| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"new posters" isn't a very good metric
"So again it seems as an attempt to deflect"
And again, this change was put in place and sent off to the printers long before any of this, so hanging on to this theory just deteriorates your post further.
And what is your metric, I see you really don’t have one either beyond not being able to really say anything beyond attacking the poster. Which is your usual tactic when you can’t actually respond in good faith to a post.
I wanted to buy the Guns Gears pocket edition through Amazon and it’s already out of stock. Let me tell you Oaizo is going to do anything because it seems are not hurting enough to warrant a response. Yes they will some subscriptions yet they have fans like me who blunt without. Until they actually lose a decent amount of profit they are going to circle the wagons and protect their own. No matter how many like yourself who are unhappy.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
How many new posters have shown up in the Update thread requesting that something be done about the doxxing and transphobia.
It just seems to me at least it is the same ones over and over asking Paizo to give a definite answer to both.
So again it seems as an attempt to deflect from the real issues and hoping no one notices.
Tell me you really don't understand how long it takes to publish a book without telling me you don't understand how long it takes to publish a book. This isn't something they could throw out in the last month and a half to "deflect" from allegations. This book had to go to the printer long before that, especially with the supply chain as screwed up as it is right now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The lich's phylactery was taking a piece of Jewish tradition and tying it to a monster that was always evil, and which was evil in large part because of the item that was representative of Jewish lore.
The word predates contact with Jews if not Judeism itself.
The idea is hardly unique to Judeism. (there's a list of similar things above, and the name was also applied to the boxes that kept the parts of saints in Christiniaty)
There's no apparently link between fantasy tabletop gamers and antisemitism. (Note: Individual anti semetic gamers does not establish such a link)
This looks like a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist.
While everything you say here is true? It is pretty clear to anyone with the ability to think and the 10 seconds it takes to look it up where Gygax got his inspiration.
I can separate art from artist once an age or so has passed. But it is disingenuous to assert that Gygax didn't take his inspiration from his field of view. He saw something he could put to his purpose and he did. Very often. And a lot of his creative genius derived from it.
But, it is very clear that the Jewish Phylactery, as described and utilized in their religion, was the inspiration for what Gygax eventually used in DnD.
But again, everything you said is true. The term is used across many religions, and even predates Judaism. Doesn't change the fact that Gygax was focusing on what he knew.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While everything you say here is true? It is pretty clear to anyone with eyes and the 10 seconds it takes to look it up where Gygax got his inspiration
And do you think that said inspiration was -Oh hey that thing is cool, and it has a really cool name lets use that- or that there there was some deliberate antisemitism involved in the association?
If its the first, if there's no anti antisemitism intended in using the word and there's no antisemitism inherent in the association with the word itself then where is the antisemitism? It's not in the intent of the author. It's not in the word itself.
(If the author is irrelevant. Why is the english teacher relevant?)
Something that inspired the author could be taken in a way not inherent in the word to have negative connotations is just too many degrees of separation for me to think it's relevant. A link that tenuous could apply to a LOT of things.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While everything you say here is true? It is pretty clear to anyone with eyes and the 10 seconds it takes to look it up where Gygax got his inspirationAnd do you think that said inspiration was -Oh hey that thing is cool, and it has a really cool name lets use that- or that there there was some deliberate antisemitism involved in the association?
If its the first, if there's no anti antisemitism intended in using the word and there's no antisemitism inherent in the association with the word itself then where is the antisemitism? It's not in the intent of the author. It's not in the word itself.
(If the author is irrelevant. Why is the english teacher relevant?)
Something that inspired the author could be taken in a way not inherent in the word to have negative connotations is just too many degrees of separation for me to think it's relevant. A link that tenuous could apply to a LOT of things.
Honestly? I don't know. I'd like to think that it is along the lines of 'This would be cool!' and as a fan of Gygax, which I am a huge fan of his art, I would like to believe that. But the way his kid tarnished his legacy lately it is harder to believe that. Coupled with the Satanic Panic I could see many people in our circles try to lash out at the people who are trying to stifle them. It's not out of the realm of possibility on either side of this.
