The crusades in the Worldwound have come to an end with Wrath of the Righteous, which is a decade old now.
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is Paizo going to fix the crusades and crusaders in it's lore the same way the inquisitors were?
We never had a crusader class, so the "fix" in this case is easier and less complex than what we had to do to address the concerns with using the word "inquisitor."
As keftiu noted above, the Worldwound is now history. We might use the word "crusade" in historical context when mentioning the past of that region, but we're also trying hard (and have been for several years now) to simply avoid using the words "crusade" and "crusader" going forward. (And again, with periodic exceptions when the words appear in context of in-world historical mentions.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Crusade is from pov of non English speaking person even in out of context a weird thing because it directly refers to crucifix aka Christianity and specific series of real life events and its often used negatively to talk about zealous loons on warpath.(like its often used negatively to talk about moral guardians wanting to censorship media for children) Like out of context, when it gets used positively in fictional settings, it looks like its just because word itself sounds cool or something because there doesn't appear to be deeper reason for the specific mostly negative term being chosen? Like, why don't fictional settings just use term "Holy War" to refer to religious faction organizing a war effort, or does that term have even more negative connotations?
|
Creative Director
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like, why don't fictional settings just use term "Holy War" to refer to religious faction organizing a war effort, or does that term have even more negative connotations?
Because for the vast majority of time, the internet wasn't a thing, and it was easier for people to not be as immediately aware of other cultures. For all the complications and bad that the internet and social media bring to the world, bringing folks together and letting us get to know other cultures from around the world much easier is a good thing, I think.
Fictional settings weren't as careful about using the word "crusade" before because so many folks, readers and writers alike, were sheltered about how that word's connotations and weight and legacy affected so many other folks they didn't have any experience with.
Just my late night, kinda tired and groggy observation as I struggle with a bout of insomnia. Take it for what it's worth, which is my own opinion and not meant to represent anything wider at Paizo.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Euro-centric origin of RPGs has bitten the industry in the past, even when effort is taken to try to mitigate cultural blind-spots. And "crusade" has negative connotations even outside of the Christianity vs. Islam thing: The Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars in the Provence region, the Baltic Crusades in Northern Europe, the Fourth Crusade sacking Byzantium/Constantinople, etc.
One of the issues is finding an evocative short term that can stand in to mean "war by many allied nations and independent groups against a single powerful nation or group of 'enemies'." Which is what, I believe, might have been the context behind using "crusade" for the wars against the Whispering Tyrant and the demons of the Worldwound.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One imagines that in a strict sense "a massive military offensive against hordes of the undead or fiends" is literally a Holy War, in that their opponents are Unholy and the Holy v. Unholy dichotomy is about "taking sides in this particular cosmic war."
But there's probably a better word for it. After all if the next alliance against the Whispering Tyrant includes Cheliax, then it's going to be a lot less Holy on the side of the living.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dragon Age uses "Exalted March" for a similar event in their world's history, with a lot of the same baggage of historical crusades (religiously motivated attempted genocide, etc.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Euro-centric origin of RPGs has bitten the industry in the past, even when effort is taken to try to mitigate cultural blind-spots. And "crusade" has negative connotations even outside of the Christianity vs. Islam thing: The Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars in the Provence region, the Baltic Crusades in Northern Europe, the Fourth Crusade sacking Byzantium/Constantinople, etc.
Yeah, even the quote "main" crusaders were series of unfortunate events where increasingly incompetent and greedy people turned it into increasing farce. I guess its kinda similar to how V for Vendetta made people forget that Guy Fawkes mask is to make fun of guy who tried to blew up the king (because he wanted a catholic monarch on the throne) and failed in incredibly embarrassing way.
