PDA

View Full Version : Evocative names for real nations



BlacKnight
2017-09-24, 12:24 PM
I'm starting a pirate themed campaign setted in the early XVIII century. The world is similar to the real one, but with some twists and fantasy elements. To give the feeling "the world is not exactly like the real one" I was thinking of giving the various nations and places alternative names. For example Spain becomes the "Empire of never setting sun" or something like that, while England could be Albion. But I lack ideas. Which names could be suitable for France or Netherlans ? And which for the caribbean islands ?

hymer
2017-09-24, 12:37 PM
I'm starting a pirate themed campaign setted in the early XVIII century. The world is similar to the real one, but with some twists and fantasy elements. To give the feeling "the world is not exactly like the real one" I was thinking of giving the various nations and places alternative names. For example Spain becomes the "Empire of never setting sun" or something like that, while England could be Albion. But I lack ideas. Which names could be suitable for France or Netherlans ? And which for the caribbean islands ?

Well, seems to me if you're going with Albion for England, the options are pretty straightforward. Spain could be Iberia, and France Gallia. More recently named places, like the Netherlands and the Caribbean are harder. Caribistan and The Low Countries strike me as possibilities.

2D8HP
2017-09-24, 12:53 PM
Well two games I can think of Lamentations of the Flame Princess and 7th Sea have an "early modern" (17th century) setting, and since 7th Sea re-named and re-fluffed (https://stickybunton.com/2016/06/01/revisiting-7th-sea-second-edition-the-setting/) the nations of Europe (which are still recognizable in their new clothes), I think it's worth looking into, I haven't read the rules much, but 7th Sea's setting is impressive, and I think worth looking into.

DeTess
2017-09-24, 03:35 PM
For the netherlands, how about the Baravian republic? It was actually called that for a couple of years around 1800 when the frebch basically took over. You could also use some variation on "The Seven Provinces".

Bogwoppit
2017-09-24, 03:47 PM
Well, seems to me if you're going with Albion for England...
Please don't - Albion is for the whole of Great Britain, including England, Scotland and Wales. And please, if you don't know why that's important, then please don't try to steal our culture.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion

... Caribistan and The Low Countries strike me as possibilities.
Again, please don't use the "-stan" ending for a non-Persian-based place. Same reasons as above, really.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/-stan

hamishspence
2017-09-24, 03:56 PM
If GW Warhammer can do it, D&D players can.

GW's version of Spain/Portugal (Iberia) with a little Italy - Estalia

GW version of Renaissance Italy - Tilea

GW version of France - Bretonnia (with a few notable French names used for provinces - like Carcassone)

GW's version of Tortuga - Sartosa

GW version of pre-Roman Britain - Albion

And so forth.

The names don't have to match perfectly - as long as you've got something evocative.

Vitruviansquid
2017-09-24, 03:58 PM
Besides using ancient names for your nations, you could also consider using the names of a place within that nation.

So, instead of Scotland, call it Orkney.

hamishspence
2017-09-24, 04:04 PM
Besides using ancient names for your nations, you could also consider using the names of a place within that nation.

So, instead of Scotland, call it Orkney.

Dalriada is a good ancient name (incorporates bits of Ireland though).

Bogwoppit
2017-09-24, 04:12 PM
Besides using ancient names for your nations, you could also consider using the names of a place within that nation.

So, instead of Scotland, call it Orkney.
Please don't! Orkney is a culturally distinct place, quite different from Scotland - historically it was part of a Norse kingdom with no influence from the lowland Scots.

What I'm saying here is that if you want to make use of old evocative names for alternate versions of real nations, please - get them right.

ZamielVanWeber
2017-09-24, 04:38 PM
Please don't! Orkney is a culturally distinct place, quite different from Scotland - historically it was part of a Norse kingdom with no influence from the lowland Scots.

I assume, then, you never refer to the nation of "Greece" and only use the proper name, the "Hellenic Republic." Also is it safe to say you avoid calling Helvetians Swiss?

ExLibrisMortis
2017-09-24, 04:38 PM
For the netherlands, how about the Baravian republic? It was actually called that for a couple of years around 1800 when the frebch basically took over. You could also use some variation on "The Seven Provinces".
Uh, you mean the Batavian Republic? Baravia doesn't exist, Bavaria is a state of Germany. The Batavian Republic existed right before the French came along.