I wasn't there. None of us were. All I am saying is that it is clear where the inspiration came from, and we are all human. Once we know better we should do better.
I don't mind this change because it is in fact taking a religious object and using it for evil purposes in a game that is meant to, at least in my circles, bring people together to have a good time.
I have no problem with a change like this if the intent is to bring more people to my hobby. Personally I think the name they changed it to was lacking, but the name change itself is a positive.
And, to be clear. Many people do not intend to cause harm. But when we find out we are causing harm and decide to continue down that path? I personally don't care what the original intent is, once the harm is identified and nothing is done to correct course? Then yes, it is now intentional.
And also to be clear. Nothing you say here is incorrect in and of itself. But like I said. As humans? When we know better we should do better.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
That he could casually take it to represent an immensely evil object in the first place was antisemitic.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't there. None of us were. All I am saying is that it is clear where the inspiration came from, and we are all human. Once we know better we should do better.
Better only applies if you believe this sort of loose association, that anything connected to anything anti____ or ___phobic becomes bad. If you don't believe that (And if it's not clear, I don't) then this isn't an area to improve upon.
I don't mind this change because it is in fact taking a religious object and using it for evil purposes in a game that is meant to, at least in my circles, bring people together to have a good time.
Which is exactly the sort of thing a lich would do. They're taking the miracle of life and creating a mocking perversion of it. What does a phylactery hold? Something sacred, holy and beyond price. That's how a lich sees themself, as a god.
"Whats in the box boss?
"The most holy. the most precious. the most valuable and sacred thing there is. ME
And they're the bad guy. You're supposed to hit them in the face with a mace for that sort of thing.
I have no problem with a change like this if the intent is to bring more people to my hobby.
I think its just going along with the latest most wokest scauze. It's a never ending, completely implacable critic that thinks everything is terrible. There is no point trying to please it. It will never be sated.
Making people constantly look out for check and double check the thing its associations and associations with associations in order to be more welcoming isn't a gain with no cost. At some point it does seem silly, off-putting and stifling to people.
And, to be clear. Many people do not intend to cause harm. But when we find out we are causing harm and decide to continue down that path?
That people claim harm is being done and harm being done aren't the same thing. Someone being annoyed isn't harm. The connection between the thing that was the best known example of a phylactery and someone being hurt is very. Very tenuous to non existent.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Point 1:
Going to have to agree to disagree on this. Having kids in the trans community opened my eyes to a lot of things I previously thought were harmless and ok, but seeing first hand lets me know just how little I really understand about what is harmful and the best option for me is to be open to listening when someone says something is hurtful.
Point 2:
This is a fantasy game. Yes this is what a Lich would do. It is also what a someone intending real world harm would do. I don't mind fantasy jerks. I don't stand for real life harm. It is very easy to separate what a fantasy lich would do from real world harm.
Lich Acolyte: Oh, you have a holy symbol of Saranrae? I am going to take that from you and have my master help me form it into my Soul Cage!
Real World Unacceptable:
Oh, this is a holy symbol for a real world religion? Lets take that and use it as an evil/demonic tool in my game!
Point 3:
Woke is a racist dog whistle. Like, not really a whistle so much as a loud speaker. People who don't have any desire to be lumped in with that crowd should avoid using it. Regardless of their personal desire to use a term that they believe is perfectly acceptable. It is intended as an insult and should never be let to slide when used. Someone using it in a way to blatantly say they believe my views are Woke and therefore unimportant checks that box. Good talk.
Point 4:
See point 1, 2, and 3 it is a very limited view to not listen to people when they say they are in pain.
Look, You have said many things over the years I have agreed with ya on. This is probably one area you and I are not going to agree on until one of us changes our entire focal point for existing. My goal is to be inclusive. Not entirely sure what yours is at this point even though you keep clearly stating it I am just hoping I am wrong.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is exactly the sort of thing a lich would do. They're taking the miracle of life and creating a mocking perversion of it. What does a phylactery hold? Something sacred, holy and beyond price. That's how a lich sees themself, as a god."Whats in the box boss?
