General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Hmm. I'm American and I can't even muster a snicker. I even live in a college town. I could blame it on age, but I confess I can't recall ever needing a cool slang name for the perineum. Does it come up in conversation a lot?
(Now, I'm not especially fond of the name "fell taint" myself, but that's purely due to the aesthetics of how the two words sound together. I have no problem with either word individually being used as part of a monster name.)
Hmm. I'm American and I can't even muster a snicker. I even live in a college town. I could blame it on age, but I confess I can't recall ever needing a cool slang name for the perineum. Does it come up in conversation a lot?
I honestly haven't heard anyone use it since High School.
These will be used very soon against the players in my campaign.
I'll be using grape vines for the "mini".
I have no problem with this name, they are are a taint on reality, and they are fell to life. Is it perfect, no, but there are much sillier/worse names out there.
My issue with the name isn't with the slang part (though I found it hilarious that the Fell Taint attacks the players' NADS), but with the fact that it might as well be named Evil Badwrong. Sinister Nastycreature. Horrible Killthisonehere.
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
Interesting article. I talks about how they like to lurk up high and take advantage of their ranged attacks, if any, but oinly the wisp has a ranged attack.
And it says they don't have mouths, but there are some toothy maws in a couple of the art pieces. Maybe a case of the artist not knowing the description/fluff text?
__________________ Game on, gang! Ptolus #16 (with customized, personalized sig from Monte. Awesomesauce.), Rappan Athuk Reloaded #37 (Another Awesomesauce, the Necromancer way.)
Try to not let failure to use technical language properly get in the way of getting to the real point under discussion. - Umbran
Characters & Games
Books currently in play: Dungeon & Dragon Magazine (*Scales of War AP*), WOTC 4e Core and Supplemental books
Current Campaign: Scales of War - Lost Mines of Karak -- Kodirgo, Minotaur Barbarian 6; Vondal, Dwarf Cleric 6; Karithul, Gnome Bard 6; Marshaun, Elf Druid 6
Interesting article. I talks about how they like to lurk up high and take advantage of their ranged attacks, if any, but oinly the wisp has a ranged attack.
There's also those in the MM2. The Pulsar for instance is an artillery.
My issue with the name isn't with the slang part (though I found it hilarious that the Fell Taint attacks the players' NADS), but with the fact that it might as well be named Evil Badwrong. Sinister Nastycreature. Horrible Killthisonehere.
Probably lives in Scarytown underneath Double Hell and the Shadow Shadow Bo Badow
English is simply too fluid a language--and too prone to puns and slang and entendre; given how many puns I make, I should know --for writers to reject every word that might have an unintended meaning. "Taint" is an especially egregious example, since it has a long tradition in D&D, and its slang term is relatively recent.
(Now, I'm not especially fond of the name "fell taint" myself, but that's purely due to the aesthetics of how the two words sound together. I have no problem with either word individually being used as part of a monster name.)
Yes, yes, we can all run into the hyperbolic slippery slope refuge of "but if we did X to some ridiculous extreme, it would mean Y! Y is bad!", but if WotC doesn't know that "Fell Taint" is going to elict teenage giggles, then they don't know much about their intended target audience of teenagers and young adults (especially males).
Bottom line being, it's probably something they want to avoid going forward, and it wouldn't hurt to think a bit harder about what they're naming things, since they're in this habit of giving dumb names to things. This ain't the first, it probably won't be the last, but it may be the most egregious, and it's really something they should get a handle on. As Prof C pointed out, it's not even dumb just because of the slang. It's name is "Bad Badness," basically.
Thankfully, that's only amusing -- it doesn't affect the actual play of the critters themselves, which look like a cool excuse for some 3D D&D neatness: non-euclidean geometry indeed. Overall, I'm really happy with 4e's tendency to bring the Far Realms a little more lovin', and the Dagon illo from MM2 is one of 4e's best so far. Mmmm, chocolate in my peanut butter.
Well, I can't speak to WotC's attitude toward this sort of thing. As a freelancer, I don't have to worry about marketing, just writing.
But for me personally, if I have a creature, a story, a location, or an event for which the word "taint"--or any other word coopted by cultural slang--is appropriate, I'm going to use it. And anyone who can't take it seriously is obviously not part of the audience for whom I was writing that creature/story/location/event.* As I said, "taint" is a perfectly good, descriptive, flavorful word with a fantasy pedigree, and I'm not going to quit using it because America needed yet another word for part of the genitalia.
*(That's the advantage to "just" being the writer. I can afford to take a stance like that. )
Again, not arguing that "fell taint" works. I don't think it does--but for reasons other than the fact that some teenagers are going to snicker over it.