I wouldn't use Batavian Republic myself, because it's such a short-lived name, associated primarily with the French Revolution. The (Republic of the) (Seven) (United) Netherlands/Provinces would work well, though, as many Dutch would recognize that today. (Except that today, we have twelve provinces, including one we built (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flevoland).)


Please don't! Orkney is a culturally distinct place, quite different from Scotland - historically it was part of a Norse kingdom with no influence from the lowland Scots.

What I'm saying here is that if you want to make use of old evocative names for alternate versions of real nations, please - get them right.
Clearly, this is an alternate universe where Orkney (with Norse support? Who knows...) conquered Scotland, or was conquered by Schotland, or the settlement-process-that-became-Orkney didn't take place on the islands, but on the mainland. Because it's an alternate universe, you can shift things around a bit. Though it's worth thinking about the historical changes that are implied by shifting of the names.

Fyraltari
2017-09-24, 05:39 PM
Considering the time period and who was king at the time, France could be "the Sun Kingdom".

Also, many countries are named after one of the tribes who lived there when the country formed so you could pick another tribe and work up the new name :
Scotland-->Picty, Germany-->Gothreich, Greece--> Achea, etc

Samzat
2017-09-24, 05:44 PM
If you are looking for old names for spain, how 'bout using the name of one of the medieval spanish kingdoms: Aragon?

dps
2017-09-24, 07:05 PM
Please don't! Orkney is a culturally distinct place, quite different from Scotland - historically it was part of a Norse kingdom with no influence from the lowland Scots.

What I'm saying here is that if you want to make use of old evocative names for alternate versions of real nations, please - get them right.

Did you miss the part where the OP said that his setting is similar to the real world, but with some twists? Or do you just want to be inappropriately pretentious about it?

Bohandas
2017-09-24, 09:32 PM
A lot of countries' real names are slightly inaccurate or use words in unconventional fashions. How about making them accurate. For instance
*The United States of America becomes the United Administrative Divisions of America.
*Any time "People's Republic" or "Democratic People's Republic" appears in a country name it can usually be safely changed to either "Authoritarian Dictatorship" or "Absolutist Monarchy"
that kind of thing

ImNotTrevor
2017-09-24, 09:46 PM
Please don't! Orkney is a culturally distinct place, quite different from Scotland - historically it was part of a Norse kingdom with no influence from the lowland Scots.

What I'm saying here is that if you want to make use of old evocative names for alternate versions of real nations, please - get them right.

Say it with me now:

"A tabletop rpg played by 6 nerds for fun in Montana or somesuch does not oppress anybody by using Orkney as a name for Alt. History Scotland."

They could name it "Haggisland" with the capitol city of "Bagpipenburg" and it would still have 0 ramifications except a lot of childish giggling. And, ironically, most scots I met would probably find it funny or, more likely, suggest renaming the US as "The United States of McDonalds" or something.

Unwad thine panties, squire!

Bohandas
2017-09-24, 09:52 PM
Say it with me now:

"A tabletop rpg played by 6 nerds for fun in Montana or somesuch does not oppress anybody by using Orkney as a name for Alt. History Scotland."

They could name it "Haggisland" with the capitol city of "Bagpipenburg" and it would still have 0 ramifications except a lot of childish giggling. And, ironically, most scots I met would probably find it funny or, more likely, suggest renaming the US as "The United States of McDonalds" or something.

Unwad thine panties, squire!

Or to put it more quickly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inOmUh1AebE#t=01m16s

Bogwoppit
2017-09-25, 12:35 AM
Going for the gag on your names would be fine - Haggisland, Froggia, Disneyland, whatever - but that'd be very different in tone from a supposedly "evocative" name with cultural baggage.
What's irking me is that the slightest research into these names will show up that they're being used wrong. Toponymy isn't hard, folks.

Satinavian
2017-09-25, 01:36 AM
Going for the gag on your names would be fine - Haggisland, Froggia, Disneyland, whatever - but that'd be very different in tone from a supposedly "evocative" name with cultural baggage.
What's irking me is that the slightest research into these names will show up that they're being used wrong. Toponymy isn't hard, folks.
How about stopping the complaints and myking some suggestions then.

