Dungeon Master
Posts: 3160
Joined: Sunday, 5th August 2012, 14:52
Re: Real-world references
1) References intended to comment on the real world. These references are deliberately making a statement about something in the real world, most likely something many people care about. They may well be considered offensive by some or even most, but that's not necessarily a reason to change them. They are deliberate commentary, even if the commentary is light-hearted and intended to be humorous, and they may rub people the wrong way. The good gods, Beogh, and Gozag more or less fit into this group.
2) References intended to reference but not comment on the real world. These are references for the sake of references -- maybe someone just read a Jules Verne novel and they really like the idea of adding a Captain Nemo unique to crawl. They are not intended to offer a perspective on the thing they reference, but they are a deliberate reference. If these references offend, there's a good chance that they should be changed, because they've entered into controversy by accident and may well be communicating something that even their creator doesn't intend. When there is a problem with these references, it might make sense to adjust the reference until the cause of offense is removed, since it's probably an accident of the specific mode of the reference; whether the reference adds to the game is certainly worth considering. The bow of Krishna "Sharnga" probably falls into this bucket.
3) Accidental references. These are specific real-world references that weren't made with significant intention -- perhaps the creator thought they were a general reference rather than a specific, or simply misunderstood the concept they're referencing. When they are problematic, these references should generally be removed, because in some significant sense the meaning of these references was never considered. The sword of Jihad, daevas, the ring of Shaolin, and lajatangs probably fall into this bucket.
Regarding the sword of Jihad specifically, I didn't personally rename it, but I did feel that it was a clear case where we were accidentally making a reference full of specific-case commentary, when the intention was most likely a general reference without commentary. Just to be clear, the sword of Jihad was removed not because anyone specific or generally was offended, but because it was an careless reference with a clear offensive potential. That specific case is not generalizable to Beogh, because Beogh is an intentional reference, whether or not you might find it offensive.