Over here I don't think school ever taught anyone about crusaders actually having been a good thing, like Crusader Kings game series is probably biggest source of crusader memes and its very explicit about how crusades were greed motivated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, IIRC one of the First Crusade's main rationales was to reduce population pressures on society (provide an excuse to send a bunch of younger sons and unemployed commoners off to a foreign country) so that the status quo could more easily retain control.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The primary definition of "crusade" in the Cambridge English dictionary is:
"a long and determined attempt to achieve, change, or stop something because of your strong beliefs"
The secondary definition is:
"one of the religious wars (= crusades) fought by Christians, mostly against Muslims in Palestine, in the 11th, 12th, 13th, and 16th centuries"
The point, as I see it anyway, is there are multiple definitions and uses for the term.
Personally, while I am certainly aware of the secondary definition, the primary definition is what comes to mind to me when the word is used by me or around me.
When I played in the WotR AP, I never once thought we were trying eradicate Muslims or their religion, Islam.
I'd appreciate it if folks didn't try to take a legitimate word from me despite what happened 800+ or even as recently as 450 years ago in the Battle of Lepanto (1571) when the secondary definition crusades came to an end. The Protestant Reformation saw to that.
I say let's stop dwelling on the long ago past.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The primary definition of "crusade" in the Cambridge English dictionary is:
"a long and determined attempt to achieve, change, or stop something because of your strong beliefs"
The secondary definition is:
"one of the religious wars (= crusades) fought by Christians, mostly against Muslims in Palestine, in the 11th, 12th, 13th, and 16th centuries"
The point, as I see it anyway, is there are multiple definitions and uses for the term.
Personally, while I am certainly aware of the secondary definition, the primary definition is what comes to mind to me when the word is used by me or around me.
When I played in the WotR AP, I never once thought we were trying eradicate Muslims or their religion, Islam.
I'd appreciate it if folks didn't try to take a legitimate word from me despite what happened 800+ or even as recently as 450 years ago in the Battle of Lepanto (1571) when the secondary definition crusades came to an end. The Protestant Reformation saw to that.
I say let's stop dwelling on the long ago past.
Not twenty-three years ago, a prominent world leader called for a crusade and then made it at least two other countries' problem for over a decade.
|
Creative Director
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Words have power and meaning beyond what any one person ascribes to them, and what might be a non-issue for some is a big issue for others. While Pathifnder presents games in which there are a lot of awful villains and monstrous events for heroes to fight against (or, depending on your table's preference, to embrace), that doesn't mean we want the writing itself to be awful and monstrous.
So when we learn that a word or phrase or type of content is a legitimate issue, we take steps to adjust. Be it the very simple task of just picking a different word, or the more complex path of including the content but also including content warnings as appropriate.
In any case, this particular question and concern is, as far as I'm concerned, addressed, so let's move on to other threads and other topics. My "other topic" at this point is to spend the rest of my day off today watching obscure Itallian horror movies from the 80s and playing some more Stalker 2!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not twenty-three years ago, a prominent world leader called for a crusade and then made it at least two other countries' problem for over a decade.The primary definition of "crusade" in the Cambridge English dictionary is:
"a long and determined attempt to achieve, change, or stop something because of your strong beliefs"
The secondary definition is:
"one of the religious wars (= crusades) fought by Christians, mostly against Muslims in Palestine, in the 11th, 12th, 13th, and 16th centuries"
The point, as I see it anyway, is there are multiple definitions and uses for the term.
Personally, while I am certainly aware of the secondary definition, the primary definition is what comes to mind to me when the word is used by me or around me.
When I played in the WotR AP, I never once thought we were trying eradicate Muslims or their religion, Islam.
I'd appreciate it if folks didn't try to take a legitimate word from me despite what happened 800+ or even as recently as 450 years ago in the Battle of Lepanto (1571) when the secondary definition crusades came to an end. The Protestant Reformation saw to that.
I say let's stop dwelling on the long ago past.
And another leader called for "jihad," yet we in the West don't get our panties in a bunch when we hear that.
