holocaust spell rename

[DavidW]

Venemous Cloud?

[lynx]

Ah, that's right, even the description has that typo: venomous.

 

Can gas be venomous? Shouldn't it be poisonous, since you ingest it?

Edited July 7, 2022 by lynx

[Frenzgyn]

Poisonous Death? Blistering/Toxic Obliteration?

 

[InKal]

On 7/4/2022 at 4:57 PM, Guest Jerusnare said:

In general this mod is really cool as it provides something new after a zillion playthrough's. However, I just found a spell called 'holocaust' in '/sod2bg2_iu/spl/dtkholo.spl'. The accompanying description reads:

 

Holocaust
(Evocation)

Level: 8
Range: 40 ft.
Duration: 1 turn
Casting Time: 6
Area of Effect: 15-ft. radius
Saving Throw: Special

This spell is a more powerful version of the level 5 mage spell, Cloudkill.  When cast, it creates plumes of venemous gas of such toxicity as to immediately sear the flesh of creatures it comes in contact with, entering their bloodstream.  So deadly is this poison as to instantly slay creatures of 8 or fewer Hit Dice, and creatures with 9 or 10 Hit Dice must roll a Saving Throw vs. Poison at -8 for each round they remain in the area of effect, lest they be slain instantly as well.  Those above 10th level (or 10 Hit Dice) must leave the cloud immediately or suffer 1d12 + 1 Hit Points of poison damage per level per round that they remain in the affected area, up to a maximum of 1d12 + 15 Hit Points at level 30.  While remaining in the area of effect, there is a 25% chance per round that creatures will also be systemically poisoned, suffering an additional 2 Hit Points of poison damage per second for 2 rounds, unless they make a Saving Throw vs. poison at -8.  This affliction will persist even after leaving the area of effect.

 

I find the idea of casting a spell that reminds me of the actual holocaust during which millions of innocents died due to the gas chambers rather disturbing.

 

Would you please rename the spell? Perhaps something 'Plague kill' or 'Death plague' will do?

ps. the spell is added at line 1309 in the sod2bg2_io.tp2

"The word "holocaust" originally derived from the Koine Greek word holokauston, meaning "a completely (holos) burnt (kaustos) sacrificial offering," or "a burnt sacrifice offered to a god." In Hellenistic religion, gods of the earth and underworld received dark animals, which were offered by night and burnt in full."

pretty much exactly what the spell does. why change the name? why seeking "problems" where there is none? 

[CamDawg]

19 minutes ago, InKal said:

pretty much exactly what the spell does. why change the name? why seeking "problems" where there is none? 

Why read the thread and learn something? Why make a purely cosmetic change that makes your content more inviting to other players?

I'd follow with "why care about anyone other than yourself", but I'm already familiar with your post history.

[Frenzgyn]

Quote

 

"The word "holocaust" originally derived from the Koine Greek word holokauston, meaning "a completely (holos) burnt (kaustos) sacrificial offering," or "a burnt sacrifice offered to a god." In Hellenistic religion, gods of the earth and underworld received dark animals, which were offered by night and burnt in full."

pretty much exactly what the spell does. why change the name? why seeking "problems" where there is none? 

 

 

 

If you can't see the problem, you have a problem or you're not being honest with yourself. It's obvious. One could agree or disagree to consider it enough for a change, that's another story, and while in the end it will be only a decision of the author (and whatever it will be I will not complain further), saying "seeking problems where there is none" is detachment from reality.

I myself feel conflicted, as I said I HATE to ask for changing names and such things, but it's quite obvious WHY it really gives out bad vibes and no ethimologic study of the origin and use of the word have any sense in this regard.

Everyone of us KNOW that per se it is a legit word, used in different meanings in different context and present in the dictionaries.

In this particular context unfortunately it very clearly brings to the mind the Shoah, because "plumes of venemous gas of such toxicity as to immediately sear the flesh of creatures it comes in contact with, entering their bloodstream.  So deadly is this poison as to instantly slay creatures [CUT]" PLUS the word "Holocaust" is quite unidirectional and has nothing to do with "burn sacrifical offering to a god".

Be serious and don't make it a matter of principle when it's not. It's not ideology, it's a just a combined effect of a name and a description that while functionally work, generate unuseful bad feelings.