"The most holy. the most precious. the most valuable and sacred thing there is. MEAnd they're the bad guy. You're supposed to hit them in the face with a mace for that sort of thing.
Except the text regarding the change very specifically argues against this exact concept. The note that denotes the change specifically says that liches do not see their soul as holy, but rather as the thing that is keeping them from their true desires, and that's why they feel it is a thing to be caged away, rather than a thing to be cherished. You continue to argue in bad faith, and it's getting real tiresome.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You continue to argue in bad faith, and it's getting real tiresome.
You have zero examples of me doing so. Including this one. Disagreeing with the sidebar or picking one way Liches have related to their phylacteries over 50 years of less than consistent fantasy writing rather than that one is as far from bad faith as you can get. Make a point, not a baseless insult and ad hom and I'll listen. Don't and I won't.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And to Clarify the opposing arguments thus far:
1. Everyone agrees Gygax used specific iconology from Judaism.
2. Some people believe it is acceptable to use real world religious symbols in a fantasy setting even if it causes real world harm.
3.Some people believe fantasy should remain fantasy and inclusive.
That is a very strange line to draw in the sand.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You continue to argue in bad faith, and it's getting real tiresome.You have zero examples of me doing so. Including this one. Disagreeing with the sidebar or picking one way Liches have related to their phylacteries over 50 years of less than consistent fantasy writing rather than that one is as far from bad faith as you can get. Make a point, not a baseless insult and ad hom and I'll listen. Don't and I won't.
We are talking very specifically about the lore change specific to Pathfinder, which is what the sidebar lays out. I don't give the smallest of a care what other stories and other companies are doing right now, and it's not pertinent to this particular use case. I would love others to follow suit and make this change, but right now we're talking about the change for Pathfinder, which is laid out very clearly in the sidebar. Lots of words get used for 50+ years and then change when it's realized how much harm they do. That's a key component of an ever-evolving language. You're free to use whatever language you want at your table, but don't be surprised when people make connections between your use of language and the real-world harm it causes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You continue to argue in bad faith, and it's getting real tiresome.You have zero examples of me doing so. Including this one. Disagreeing with the sidebar or picking one way Liches have related to their phylacteries over 50 years of less than consistent fantasy writing rather than that one is as far from bad faith as you can get. Make a point, not a baseless insult and ad hom and I'll listen. Don't and I won't.
That seems to be standard way many hear when they cannot come up with a counter to something posted on the forum. Step 1 insult the poster, Step 2 claim they are arguing in bad faith which can be used as an excuse for everything and anything they can’t come up with a proper way to debate with. I was accused of speaking for other by the same posters doing the exact same thing so expect more of the same going forward.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That seems to be standard way many hear when they cannot come up with a counter to something posted on the forum. Step 1 insult the poster, Step 2 claim they are arguing in bad faith which can be used as an excuse for everything and anything they can’t come up with a proper way to debate with. I was accused of speaking for other by the same posters doing the exact same thing so expect more of the same going forward.
You continue to argue in bad faith, and it's getting real tiresome.You have zero examples of me doing so. Including this one. Disagreeing with the sidebar or picking one way Liches have related to their phylacteries over 50 years of less than consistent fantasy writing rather than that one is as far from bad faith as you can get. Make a point, not a baseless insult and ad hom and I'll listen. Don't and I won't.
Yes like saying someone is or their views are woke....
Lets not play the high ground card especially considering I've made very valid points as to why inclusion is important and they are summarily dismissed as woke.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Point 1:
Going to have to agree to disagree on this. Having kids in the trans community opened my eyes to a lot of things I previously thought were harmless and ok, but seeing first hand lets me know just how little I really understand about what is harmful and the best option for me is to be open to listening when someone says something is hurtful.
There is an enormous difference between listening and always agreeing. you're talking about a movement that has millions of people, not all of members of any group that big are going to be reasonable about everything.