ZamielVanWeber
2017-09-25, 01:49 AM
If you have a friend who is good with languages you can give the people a name based on something they view about themselves. Do not be afraid to reuse concepts in that case either: the number of "sun people" in the world is staggering.

veti
2017-09-25, 02:16 AM
For example Spain becomes the "Empire of never setting sun" or something like that ?

Considering that by the end of that century, the British Empire was being called "the Empire on which the sun never sets", that seems - confusing.

For Spain, I agree the historic names of some of its precursor kingdoms seems like the way to go. I suggest Castille.

For France, how about the Carolian Kingdom (from Charlemagne)?

For England, Anglia. (For Wales, Cymru; for Scotland, Alba or Hibernia; for Ireland, Eireann. For the whole of Great Britain - Albion works.)


They could name it "Haggisland" with the capitol city of "Bagpipenburg" and it would still have 0 ramifications except a lot of childish giggling. And, ironically, most scots I met would probably find it funny or, more likely, suggest renaming the US as "The United States of McDonalds" or something.

Kinda true... but still, I'd be uncomfortable with that argument. Casual racism is not really something I want to give a foothold to.

Drascin
2017-09-25, 02:54 AM
Considering that by the end of that century, the British Empire was being called "the Empire on which the sun never sets", that seems - confusing.


You say that as though "Empire in which the sun never sets" wasn't ALSO a thing the Spanish called their empire.

By and large, people are not terribly imaginative, and monarchs are generally less so than average :p.

Eldan
2017-09-25, 03:13 AM
See also: the number of countries in the world that claimed to be the sole heirs of the Roman Empire at some point.

mig el pig
2017-09-25, 05:47 AM
I like the Gothreich suggestion for Germany.

For the Netherlands you could perhaps take Flandria, Brabant, Belgica, ...

ImNotTrevor
2017-09-25, 05:57 AM
Kinda true... but still, I'd be uncomfortable with that argument. Casual racism is not really something I want to give a foothold to.

I'm fairly certain that white people poking fun at white people isn't racism. >.> but this is getting into politics now when the point was essentially "take a chill pill."

Altair_the_Vexed
2017-09-25, 06:26 AM
I'm starting a pirate themed campaign setted in the early XVIII century. The world is similar to the real one, but with some twists and fantasy elements. To give the feeling "the world is not exactly like the real one" I was thinking of giving the various nations and places alternative names. For example Spain becomes the "Empire of never setting sun" or something like that, while England could be Albion. But I lack ideas. Which names could be suitable for France or Netherlans ? And which for the caribbean islands ?
"Albion" is Great Britain, really - but seeing as most of the world think "England" is also Great Britain, you can probably get away with that. If you want distinct British Celtic nations as well as an Imperial British presence, then you'll want other names for them - Pictland or Caledonia for Scotland, maybe; Brythonni or Kumri for Wales ("Kumri" helps with the pronunciation of "Cymru").

France could be Gaul, or Gallia, or named for one of the historic regions and imagining that they became supreme instead of the Franks - say Gascone, or Burgundia, or similar.

Netherlands could easily be the Low Countries - it's commonly called that in the real world, being just a different rendering of "Netherlands". Or perhaps Fenland, Lowland, or similar.

For the Caribbean, consider where the current names come from - lots of them are named for the kings and queens of the European colonists: the Virgin Islands for one are named after Elizabeth I the "Virgin Queen" - so whatever the last generations' monarch were called will be the names of some of your islands.
Others are named quite simply in other languages: "Puerto Rico" = "Rich Port" - so use that sort of naming for some.

You could also substitute the less well-known regional name "Antilles" or "Antillia" for the Caribbean.

Brother Oni
2017-09-25, 06:36 AM
I'm fairly certain that white people poking fun at white people isn't racism.

Only if it's done equally (e.g. frogs vs rosbifs), but there's plenty of discrimination to go round (e.g. the historical treatment of the Irish or Italians).

ImNotTrevor
2017-09-25, 07:38 AM
Only if it's done equally (e.g. frogs vs rosbifs), but there's plenty of discrimination to go round (e.g. the historical treatment of the Irish or Italians).

To quote myself from the same post:
"This is getting political now when the original point was 'take a chill pill.'"

I for realsies could not give less of a crap about the particulars.

