| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi all,
Not to be a stick in the mud (though that's exactly what I'm about to do), but how does everyone feel about changing Mongrelmen to Mongrelfolk? This is more a concern of me being pedantic than politically correct, thought that's a fair concern too. Paizo could always just change the name entirely (Mongrel has unfortunate implications as well, though not relevant to this particular species).
The sticking point for me is that Mongrelmen aren't all male, and it isn't a case of "there are no dwarven women" because they look identical. There's a canon mongrelman (mongrelwoman?) who is clearly female in an AP. This isn't even to get into creatures who don't identify as either (bigender, non-binary, genderfluid, etc.).
Mongrelmen also don't seem to have any particular reason to be sexist or discount non-male members of their people. It's possible there's a writeup that I don't have access to (yes, I don't own every book Paizo has published). Even if mongrelmen is a derogatory term that other races call them (I don't see any evidence of this despite it making a lot of sense), why would they assume they're all male?
And yeah, I know that this could dig into a bigger can of worms in regards to gender in tabletop games/fantasy, but I'd rather just focus on the topic at hand (because that's an endless rabbit hole). Alternate names would be welcome, but I have zero interest in discussing whether more inclusivity is warranted in gaming (it is, end of discussion).
And yes, I'm well aware that mongrelmen go all the way back to at least 2e. I believe that they're called mongrelfolk in D&D at this point.
For my own purposes, I'll be calling them mongrelfolk going forward. And if I'm a dumbus and just missed that this change (or similar) has already been made, be nice in letting me know. I'm not omniscient.
Any thoughts?
Creative Director
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mongrel (if you're trying to be mean to them) or (preferably) mongrelfolk are the words we use for them. They don't really have a name for themselves as an ancestry, but might have individual names for their groups or families or clans or nations. But yeah, we've pretty much completely abandoned the out-of-date suffix of "-man" for all of our ancestries.
And no, it's not open for a public vote. ;-)
What do we call gill-people now that they're not gillmen?
Like my last gillperson character I literally made a dude to avoid the nomenclature awkwardness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not against it using Mongrelfolk, but in the same sort of way that people refer to "Mankind" I'm not opposed to having left it as Mongrelmen.
Ultimately, either is fine. If Paizo had left it as Mongrelmen because of legacy, I wouldn't have bated an eye. Changing it doesn't really illicit much of a reaction except "Huh, that's new".
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not against it using Mongrelfolk, but in the same sort of way that people refer to "Mankind" I'm not opposed to having left it as Mongrelmen.
Ultimately, either is fine. If Paizo had left it as Mongrelmen because of legacy, I wouldn't have bated an eye. Changing it doesn't really illicit much of a reaction except "Huh, that's new".
We don't use "Mankind" in print either, and hopefully we're heading forward into a better tomorrow where people won't use that word as much anymore as well. "Humanity" is a much better word to use, and it's the one I prefer to use when talking about all of us. Otherwise, it feels like I'm only talking about half of us.
Mongrel (if you're trying to be mean to them) or (preferably) mongrelfolk are the words we use for them. They don't really have a name for themselves as an ancestry, but might have individual names for their groups or families or clans or nations. But yeah, we've pretty much completely abandoned the out-of-date suffix of "-man" for all of our ancestries.
And no, it's not open for a public vote. ;-)
Very much appreciated. Are there any published materials that have used the updated name? Sadly I don't have the spare cash to buy every product Paizo produces, even though if I did I probably would :p
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very much appreciated. Are there any published materials that have used the updated name? Sadly I don't have the spare cash to buy every product Paizo produces, even though if I did I probably would :pMongrel (if you're trying to be mean to them) or (preferably) mongrelfolk are the words we use for them. They don't really have a name for themselves as an ancestry, but might have individual names for their groups or families or clans or nations. But yeah, we've pretty much completely abandoned the out-of-date suffix of "-man" for all of our ancestries.
And no, it's not open for a public vote. ;-)
Not recently. We've increasingly focused on our own monsters and creatures in 2nd edition and have less of a reliance on things from the D&D legacy overall, and mongrelfolk are one of those things that we don't do much with these days. They'll still be part of the upcoming Wrath of the Righteous computer game, of course.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm bit confused by notion that "human" is much different from "man" since whole "human, man, woman" still all include the word?