Particularly when its other people allegedly speaking for that group.
Oh, this is a holy symbol for a real world religion? Lets take that and use it as an evil/demonic tool in my game!
That there is a phylactery of positive channeling suggests that there are other phylacteries, some of which are good. So the lich may very well be doing that, with the in game holy symbol of _____ insert god of that edition here.
Woke is a racist dog whistle. Like, not really a whistle so much as a loud speaker.
No. Like political correctness it's just a description of a good idea with good intentions just taken too far. You can't just prevent the idea that some movements are frivolous by declaring anyone that disagrees with you is ___ist and _____phobic.
Will people include important ideas in with the nonsense to discredit important ideas? Yes. Does that mean there is no nonsense? No. Every good movement has a point where it's just getting silly.
Someone using it in a way to blatantly say they believe my views are Woke and therefore unimportant checks that box. Good talk.
I don't think reading the tea leaves of meaning into this sort of thing is important.
I don't know what else to say. It's running words and ideas through multiple layers of conflicting literary interpretation and holding the results up as the truth that everyone must agree to. Can you avoid a few slurs? Sure. Can you avoid anything that someone can take the wrong way through one lens or another...ermm.. No. I think that carves out way too much area as verbotten and leaves people with no way of knowing whats supposed to be next.
See point 1, 2, and 3 it is a very limited view to not listen to people when they say they are in pain.
Listening does not automatically guarantee agreement, or that no one will be hurt. People can have unreasonable demands and expectations of others. People can be hurtful, but people can also be too sensitive. People can have an inconsistent idea of what you can do for diffeent values of I and you.
Look, You have said many things over the years I have agreed with ya on.
So you should know I don't dog whistle. I don't have the social skills and they hurt my ears.
This is probably one area you and I are not going to agree on until one of us changes our entire focal point for existing. My goal is to be inclusive.
Probably not, but can you at least agree there needs to be SOME balance or limit to what people can ask for or demand in the name of inclusivity ? What happens when you exclude people that think what constitutes inclusivity is nonsense? Or when people think you need to take actions to be inclusive that drive others away?
Not entirely sure what yours is at this point even though you keep clearly stating it I am just hoping I am wrong.
If someone is in actual pain i will would and have sacrificed minor organs to try to help them. But people can claim harm from other peoples actions when its really their own interpretation hurting them. You can't save people from themselves.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I will only respond to the only point brought up here that I can articulate a response that won't seem offensive. Because that is not my goal.
What do I think about being inclusive to the point of being exclusive?
I don't think this exists. I think that inclusion can be perverted and perceived that way, but typically only to people of intolerant natures. Not racist. Not oppresive. Intolerant.
When someone sees their view as being unmalleable then that is where the intolerance lies.
Paradox of Tolerance is what this is aiming to talk about, and is hard to both grasp, accept as real and embrace. People who do embrace it aren't any more enlightened than those who don't and people on both side of the fence feel they are.
To me what it means, when I apply it to myself, is that there will always be opposing view points. My goal post starts and stops at where harm exists and I accept that it isn't my job to identify if harm exists. It is my job to listen to those who have expressed trauama.
It isn't my job to judge if someone is in pain. I hear words, I take them at face value. If their views do NOT cause harm to anyone else then why would I dismiss them? I don't.
So basically Paizo recognized that using real world iconology, accepted iconology, in a fantasy setting could in fact cause real world harm and are working to rectify it.
That right there is solid process for being inclusive. Drawing a line in the sand because I think a specific word is silly just shows me that my view is limited and I should sit an listen. Mind you, this specific word? I changed in my mind YEARS AGO because I had come to the conclusion on my own that it was problematic. Which is why I replaced it with Horcrux in my head. Head canon now.
And take a look at my Avatar. I obviously love necromancers, the evil side of role playing. My end goal for one of my main characters I want to play is to become a Lich. This isn't coming from someone who hates evil in RPGs. This is coming from someone who saw something that was easy to change and did so.