Personally, I don't get upset at the mere word "jihad" because I choose not to let it have sway over me. Its context, however, might be problematic, but I would never tell someone they couldn't use it. The Butlerian Jihad from Dune, for example, is a perfectly acceptable context for that word.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Words have power and meaning beyond what any one person ascribes to them, and what might be a non-issue for some is a big issue for others. While Pathifnder presents games in which there are a lot of awful villains and monstrous events for heroes to fight against (or, depending on your table's preference, to embrace), that doesn't mean we want the writing itself to be awful and monstrous.
In the end, words have power because we *choose* to give them power.
I am merely proposing that we stop giving 450+ year-old words power when those words are more commonly thought of as something else or, at the very worst, something similar.
We need to stop beating ourselves up for the sins of people who lived 450-950 years ago.
Be conscious of the negatives of certain words, for sure. Don't use some of them (the "N" word comes to mind) at all because they might have no legitimate use in today's vernacular.
But don't just stop using some words because they have connotations that date back to a time that very few people are aware of and that no one, for sure, actually remembers.
That's all I have to say on the subject.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I don't get upset at the mere word "jihad" because I choose not to let it have sway over me. Its context, however, might be problematic, but I would never tell someone they couldn't use it. The Butlerian Jihad from Dune, for example, is a perfectly acceptable context for that word.
And yet the Buterlian Jihad is missing from the recent Dune adaptations for film and TV, renamed for an audience who associate that word with other things than just smashing up the thinking machines.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can say that even with quoting English dictionary, the word has negative connotation like that person on going for crusade is doing something ridiculous or self righteous even in context of it actually being used to refer to good cause like human rights or something. (I can't really speak from Finnish perspective because Finnish word for it has primarily meaning of "war to spread Christianity especially to non believers" so its primary use IS in historical context) Like having your cause being referred as crusade I've only seen being used in insulting or belittling context.
(also I feel like if word "jihad" would absolutely make Christians angry if used to refer to righteous cause in fictional setting, heck the western fiction using the word I've heard of seem to use it in same negative context as word crusade)
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
And another leader called for "jihad," yet we in the West don't get our panties in a bunch when we hear that.Not twenty-three years ago, a prominent world leader called for a crusade and then made it at least two other countries' problem for over a decade.The primary definition of "crusade" in the Cambridge English dictionary is:
"a long and determined attempt to achieve, change, or stop something because of your strong beliefs"
The secondary definition is:
"one of the religious wars (= crusades) fought by Christians, mostly against Muslims in Palestine, in the 11th, 12th, 13th, and 16th centuries"
The point, as I see it anyway, is there are multiple definitions and uses for the term.
Personally, while I am certainly aware of the secondary definition, the primary definition is what comes to mind to me when the word is used by me or around me.
When I played in the WotR AP, I never once thought we were trying eradicate Muslims or their religion, Islam.
I'd appreciate it if folks didn't try to take a legitimate word from me despite what happened 800+ or even as recently as 450 years ago in the Battle of Lepanto (1571) when the secondary definition crusades came to an end. The Protestant Reformation saw to that.
I say let's stop dwelling on the long ago past.
We manifestly do, to the tune of millions of tons of high explosive and hundreds of thousands dead.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Moreover, if somebody tells you that a word you use makes them uncomfortable, they haven't actually taken that word from you. They can't physically stop you from saying the word! What's happening is that they're trusting you enough to tell you that they have a bad experience with the word, so they'd like to avoid it where possible.
If enough people do this, it turns into a Thing, but even then, it doesn't change whether you can say the word. What changes is that the hurt that used to be private is now public, so when you choose to say the word knowing that the word might upset some people, you will look like a bit of a wangrod for it.
So when somebody says "I want to say the word, don't take it from me," what is more accurately being said is "I would rather people not tell me when the things I say upset them."
Like, sure, this thread struct me as strange, too. I've never had any reason before this thread to associate the word 'crusade' with islamophobia... but you can bet there's a little checkbox in my head next to the word that says "muslim people might not like this one, further awareness needed" which is good enough for me because I am not a gaming company with a host of muslim fans (although several muslim coworkers).