Bogwoppit
2017-09-25, 07:39 AM
How about stopping the complaints and myking some suggestions then.
Take your pick - there a host of alternate news for the lands of the Caribbean.
*Spoon-feeding in the Playground*
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Toponymy+of+the+Caribbean+islands

ImNotTrevor
2017-09-25, 08:54 AM
Take your pick - there a host of alternate news for the lands of the Caribbean.
*Spoon-feeding in the Playground*
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Toponymy+of+the+Caribbean+islands

Sooooo aside from being unhelpful and snarky, you're also going to ignore the Alt. History nature of the request and insist that the only possible evocative names are just ones people already use.

Mmmmmmk.

Deaxsa
2017-09-25, 09:18 AM
Take your pick - there a host of alternate news for the lands of the Caribbean.
*Spoon-feeding in the Playground*
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Toponymy+of+the+Caribbean+islands

While I agree with he premise of your posts (as a lurker), this sort stuff really doesn't help endear anyone to your point (or you).

At OP: maybe you ought to just read up on some history of the locations you're trying to emulate? That way you can decide exactly *how* alternate history you are gonna be, by being informed about these places' history. While you decide where he deviations occur, you can start to craft an idea of what people from the home of the PCs call each nation. Also, it might be fun, history is surprisingly interesting.

Slipperychicken
2017-09-25, 11:51 AM
A lot of countries' real names are slightly inaccurate or use words in unconventional fashions. How about making them accurate. For instance
*The United States of America becomes the United Administrative Divisions of America.

My personal favorite US-knockoff country name is "Federal Unites". It lets you write 'FU' on everything, and here in the states the moment we hear the world 'Federal', we immediately think about the US government.

You could try something like 'Unified Atlantic States'. The acronym (UAS) is close enough. And if you want to simplify the world map somewhat, it also lets you roll up a few other countries in there (i.e. canada, mexico, cuba, other Caribbean islands).

Bogwoppit
2017-09-25, 11:54 AM
Sooooo aside from being unhelpful and snarky, you're also going to ignore the Alt. History nature of the request and insist that the only possible evocative names are just ones people already use.

Mmmmmmk.
You're not reading the linked articles then? There's a bunch of articles there about why the Caribbean islands have the names they now do - from which you can extrapolate new new that fit those conventions - and alternative names that have been historically used.
My point is that the names we use now come from somewhere, and only by understanding that can we make new evocative names that make sense.
You can't just pluck some sounds out the air and you can't just use the name of some part of the country as the whole name without dealing with WHY that's happened. It'd be like call the whole USA "New England" - it ignores the rest of the history of the other parts. Maybe the counterfactual history includes the British Empire expanding continuously into the continent - but this is an alternate history you're going to have to deal with when you create a name like that, as others in this thread have already pointed out.

Now, as for examples, let's see - Caribbean: Puerto Nova, The Majestic Islands, Kalinago
- Netherlands: Lowlands, Platland
- England: Anglia, The Mercian Empire (Mercia held out against the Danes instead of Wessex)
- France: Gaulle, Grande Aquitaine (the Hundred Years War ending significantly differently)

theMycon
2017-09-25, 12:29 PM
Poitescme (pronounced "pwah tehm") is a mythological region in the south of France. They're often at war with the Saracens, a golden age Moslem empire.

Beleriphon
2017-09-25, 02:58 PM
Please don't - Albion is for the whole of Great Britain, including England, Scotland and Wales. And please, if you don't know why that's important, then please don't try to steal our culture.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion

Unless your a UK citizen, England and UK are essentially synonymous, even though they aren't.


Again, please don't use the "-stan" ending for a non-Persian-based place. Same reasons as above, really.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/-stan

Eh, the -stan suffix just means place. So Afghanastan is just Place of the Afghans.

Bogwoppit
2017-09-25, 04:09 PM
Unless you're a UK citizen, England and UK are essentially synonymous, even though they aren't.

Eh, the -stan suffix just means place. So Afghanistan is just Place of the Afghans.
So let's call Canada the USA and Japan a part of China, right? There have been wars over these differences - discussions of which would be against forum rules.
Just because it's a common mistake doesn't mean it shouldn't be called out. It's insulting to the overlooked nations, it shows you don't care.

And -stan is a Farsi (Persian) suffix, so it'd only really be appropriate for a pseudo-Caribbean location if it was Persians who discovered and colonised it. Which would be fine if that was the plan, but from the OP, it seemed like they were after a fairly vanilla piratical adventure setting.