 

Edited July 7, 2022 by Frenzgyn

[Daulmakan]

I'm generally of the mind that political correctness needs to die in a fire. That being said, using "holocaust" for a spell that has nothing to do with neither a fire nor an offering and instead refers to a cloud of poison gas... well, seems you're going out of your way to be crass just because.

[jastey]

I did read the spell description the OP posted but I somehow still managed to think it's a flame-induced inferno spell. So, so far I was reacting to the spell name alone. Realising now it's used for a poisonous gas cloud, with the historical meaning this has, leaves me speechless, I have to admit. I can only repeat my plea to change the name, which fotunately was already heard.

[suy]

2 hours ago, InKal said:

pretty much exactly what the spell does. why change the name? why seeking "problems" where there is none? 

For the same reason that, when speaking to the general public, I can't use the word "hacker" or "hack" anymore like it was supposed to be (roughly speaking, hacker was just supposed to be an enthusiast, and a hack some clever trick, sometimes reliable, sometimes not). In a programmer's circle, I can. It sucks, but such is life. If I want to be properly understood, I must limit myself to the limitations of society. Cam just said it well, though. If you can change the thing to something that doesn't cause a controversy and/or harm to people and it's still meaningful and colorful, why not?

[Bartimaeus]

9 hours ago, jastey said:

I did read the spell description the OP posted but I somehow still managed to think it's a flame-induced inferno spell. So, so far I was reacting to the spell name alone. Realising now it's used for a poisonous gas cloud, with the historical meaning this has, leaves me speechless, I have to admit. I can only repeat my plea to change the name, which fotunately was already heard.

Yeah, "nuclear holocaust" is pretty accepted verbiage and doesn't seem to be considered offensive (although it's not necessarily preferred when it's unnecessary and I would say it very much would be in a D&D context where there is obviously no technological connection to make it feel or sound right), but for what is effectively a Greater Cloudkill? Mein gott... Yes, a very unfortunate spell name indeed.

Edited July 8, 2022 by Bartimaeus

[Guest Jeremias]

I'm aware Dr. Trollkiller said he was willing to change it, but just to add my two cents as an English native;

Even if it is a word, it's not really one that's ever used in the English language unless referring to THE holocaust.

Regardless, as for the people saying it should stay and there is no problem, you're entitled to think that. But surely it's better to not feel offensive to the many who do dislike the wording? 

16 hours ago, Daulmakan said:

I'm generally of the mind that political correctness needs to die in a fire. That being said, using "holocaust" for a spell that has nothing to do with neither a fire nor an offering and instead refers to a cloud of poison gas... well, seems you're going out of your way to be crass just because.

I pretty much agree with what this person said. I don't really like political correctness - doesn't really matter where you're from, it just doesn't really benefit anyone calling it "Holocaust". I'd rather just call it "Black miasma" or something similar. 

[DavidW]

22 hours ago, lynx said:

Ah, that's right, even the description has that typo: venomous.

 

Can gas be venomous? Shouldn't it be poisonous, since you ingest it?

I thought that looked wrong as I typed it, but yes: I was following the spell description.

And no, it can't actually be venomous, but I was restricting myself to the existing text.

[polytope]

The game already has a "Cloudkill" and "Death Fog". I guess "Murdermist" is out?

20 hours ago, InKal said:

"The word "holocaust" originally derived from the Koine Greek word holokauston, meaning "a completely (holos) burnt (kaustos) sacrificial offering," or "a burnt sacrifice offered to a god." In Hellenistic religion, gods of the earth and underworld received dark animals, which were offered by night and burnt in full."

pretty much exactly what the spell does. why change the name? why seeking "problems" where there is none? 

Well, the spell poisons the affected, rather than burning them. And if it did it could still be called "Pyroclasm" without losing anything, content wise, while being less likely to upset people. It's one thing to call for the cancellation, scrapping or even rewriting of an author's entire work because it offended someone, it's another to simply request a name change.

[The_Baffled_King]

On 7/8/2022 at 9:35 AM, Guest Jeremias said:

I'm aware Dr. Trollkiller said he was willing to change it, but just to add my two cents as an English native;

Even if it is a word, it's not really one that's ever used in the English language unless referring to THE holocaust.

