. Doing so is causing my culture harm."
Has anyone run into this problem at the table? What term could we use instead?
I've just been calling similar monsters in my games things like "stone warriors" or "temple guardians".
I've read the whole thread, but i feel like people are arguing too much about wether it's alright to get offended or not and i don't wanna get into that debate, so i'll try to answer those two questions.
1. I've never ran into the problem of offending someone at my table. I mostly play with childhood friend so we're generally pretty aware about what offends us or not. I do try to be cautious when around newer folk. Imo, the best way to handle those kind of situation is to apologize and be willing to listen. Asking for permissions before introducing heavy subject is also good manners.
2. As for an alternate name i feel like ''Construct'' being a type of creature would be too broad. So what about ''Automaton''? Seems to me like it can fit the bill. You can have Clay Automaton, Mithral Automaton, Adamantine Automaton, etc.
Anyway, that's my own two cents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chell Raighn, would you be able to point me to a source regarding either of these things? I have seen and heard nothing along those lines, but would very much be interested in learning more.
I would say to just try google searching... but in recent years, getting any reliable information out of google requires scanning through hundreds of pages of the same Woke culture crap... The best I can offer atm without spending hours digging through search results to give you some good sources is to suggest reading up on beleifs from different specific tribes instead of just the generalized articles out there. Each tribe has their own specific beliefs, and they don't all line up with eachother. For some the beliefs are so radically different that they wouldn't be identified as the same creature.
As for the golem... the first instance of Golem used as a symbol of spiritual enlightenment came about from the myriad of different verbal tellings of the story of the Golem of Prague, back in the late 1500s... though historians debate if any such verbal tellings truely existed since the oldest written record of the story is from 1837... while stories of Golems as little more than animated statues and feeble attempts to create life can be found as far back as the 11th century.
It's hard for me to get past the fact that I've read multiple people from native tribal cultures essentially say "this story isn't yours. Don't take it, don't talk about it. You are not welcome to it. Doing so is causing my culture harm."
To be quite honest, the majority of people making those claims have done no research into the stories or names to learn that their culture is not the only one to have those tales or that other cultures do exist that believe in creatures that share the same names but are vastly different.
Anyone who's studied linguistics to any degree can tell you even, it's not uncommon for two cultures that are worlds apart to develop the exact same word but with completely different meanings. This happens for folk tales, common terms, and even family names.
2. As for an alternate name i feel like ''Construct'' being a type of creature would be too broad. So what about ''Automaton''? Seems to me like it can fit the bill. You can have Clay Automaton, Mithral Automaton, Adamantine Automaton, etc.
I'd avoid using Automaton as a substitute for Golem in most instances... reason being is that it is likely to draw the wrong imagery to mind for most. When someone speaks of an Automaton, the general depiction is of a machine, typically a clockwork construct. While "construct" may be very broad, it is also more likely to draw the correct imagery to mind as well.
As noted, most constructs you see are golems anyway. If you need to distinguish golems from the rest maybe add the word immutable - "immutable stone construct", etc., because the distinguishing feature of golems is that most magic doesn't affect them.
2. As for an alternate name i feel like ''Construct'' being a type of creature would be too broad. So what about ''Automaton''? Seems to me like it can fit the bill. You can have Clay Automaton, Mithral Automaton, Adamantine Automaton, etc.I'd avoid using Automaton as a substitute for Golem in most instances... reason being is that it is likely to draw the wrong imagery to mind for most. When someone speaks of an Automaton, the general depiction is of a machine, typically a clockwork construct. While "construct" may be very broad, it is also more likely to draw the correct imagery to mind as well.
Yeah i guess it's tied a bit too much to ''machinery'' to make a proper substitute. Although, i'm still not convinced on using ''Construct'' to me it's way too broad. Technically the word ''Construct'' means a physical thing that is built.
As noted, most constructs you see are golems anyway. If you need to distinguish golems from the rest maybe add the word immutable - "immutable stone construct", etc., because the distinguishing feature of golems is that most magic doesn't affect them.
Not a bad idea. Although it reminds me of inivetable from Dnd.
I'm thinking maybe we could use a neologism. I don't have anything good, ''Animmutable'' is all i can think off, and i'm not too sure about it lol.