MrNobody
2017-09-25, 05:20 PM
Since there is a lot of mess about what should be culturally and historically appropriate for this 'reworked' Planet Earth, maybe BlacKnight should give us more details about it so we can come out with better ideas.

For example, if Jews had a larger part in the culture of this world, Ashkenaz could be a good name for Germany, and Sepharad for Spain.

dps
2017-09-25, 05:33 PM
Considering that by the end of that century, the British Empire was being called "the Empire on which the sun never sets", that seems - confusing.

For Spain, I agree the historic names of some of its precursor kingdoms seems like the way to go. I suggest Castille.

For France, how about the Carolian Kingdom (from Charlemagne)?

For England, Anglia. (For Wales, Cymru; for Scotland, Alba or Hibernia; for Ireland, Eireann. For the whole of Great Britain - Albion works.)



Kinda true... but still, I'd be uncomfortable with that argument. Casual racism is not really something I want to give a foothold to.

Pretty sure it isn't racist to point out that Scots eat haggis and play bagpipes.

ZamielVanWeber
2017-09-25, 05:44 PM
Pretty sure it isn't racist to point out that Scots eat haggis and play bagpipes.

It is pretty awful to call an entire culture by some specific aspects of it though.

Slipperychicken
2017-09-25, 07:43 PM
You'd think that people who roleplay about fighting trolls would know better than to feed them...

Faily
2017-09-25, 07:48 PM
I want to second the early suggestion of looking at 7th Sea and how they're reworked Europe to fit their fantasy world of Thea. The nations/countries in 7th Sea are *clearly* not-Spain, not-Germany, not-Italy, etc, but they did a lot of interesting fluffing around them too to also make them interesting.

I haven't finished reading the book yet, but it is very well-written and it seems they did a lot of work in world-building.

Vogie
2017-09-26, 10:05 AM
Depends on the alt-history, really, and the . I do love how the most recent MTG expansion had their conquistador-equivalents be vampires, for example, as a gentle poke towards "Sun Kingdoms" of Western Europe.

You can also mix and match territories. For example, France, Germany, Belgium, Luxemborg & The Netherlands could all be a single empire called Gaul, or Gallia, or variations thereof. The Caribbean islands could have already been settled, be called something like "New Phoenicia".

Heck, you could have your alt-history be that Rome expanded via boats instead of via roads, so you could simply apply various Roman terms to the islands of the faux-Caribbean, and go from there.

BlacKnight
2017-09-26, 02:40 PM
Thanks for the answers !
The 7th Sea setting is exactly what I was searching for. Altough it seems to concentrate too much on not-Europe instead of not-Caribbean. But it's very valuable.

I understand the linguistic and historical problem, but really my campaign is not something so refined. It's just a pulp setting for having a little fun. So if names aren't exactly correct or there is no plausible history for them... it doesn't matter. My players won't notice and I don't want to waste time on useless stuff.
That said I think the Netherlands is going to be the Seven Provinces, while France and Spain has to struggle for having the "Sun" in their name... so I'm deciding which is better between Gaul and Aragon. Having Spain and Italy fused is another interesting possibility.

For the Caribbean I'm probably going to just change a little the real names (maybe I could switch the languages, so that Puerto Rico is Port Riche or Rijke Poort). But also having some roman or greek names would add an unique flavour to the setting. And it would also provide an excuse for a precursor civilization or something like that.

dps
2017-09-26, 05:16 PM
It is pretty awful to call an entire culture by some specific aspects of it though.

Only if the aspects are some of the negative aspects.

Of course, if you really hate haggis and bagpipes, you might think that was the case in the example.

Fyraltari
2017-09-28, 05:23 AM
Only if the aspects are some of the negative aspects.

A stereotype is a stereotype whether it is positive or negativeis irrelevant.

Beleriphon
2017-09-28, 11:05 AM
Thanks for the answers !
The 7th Sea setting is exactly what I was searching for. Altough it seems to concentrate too much on not-Europe instead of not-Caribbean. But it's very valuable.

As I recall there's a 7th Sea expansion that covers pirates, and its own pseudo-Caribbean.


I understand the linguistic and historical problem, but really my campaign is not something so refined. It's just a pulp setting for having a little fun. So if names aren't exactly correct or there is no plausible history for them... it doesn't matter. My players won't notice and I don't want to waste time on useless stuff.