Guest Jeremias, I’ve already said that I agree with changing the name of the spell, given what it does. Also, I appreciate that you expressed yourself politely, and I don’t want to be unkind. With that said, I am also a native English speaker, and I’m sorry to say that your comments about the usage of the word “holocaust” are totally inaccurate. Please make sure that you have your facts about the usage of a word right before asking for it to be changed because you're sure it’s offensive. Freedom of expression is a human right, and freedom of speech is a fundamental pillar of liberal democracy, whereas the freedom to not be offended is neither of those things.

There are five posts earlier in the thread that mention that the word in question is used in other contexts, including the one immediately above your post. More importantly, if a word is present in dictionaries, and it isn’t identified as archaic, then it’s probably a bit of a stretch for anyone to argue that the word is “not really one that's ever used”, unless of course the argument originates with a professional in the field of linguistics. This applies all the more when dealing with English words because the language is so widespread - it’s an official language and primary language or lingua franca in countries on every single continent (not counting Antarctica).

Here are three reputable mainstream sources published within the last month alone that refer to "nuclear holocaust": in America (Harper's Bazaar), in Britain (The Times), and in Canada (The Globe and Mail). I found them in a few minutes on the first couple of pages of a google search. A more thorough search would undoubtedly have found many more examples from similar sources, even if searching only for material from this year. In public discourse relating to nuclear weapons, it's very common to refer to nuclear holocaust.

I challenged myself to think of another plausible use for the word, then find some relatively recent examples in reputable mainstream sources, all within five minutes. I managed it: wildfires are still described as a holocaust. Here are two examples from America: in the Los Angeles Times, in 2020, and in a speech by President Bush, in 2003. There's also fiction to consider, and I can't imagine what standard of proof is necessary to declare that a word is no longer used in fiction. Even if the word "holocaust" did pass out of normal usage, it would remain in dictionaries but be identified as archaic. What genre of fiction often uses archaic wording? Fantasy. Like Baldur’s Gate.

Edited July 10, 2022 by The_Baffled_King

[Almateria]

On 7/10/2022 at 2:36 AM, The_Baffled_King said:

Guest Jeremias, I’ve already said that I agree with changing the name of the spell, given what it does. Also, I appreciate that you expressed yourself politely, and I don’t want to be unkind. With that said, I am also a native English speaker, and I’m sorry to say that your comments about the usage of the word “holocaust” are totally inaccurate. Please make sure that you have your facts about the usage of a word right before asking for it to be changed because you're sure it’s offensive. Freedom of expression is a human right, and freedom of speech is a fundamental pillar of liberal democracy, whereas the freedom to not be offended is neither of those things.

There are five posts earlier in the thread that mention that the word in question is used in other contexts, including the one immediately above your post. More importantly, if a word is present in dictionaries, and it isn’t identified as archaic, then it’s probably a bit of a stretch for anyone to argue that the word is “not really one that's ever used”, unless of course the argument originates with a professional in the field of linguistics. This applies all the more when dealing with English words because the language is so widespread - it’s an official language and primary language or lingua franca in countries on every single continent (not counting Antarctica).

Here are three reputable mainstream sources published within the last month alone that refer to "nuclear holocaust": in America (Harper's Bazaar), in Britain (The Times), and in Canada (The Globe and Mail). I found them in a few minutes on the first couple of pages of a google search. A more thorough search would undoubtedly have found many more examples from similar sources, even if searching only for material from this year. In public discourse relating to nuclear weapons, it's very common to refer to nuclear holocaust.

I challenged myself to think of another plausible use for the word, then find some relatively recent examples in reputable mainstream sources, all within five minutes. I managed it: wildfires are still described as a holocaust. Here are two examples from America: in the Los Angeles Times, in 2020, and in a speech by President Bush, in 2003. There's also fiction to consider, and I can't imagine what standard of proof is necessary to declare that a word is no longer used in fiction. Even if the word "holocaust" did pass out of normal usage, it would remain in dictionaries but be identified as archaic. What genre of fiction often uses archaic wording? Fantasy. Like Baldur’s Gate.

Quoting this for posterity so that if you ever decide to become a decent human person you won’t be able to pretend you never wrote this vile word vomit.

Edited July 11, 2022 by Almateria