__________________ Ari Marmell
aka
Mouseferatu
--Rodent of the Dark
But for me personally, if I have a creature, a story, a location, or an event for which the word "taint"--or any other word coopted by cultural slang--is appropriate, I'm going to use it. And anyone who can't take it seriously is obviously not part of the audience for whom I was writing that creature/story/location/event.* As I said, "taint" is a perfectly good, descriptive, flavorful word with a fantasy pedigree, and I'm not going to quit using it because America needed yet another word for part of the genitalia.
Well, part of the reason it doesn't work is: context, context, context.
"You are attacked by a fell taint!" will conjure up primarily biological images in many of D&D's players. There's no reference, no description, no meaning, so the first question the mind asks itself is: "What is a taint, and how could it be attacking me?"
"The land was corrupted by the evil overlord, and the demonic taint spread out to engulf the countryside": more reasonable, probably because taint means something there.
It's use as a creature name is probably more problematic than other uses, likely because there's no real synonym: you can't describe it in relation to anything else. They tell you what it is: "this is called a taint."
This is where those degrees come in handy, I would imagine: love the language, add beautiful things to it.
It's use as a creature name is probably more problematic than other uses, likely because there's no real synonym: you can't describe it in relation to anything else. They tell you what it is: "this is called a taint."
You know, I think I'm going to give you that. The more I think of it, the more I think that that's my aesthetic problem with the name. "Taint" is an effect--even if it's a pseudo-real effect, like 3E taint was--not an object/creature.
If they called these things "tainted somethings" instead of "something taints," I think that would've worked a lot better.
But hey, also as you say, it's an easy enough detail to change on what's otherwise a fantastically evocative critter.
__________________ Ari Marmell
aka
Mouseferatu
--Rodent of the Dark
It's use as a creature name is probably more problematic than other uses, likely because there's no real synonym: you can't describe it in relation to anything else. They tell you what it is: "this is called a taint."
Except that if your DM describes what they are or what they do before he says the name, you get yoru context.
They are a taint on reality, because they are beacons for aberrations/weaken the barriers. So as long as someone makes a dungeoneering check and figures out what the hell these things are, then you say 'And they're called fell taints'.
I mean, no DM is just going to say "You're attacked by a barghest!" and leave it at that when no one at the table has a clue what a barghest is.
I think we're also getting into an argument ala the Warlord. Back when the Warlord class was first announced, it was a big bruhaha over the name. No one was happy with it. There were several polls about what is better, and none of the polls had a clear winner except "Warlord" because the alternatives were worse.
So I'd really like to see someone come up with a better name that everyone can agree on, if you don't like it.
I mean, no DM is just going to say "You're attacked by a barghest!" and leave it at that when no one at the table has a clue what a barghest is.
Not really what I mean. More like this:
"An floating sac of unreality approaches your party flailing tentacles."
"Sweet! What is it?" *roll monster lore*
"It's called a Fell Taint..."
From that point forward:
"The taint attacks you."
"You pierce the taint with your sword."
"The taint hovers tantalizingly just out of reach."
"Hey, we fought some taints in the dungeon."
"Sing the ballad of our glorious fight against the taints!"
"Oh no! This was just the first wave of taints!"
"The taint is killing me!"
"What did you fight?" "We fought some taints!"
...you can perhaps see the problem when every instance of the word "taint" has an unfortunate double-meaning. That's what the creatures are called. That's ALSO what a part of your anatomy is called.
Quote:
So I'd really like to see someone come up with a better name that everyone can agree on, if you don't like it.
Unless you're WotC and that's a job offer that pays better than my current job, I'm afraid I'll have to turn down that little game. It's not worth my time or effort, really, and it's not my job. It's theirs.
If you don't agree and think "Fell Taint" is a fantastic name that couldn't possibly be better, that's fine. You're allowed to have a different opinion than me. I have no real interest in convincing you otherwise. I don't really care what you think. I do have an interest in voicing my own reaction to the name, which is: "I'm sure the world's best game designers can do better than this."
I think we're also getting into an argument ala the Warlord. Back when the Warlord class was first announced, it was a big bruhaha over the name. No one was happy with it. There were several polls about what is better, and none of the polls had a clear winner except "Warlord" because the alternatives were worse.
So I'd really like to see someone come up with a better name that everyone can agree on, if you don't like it.
A "taint" isn't a creature. Even "fell tainter" would have been a better name, despite how awkward it sounds.
)
There's no reference, no description, no meaning, so the first question the mind asks itself is: "What is a taint, and how could it be attacking me?"
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