Drawing a line in the sand because of semantics causes wars. Let alone hurt feelings.
Easier to say 'wow, I didn't know that could cause someone pain' than to say 'Your pain isn't real' Which may not be your intent, but it is definitely the effect of saying it isn't important to you.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The phylactery skill items describe actual phylacteries, and are not being changed because they accurately represent the concept instead of treating them as the worst thing in the world. Paizo staffers have said this. You aren't even making any kind of effort to think critically, and it shows. Maybe you should have a think about why you're so fiercely defending antisemitism?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
2. Some people believe it is acceptable to use real world religious symbols in a fantasy setting even if it causes real world harm.
I don't think this is a fair summation of the argument. The idea is that there is no harm being done. Someone might be annoyed or peeved, but I don't think there are physical assaults or changes in anyone's behavior because someone had a Jewish medalion in mind when they borrowed the word for a medalion to use for the soul hidey place of an evil Lich.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You realize physical assault is not the only form of harm, right? For crying out loud.
Going to step in there on this one.
Some people really don't. And it isn't even nefarious. Many people don't understand the emotional trauma caused by words.
It can be because of their own neuro divergence or just intolerance/trauma they don't acknowledge.
Some people may never understand this. It is a hard conversation to have and I've deleted many words in this thread alone about it because I've never had a good result from accusing someone of not understanding that emotional trauma is caused by more than physical pain.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people may never understand this. It is a hard conversation to have and I've deleted many words in this thread alone about it because I've never had a good result from accusing someone of not understanding that emotional trauma is caused by more than physical pain.
I do believe that words can hurt, but this seems a way too indirect and too minor to reasonably be considering hurting anyone.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do believe that words can hurt, but this seems a way too indirect and too minor to reasonably be considering hurting anyone.
Some people may never understand this. It is a hard conversation to have and I've deleted many words in this thread alone about it because I've never had a good result from accusing someone of not understanding that emotional trauma is caused by more than physical pain.
And that is my point on it's not my job to decide what can hurt someone. Now, I will be a bit more specific. I know someone who was uncomfortable with this and other religious iconography in games and decided not to play in my group.
It was a long time ago and what made me look up what Phylacteries were in the first place.
So, just because you don't deem it enough to hurt someone? Doesn't mean it didn't.
It was those conversations with friends about co opting religious artifacts in high fantasy that made me stop doing it altogether. It was just not worth it.
At the time I was pretty deep into religion. Less so now. But I was also alive during the Satanic Panic and saw the response in my youth church when I said I played DnD in my free time and had 3 elders come up to tell me just how dangerous.... playing a role playing game..... was....
I get it. But I also get that I don't need to get everything to understand that my limited view point is not all encompassing and if someone tells me something is trauma causing? There is no way for me to know what in their past causes that and I should just shut up and listen.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that is my point on it's not my job to decide what can hurt someone
But you do do that. When you decide that someones objection to something is based in intolerance you're rejecting their reasoning and claim of harm to themselves. You're saying that they're not really being harmed they're just being intolerant.
Its inevitable when you get incompatible opinions that you're going to have to decide who's harming who, or at least who's harming who more.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the same time if one claims that another person can’t speak on how a person should be feel about a word , neither can one also claim that they are offended by it. You can’t have it both ways imo and that is what here want to do.
Say that we cannot tell others how we feel yet also claim that I would be offended.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that is my point on it's not my job to decide what can hurt someoneBut you do do that. When you decide that someones objection to something is based in intolerance you're rejecting their reasoning and claim of harm to themselves. You're saying that they're not really being harmed they're just being intolerant.
Its inevitable when you get incompatible opinions that you're going to have to decide who's harming who, or at least who's harming who more.
Do I though?
I almost always leave an out when bringing intolerance into the conversation. Even when being called out for being woke if you go back and actually read what I said.
So, what the goal post shift you have done here is extreme, I don't think you know you even did it.
