Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 9371522" data-attributes="member: 15538">I'm aware of the etymology. I just remember there was a specific day on the WotC CharOps forum where someone said, "Hey, I have an idea! Let's start calling FMUs 'gishes'!" and I was like, "That's a terrible idea, please don't do that," but a significant number of people did it. I really hoped for a while the fashion had died out, but it makes a resurgence now and then. I'm not aware of it having a currency before that, but perhaps that poster got the idea from Usenet or something. Reasons why it's a bad idea:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Someone encountering the conversation for the first time is essentially clueless since the meaning is not obvious</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">So you have to explain the term to newcomers, which is basically a form of gatekeeping</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Then someone wants to know the etymology of the term, which leads back to the discussion of the Fiend Folio, at which point it becomes obvious that using the term in this way makes it difficult to actually talk about githyanki lore.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It's a D&D-ism, which means every time it escapes its own ecosystem and gets used in conversation about, say, Pathfinder, or any D&D clone game which doesn't include the WotC term "githyanki" there is an additional level of irrelevance.</li> </ul>On the other hand, fighter-mage, fighter/magic-user, spellsword, and the like require essentially no explanation, and don't cause any confusions at all except when talking about specific constructs that may differ between specific game editions.</blockquote>

Verification