But then again, in my native language its "ihminen, mies, nainen" so harder to have that issue when they are completely different words :p So I've always seen it just as just another weird english language thing, like how its weird how spanish has gendered terms for all nouns
(mind you I also like it we don't have gendered pronouns :p)
Anyhoo, bit confused about the real big emphasis on avoiding "D&D monsters" in setting with aboleths being in big role in backstory. Like umm, is this a new company mandate or is it just Paizo wants to create more original iconic monsters rather than most popular ones being D&D creations?
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyhoo, bit confused about the real big emphasis on avoiding "D&D monsters" in setting with aboleths being in big role in backstory. Like umm, is this a new company mandate or is it just Paizo wants to create more original iconic monsters rather than most popular ones being D&D creations?
It's partially us at Paizo being more fond of things we create—pride in things we've brought to the gaming table.
It's also partially the fact that as we do more and more non-OGL stuff with Golarion, it's better for us to have a larger stable of creatures we can put in novels or whatever that we own or that are from mythology.
It's also partially pride in Pathfinder itself. It's certainly based on D&D, but it's not D&D, and the more we bang the drum for the non-D&D elements, the more we build up ourselves.
All, I suppose, engendered in the company's DNA after we lost the licenses to do Dragon and Dungeon magazine and had to come up with something else that let us keep the doors open and not all go find other jobs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do wish we could’ve not kept “mongrel” around.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not recently. We've increasingly focused on our own monsters and creatures in 2nd edition and have less of a reliance on things from the D&D legacy overall, and mongrelfolk are one of those things that we don't do much with these days. They'll still be part of the upcoming Wrath of the Righteous computer game, of course.
I'm very excited. I'm a huge fan of the Golarion setting (it's what sold me and continues to sell me on Pathfinder- among other things), and everything you've continued to roll out has been fantastic. I'm extremely happy with everything you've done with the Alghollthu society in particular.
And I definitely backed the WotR game. Would have backed Kingmaker if I'd had the money at the time.
I'm bit confused by notion that "human" is much different from "man" since whole "human, man, woman" still all include the word?It's much less confusing to women.
Not to take away from your witty quip, but I think in this particular instance it's less a question of sexism than linguistics. Other cultures don't necessarily have the same gender constructs as we do. I can't speak to Finland with any level of expertise, however.
I will say that I super appreciate Paizo's attention to providing inclusive language in their products. It's another big selling point for me.
I do wish we could’ve not kept “mongrel” around.
Yeah, it's got unfortunate connotations as well. To be fair, we probably won't see mongrelfolk in any products after the WotR game (which isn't produced by Paizo anyway).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm bit confused by notion that "human" is much different from "man" since whole "human, man, woman" still all include the word?It's much less confusing to women.Not to take away from your witty quip, but I think in this particular instance it's less a question of sexism than linguistics. Other cultures don't necessarily have the same gender constructs as we do. I can't speak to Finland with any level of expertise, however.
I will say that I super appreciate Paizo's attention to providing inclusive language in their products. It's another big selling point for me.
It is more of linquistics thing to me indeed, not my fault English language got rid of werman/wifman to make it into man/woman :P And regarding Finnish, we do have words like waiter/waitress and "palomies"(aka fire fighter), but both of former have been over last decade been phased out of use. I'm sure some people still use the older worlds and refuse to use the newer terms, but official institutions don't use them anymore at least.
(sorry for venting that out, but I've noticed increasingly that I get annoyed when people assume I am male even though I am probably male. Maybe? I don't really understand what identifying with gender is supposed to be like? I know what my sex is, but that doesn't help me understand other people of my sex. Either way I literally just woke up so I'm more vulnerable to venting out instead of just avoiding mentioning things I talk to my therapist about :P )
Either way though whatever my confusion, the wit still applies to me since I'm not woman so its not like its wrong I guess. But yeah just wanted to vent out
(You might want to consider some sort of non-binary or agender identity?)
|
|
(You might want to consider some sort of non-binary or agender identity?)
My preference has been to just avoid mentioning it all the time and let it go whichever way people assume it, normally I wouldn't even comment on it if I wasn't being morning groggy. I prefer they purely on principle, but I haven't really minded he/him being used of me. I get oddly delighted when people use she/her, but I usually correct people on my sex.
Like its possible that I'm agender(I'm not sure if its correct term either since I feel more apathetic about my gender? I just don't think about what my gender is unless someone provokes me to think about it), but its also possible that I just have complex because I associate my gender with bullying? I don't mind my sex being stated, but on Internet when people can't see my sex I get annoyed about it since I feel like it means people think I identify with male people more strongly when its kinda opposite to me?
Anyway, blergh, I should leave this talk to my therapist