The Magic-Walmart myth

[gizmo33]

OK, then, why do you find these terms offensive:

Pokemount
MagicMart

I don't find them offensive (not that you asked me). However, some terms do raise a red flag to me that I'm dealing with a partisan person in an edition war thread and I have a tendency to lower my expectation of having a civil conversation when I see them.

"Magic Wallmart" IMO is much more foolish than "MagicMart" (which is a fine term IMO). "Wallmart" is almost totally useless when taken literally. The issue certainly isn't that someone has a store in their campaign world named "wallmart". And there's no real identifying characteristic of wallmart, as opposed to Sears or whatever that indicates why that word was used. The reason it is used IMO is because it's a snide jab - it doesn't really make any sense to me otherwise. IMO MagicMart is perfectly fine - and doesn't introduce a distracting and poorly-applied analogy to a real-world store.

Pokemount is similarly confusing and inflammatory. There's no reason AFAIK that the 3.5E Paladin Mount is any more similar to Pokemon than it is Summon Monster V, mechanics wise. But it's not called "Summon Monster Mount" because, like "Magic Wallmart", the analogy has connotations that goes beyond the simple reading of the rules. As pointed out above, "Pokemon" was chosen intentionally as a jab because of things that have no obvious connection to the 3.5 rule.

So if someone calls you an "ogre", we can probably weasel our way to some sort of explanation, based on an rational examination of body hair and size issues. This sort of thing is especially easy to do on the internet where I can make all kinds of ridiculous statements without have to look anyone on the eye and tell them that I seriously don't get why "ogre" is insulting. Just because I can construct some theoretical crazy person that can take offense to my use of the word "carrot" doesn't mean that it makes sense for me to call people ogres and act like I don't know what's going on or that their reaction is not my problem.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Because I honestly feel that whoever coined the term (besides being congratulated on being a good enough word-smith to coin a term that has lasted this long) that if they wanted to highlight posative aspect of the ability they wouldn't have chosen a (as agreed between us at least) cheaply and poorly made cartoon for comparison.

Except, of course, that we can both agree that the term pokemount conveys a distaste for aspects of the 3.5 paladin's mount. That isn't in question. And, expressing distaste is certainly the same thing as insulting the thing one expresses distaste for (or close enough).

What is in question is why, when you first read the term Pokemount, you "knew" that it was being used an insult to you the reader (as opposed to merely showing distaste for/insulting the specific aspects of the 3.5 paladin's mount the term was intended to show distaste for)?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't find them offensive (not that you asked me). However, some terms do raise a red flag to me that I'm dealing with a partisan person in an edition war thread and I have a tendency to lower my expectation of having a civil conversation when I see them.

While there are many improvements from 3.0 to 3.5, I fully admit that I don't think this was one of them, nor (for example) what they did with weapon sizes and creature spaces. OTOH, I don't expect my personal tastes to be universal.

"Magic Wallmart" IMO is much more foolish than "MagicMart" (which is a fine term IMO).

Thank you.

In either case, though, the connotation is of a modern mercantile establishment within the game. I very much doubt that Walmart was picked for other connotations than the extremely good odds that nearly everyone hearing the term would know what a Walmart was. If Zellers was as successful, or the term had been coined a few decades earlier, it might have been Magic Zellers or Magic Sears & Roebuck.

Pokemount is similarly confusing and inflammatory. There's no reason AFAIK that the 3.5E Paladin Mount is any more similar to Pokemon than it is Summon Monster V, mechanics wise. But it's not called "Summon Monster Mount" because, like "Magic Wallmart", the analogy has connotations that goes beyond the simple reading of the rules.

Might you be willing to accept that it violates certain conventions of fantasy that some of us have grown up with? It is one thing to have a magician conjure up creatures from other planes of existence; it is another to imagine Childe Roland doing the same. It depends, I imagine, on what your formulative views of "paladins" are. The more something defies your formulative conventions, the more it tampers with your suspension of disbelief, and, therefore, the more likely you are to find it distasteful.

I think this is part of the reason why some people are begining to seek non-magical versions of some classes (such as the ranger).

Also, may I note, the paladin's mount is a class ability, whereas the spell is not (and players who find it distasteful have plenty of alternatives supplied in the rules).

So if someone calls you an "ogre", we can probably weasel our way to some sort of explanation, based on an rational examination of body hair and size issues. This sort of thing is especially easy to do on the internet where I can make all kinds of ridiculous statements without have to look anyone on the eye and tell them that I seriously don't get why "ogre" is insulting.

If you are a 3.5 paladin's special mount, and you find the term "pokemount" insulting, then I officially apologize.

Otherwise, I hope you can appreciate the difference between someone expressing distaste with you as an individual and expressing distaste with a game mechanic/flavour text.

(IOW, once again, It might also provoke a reaction which, IMHO, seems nothing more than "How dare you express a distaste for the current edition's version of the paladin's mount?" Possibly with an irrational conflating that distaste with a distaste for the game system as a whole, or with those who like the current edition's paladin's mount. However, I don't know of a single example where the term "pokemount" was intended to carry this secondary connotation. Nor, frankly, do you need to use the term "pokemount" to garner the same reaction -- you need merely to imply a distaste for the current edition's version of the paladin's mount.)

 

[gizmo33]

When I first read the term Pokemount I "knew" that it was being used an insult. Obviously I couldn't know for sure without reading the rest of the post but the term instantly hit me as an insult style term for the reasons listed above.