Although I knew well of several rather famous crusades waged against islam, I tend to think of a generic word for a mission with a devoted purpose that happens to contain the word 'cross' in it because of its religious origins, and has connotations of war or fighting. Evidently, that isn't true for everybody. Isn't the diversity of the world exciting?
As sad as I would be to remove such an evocative sounding word, if it indeed causes so much upset, it's not worth keeping. If Paizo chooses to drop it in the future, that's between them and their sensitivity consultants to decide--and if not, too. Sometimes the group that feels most strongly about a word is actually quite small (see the pushback against the word thaumaturge a few years ago)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Moreover, if somebody tells you that a word you use makes them uncomfortable, they haven't actually taken that word from you. They can't physically stop you from saying the word! What's happening is that they're trusting you enough to tell you that they have a bad experience with the word, so they'd like to avoid it where possible.
If enough people do this, it turns into a Thing, but even then, it doesn't change whether you can say the word. What changes is that the hurt that used to be private is now public, so when you choose to say the word knowing that the word might upset some people, you will look like a bit of a wangrod for it.
So when somebody says "I want to say the word, don't take it from me," what is more accurately being said is "I would rather people not tell me when the things I say upset them."
Like, sure, this thread struct me as strange, too. I've never had any reason before this thread to associate the word 'crusade' with islamophobia... but you can bet there's a little checkbox in my head next to the word that says "muslim people might not like this one, further awareness needed" which is good enough for me because I am not a gaming company with a host of muslim fans (although several muslim coworkers).
Although I knew well of several rather famous crusades waged against islam, I tend to think of a generic word for a mission with a devoted purpose that happens to contain the word 'cross' in it because of its religious origins, and has connotations of war or fighting. Evidently, that isn't true for everybody. Isn't the diversity of the world exciting?
As sad as I would be to remove such an evocative sounding word, if it indeed causes so much upset, it's not worth keeping. If Paizo chooses to drop it in the future, that's between them and their sensitivity consultants to decide--and if not, too. Sometimes the group that feels most strongly about a word is actually quite small (see the pushback against the word thaumaturge a few years ago)
I honestly believe the pushback against Thaumaturge was actually a masked attack against Paizo getting rid of the word phylactery for liches in favor of soul cages.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Moreover, if somebody tells you that a word you use makes them uncomfortable, they haven't actually taken that word from you. They can't physically stop you from saying the word! What's happening is that they're trusting you enough to tell you that they have a bad experience with the word, so they'd like to avoid it where possible.
If enough people do this, it turns into a Thing, but even then, it doesn't change whether you can say the word. What changes is that the hurt that used to be private is now public, so when you choose to say the word knowing that the word might upset some people, you will look like a bit of a wangrod for it.
So when somebody says "I want to say the word, don't take it from me," what is more accurately being said is "I would rather people not tell me when the things I say upset them."
Like, sure, this thread struct me as strange, too. I've never had any reason before this thread to associate the word 'crusade' with islamophobia... but you can bet there's a little checkbox in my head next to the word that says "muslim people might not like this one, further awareness needed" which is good enough for me because I am not a gaming company with a host of muslim fans (although several muslim coworkers).
Although I knew well of several rather famous crusades waged against islam, I tend to think of a generic word for a mission with a devoted purpose that happens to contain the word 'cross' in it because of its religious origins, and has connotations of war or fighting. Evidently, that isn't true for everybody. Isn't the diversity of the world exciting?
As sad as I would be to remove such an evocative sounding word, if it indeed causes so much upset, it's not worth keeping. If Paizo chooses to drop it in the future, that's between them and their sensitivity consultants to decide--and if not, too. Sometimes the group that feels most strongly about a word is actually quite small (see the pushback against the word thaumaturge a few years ago)
That guy was indeed just copying and pasting posts from older threads about lich phylacteries, making incorrect claims about Orthodox Christianity while trying to use them as backing for his claims, and was a brand new account.
It was unambiguously trolling.