I am not telling someone that their trauma isn't real. I am telling someone that their decision to not accept that someone else's trauma should be re evaluated. It isn't YOUR trauma we are talking about. It is someone else's trauma that you are minimizing and claiming shouldn't exist.
Paradox of Tolerance is if you are Tolerant to a fault then only intolerance will exist. You have to stand up against views that are harmful or only harmful views will exist.
Stating that someone's pain doesn't exist isn't stating a trauma. It is causing more.
At the same time if one claims that another person can’t speak on how a person should be feel about a word , neither can one also claim that they are offended by it. You can’t have it both ways imo and that is what here want to do.
Say that we cannot tell others how we feel yet also claim that I would be offended.
My stance on feelings and opinions is that they are all fine to have until they cause someone else trauma. And telling someone that their opinion or feeling causes trauma is not causing trauma. It may make the person with the feeling feel bad, or defensive. But that is good.
What exactly did I state that caused trauma other than amplifying the voice of people who would be caused trauma by the original statements?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, why are people arguing against this? It is such a minor thing that has virtually no capacity to make things works, and has some potential to make things better.
Some people need to step back and ask "What if I'm wrong?". One one hand, changing it is a minor inconvenience at most. The other side is continuing to marginalize a group of people.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, why are people arguing against this? It is such a minor thing that has virtually no capacity to make things works, and has some potential to make things better.
Some people need to step back and ask "What if I'm wrong?". One one hand, changing it is a minor inconvenience at most. The other side is continuing to marginalize a group of people.
Yea it's strange how mad people get about the name changing when it changes nothing about the actual game.
Are they mad they have to remember the name changed?
It's offensive to some people.
It's a super easy change to make.
It has no mechanical impact on the game as a whole.
Soul Cage has almost the same amount of letters so that helps with layout.
The only downside is what? Some older players get mad a name changed while new players have no idea what they're mad about. Like if they never announced the change, most people wouldn't even notice.
Win/Win
They should just go through and change any of the "problematic" names so we can have a big purge of all the people getting upset. ;)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, what the goal post shift you have done here is extreme, I don't think you know you even did it.
The goalpost is firmly planted. Thank you. You need to be in two different spots, so it looks like its moving to you.
On the one hand, you need to be able to decide between two opposing views. But you've stated your position such that everyone's pain is real, everyone's pain is equal, and you can't pick between them. On the other hand you've decided that one of them is right.
That isn't tenable. If one person says that they're hurt by the use of phylactery, and someone says they're hurt by the change and annoyed by the political correctness. You decide the later is coming from intolerance and thus wrong. You say "re evaluate". You mean -you're wrong change your mind- Or at the very least you're telling one person and not the other to re evaluate based on something.
I'm not even saying you're wrong, but you have a decision making model here and it does in fact rank or minimize someones claims of pain.
My stance on feelings and opinions is that they are all fine to have until they cause someone else trauma.
This is not tenable. What do you do if two people with opposing views both claim trauma ? What if someone is hurt by a perfectly rational opinion that others are right to have ? What if someone is traumatized by people holding opinions that are outright facts?
And telling someone that their opinion or feeling causes trauma is not causing trauma.
This is an outright contradiction. Someone says it does. Now you're telling someone their trauma isn't real.
So everyones trauma is real except the person who says that being told they're causing trauma is causing trauma ? That just defaults to the first person to make an accusation wins.
Social interactions and moores are complex, subjective, context sensitive, things. There aren't any hard rules, there are at best guidelines, and people are never going to reach perfect agreement. People can live with that, or they can just form different groups with more like minded people. Someone isn't harmed just because someone they don't interact with happens to have an opinion in their head that person would find harmful.
I think you're hitting the wall as hard as you are because you're trying to make something that's incredibly subjective objective and it just doesn't work. Philosophers and law makers have tried to codify individual rights vs group rights and exactly where you can throw a punch and where the end of someone's nose is for millenia. There are good answers and there are easy answers but there are no good easy answers.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yea it's strange how mad people get about the name changing when it changes nothing about the actual game.
It's not anger. Its... Is facepalm an emotion?