In fact, some people will use French in place of English simply because of nuance - NOT because the literal definition of the French clarifies anything, but instead because of the entirely historical connotations of the word/phrase and the subtle change in meaning. The whole point of using such words/phrases is to communicate subtle meaning. Valid use, IMO, does not constitute being able to insult someone and then claim to be misunderstood because of vagueries in language.

Pokemount can fairly be defined as "3.5 paladin mount rules with negative connotations" and there are such definitions of words already. The definition does not exlusively follow from the definitions of "Pokemon" and "mount", but to claim that it must be the case IMO is poorly understanding the nature of language.

There are certain words that are insulting to certain people simply because of context whereas the original latin meaning of such words has no such negative connotation. It would be insenstive of me to redefine it, ignore the connotations and history of the word, using it over and over, and then tell someone that they're not reading properly for failing to ignore the connotations of the word. In fact I would say most writing would be incomprehesible without taking into account non-literal meaning. Admittedly such things are imprecise, and the potential exists for people to misunderstand each other. Anyone who doesn't get what I'm saying is a nut job, and by nut job I mean an honorable citizen who works in a nut factory.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Valid use, IMO, does not constitute being able to insult someone and then claim to be misunderstood because of vagueries in language.

Pokemount can fairly be defined as "3.5 paladin mount rules with negative connotations"

Please explain how you go from understanding that (A) Pokemount has negative connotations to the 3.5 paladin mount rules (I agree) to (B) insulting someone (I disagree). Unless someone personally equates themselves with the 3.5 paladin mount rules (writer thereof, perhaps?) I am missing the logical connection between the two.

Obviously, I am an honorable citizen who works in a nut factory, because there's something missing between A and B.

 

[gizmo33]

If you are a 3.5 paladin's special mount, and you find the term "pokemount" insulting, then I officially apologize.

The distinction between talking about a person and talking about an idea was not an important part of my analogy. I think you misunderstood my analogy by making much of the least important part. I could return the favor by pointing out that you're in no position to official apologize in this context - but doing so would similarly miss the point of what you were saying.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

What is in question is why, when you first read the term Pokemount, you "knew" that it was being used an insult to you the reader (as opposed to merely showing distaste for/insulting the specific aspects of the 3.5 paladin's mount the term was intended to show distaste for)?

Because the prefix of "poke-" conveys to me that the user has a juvenile view of whatever is being 'poke'ed; that it is not very well constructed.

Since it is juvenile (and thus 'below them') then it is an insult.

I will admit, I couldn't have possibly "known" that it was an insult. But if someone had come up to me and asked what I thought of the term "Pokemount" I would have replied that it sounded like an elitist insult; because of the Poke- prefix.

 

[Raven Crowking]

For me, it isn't so much that I find Pokemount or MagicMart offensive but that the elitist (as I percieve them) connotations of these terms is what sets me on edge.

OK, here we have something that can perhaps be worked with. Neither term is directly offensive (or, at least, is not intended to convey distaste of the reader). I can agree with that.

Both terms have elitist connotations......

As far as elitism is concerned:

(A) Anyone naturally finds games that they like to be "better" than games that they do not like. Also, modifications that allow you to enjoy your game more naturally seem "superior" to the unmodified game. This is a personal thing, and should not be seen as universal, but

(B) There can be a message overall that the modified game is universally better than the unmodified game, in that the players/DM took the time and care to craft the game to actually fit their group/playstyle. This can certainly mean that they think that not doing so leads to a "lesser" game.​

I'll certainly agree that (B) can be a problem, although I am not convinced that "pokemount" conveys (B). Or, for that matter, that not using "loaded terms" has any effect whatsoever on conveying or not conveying (B).

However, that is the most solid argument I've heard thus far against so-called "loaded terms". If anyone cared to expand on it, I am always open to having my mind changed (though it isn't always easily accomplished! ).

 

[Raven Crowking]

The distinction between talking about a person and talking about an idea was not an important part of my analogy. I think you misunderstood my analogy by making much of the least important part. I could return the favor by pointing out that you're in no position to official apologize in this context - but doing so would similarly miss the point of what you were saying.

I can see that insulting a person would be insulting.

I do not see that expressing distaste about a game mechanic/flavour text is insulting to a person. Unless you are the person who created that game mechanic/flavour text.

The distinction between insulting a person and expressing distaste for an idea is a significant problem in your analogy, IMHO.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Because the prefix of "poke-" conveys to me that the user has a juvenile view of whatever is being 'poke'ed; that it is not very well constructed.

I don't get that at all.

I am not being deliberately obtuse, either.

I understand that Pokemon is a kid's cartoon. I understand that there are some real points of similarity between "poket monsters" and the 3.5 paladin's mount. If those points of similarity were part of an epic, five-part film series made for mature audiences, that I really, really loved, it would certainly conjure a different mental image when using the D&D mechanic.......but it still would seem out of place for Childe Roland, Sir Lancelot, or any of the other "paladin" type characters from folklore or classic fantasy.

So, yes, a portion of the problem with the D&D mechanic (for me) is that it conjures up a silly mental image (though, if it doesn't for you, that doesn't make you somehow silly or juvenile, nor should it be considered to do so). A much larger portion, though, is that it violates genre conventions. (Again, if you're using a different genre, that shouldn't bother you.)

I still fail to see where "I find monks silly in a European-flavoured game" becomes "and I therefore find you silly for playing one".

Maybe it's just me.

EDIT: Unless you think that when someone says "pokemount" they mean that the 3.5 paladin's mount is objectively silly, (elistist point B from the post upthread) in which case I understand your point. I don't think that the term implies that, though.