As a suggestion one of the options to go with for the Caribbean is name the islands after what their actual name is, rather than what the current territory is calls. For example Hispaniola is the name of the island that the Dominican Republic and Haiti are situated on, most people probably don't realize that it even has a name. So if you want two countries on the same island Hispaniola Majoris and Hispaniola Minoris might be a good way to differentiate. Also, try spelling things the way they are in original language and pronouncing them that way too rather than how you might in English. Havana in Spanish is Habana, and pronounced with the B rather than the V sound we have in English.


That said I think the Netherlands is going to be the Seven Provinces, while France and Spain has to struggle for having the "Sun" in their name... so I'm deciding which is better between Gaul and Aragon. Having Spain and Italy fused is another interesting possibility.

Remember that Spain until the 13th/14th century was actually a bunch of smaller countries, and only after that period did its two largest members create Spain. Also, Spain was once the Kingdom of León


For the Caribbean I'm probably going to just change a little the real names (maybe I could switch the languages, so that Puerto Rico is Port Riche or Rijke Poort). But also having some roman or greek names would add an unique flavour to the setting. And it would also provide an excuse for a precursor civilization or something like that.

Another option is to just remember substantial Spanish influence is as simple as changing the name from Spain, or some variation, to something like Navarre, León, Castile, Aragon, Galacia, or something else from the pre-Spanish kingdoms.

Other thoughts:

Europe: Europa, not original but it sounds old timey
British Isles: Albion
Ireland: Éire (actual name in Irish Gaelic)
France: Gallia (or Wiwi if you go Maori, derived from how the French say "yes, yes")
Netherlands/Holland: Hulandes (derivative of the name in a local language)
Canada: Acadia
USA: Columbia
Germany: Alemannia
Iceland: Thule

rooster707
2017-09-28, 02:56 PM
It is pretty awful to call an entire culture by some specific aspects of it though.

What do we call them, then? Obviously not "Scots," since location is just one aspect of their culture and that would be racist. :smalltongue:

ExLibrisMortis
2017-09-28, 04:15 PM
Netherlands/Holland: Hulandes (derivative of the name in a local language)
For extra fun, refer to the Netherlands by the name of another province (Holland is one, what are the other eleven?). For example, Zeeland (yes, what New Zealand is named for), Friesland (Frisia, people are famously tall here), or Drenthe (a lot of heath, some peat bogs--this would be more of an in-joke, because this only had about 20 000 inhabitants in the early 18th century, and no right to vote within the Union).

Bohandas
2017-09-28, 07:56 PM
USA: Columbia

or maybe Eriksonia

Mr Beer
2017-09-29, 02:13 AM
So let's call Canada the USA and Japan a part of China, right? There have been wars over these differences - discussions of which would be against forum rules.
Just because it's a common mistake doesn't mean it shouldn't be called out. It's insulting to the overlooked nations, it shows you don't care.


If I'm playing an RPG in my own home and I make up a fantasy name for a real world inspired country, I absolutely do not care if that might offend some hypothetical people who I don't know and never will.

Bogwoppit
2017-09-29, 02:30 AM
If I'm playing an RPG in my own home and I make up a fantasy name for a real world inspired country, I absolutely do not care if that might offend some hypothetical people who I don't know and never will.

Integrity is doing the right thing, even when no one is looking.

So you go right ahead.

Mr Beer
2017-09-29, 04:04 AM
Integrity is doing the right thing, even when no one is looking.

So you go right ahead.

But since your idea of 'doing the right thing' is not committing such crimes as re-stickering England as 'Albion' and Scotland as 'Orkney' in a private tabletop RPG session, it's an absurdly trivial, nitpicking concern that any normal person would consider a non-issue.

Lvl 2 Expert
2017-09-29, 06:22 AM
If you want your players to hate your names, name the Netherlands "Grachten". It doesn't have any links to historical names (a gracht is a canal or a moat inside or around a city, distinct from the word kanaal (canal, in the case of the British one also channel) and sloot (ditch, either continually or very regularly containing large amounts of water)), but it's one of the most Dutch word to pronounce imaginable and since we do have a place called Drachten Grachten sounds like it could easily be a real geographical name.

No, I don't know why nobody in your setting invented an English name for the place.

Batavia is also pretty acceptable, it's one of those historical terms that started long enough ago and has been used often enough that nobody can really object to it on the grounds of it being only part of the country and stuff like that. Do note that in the real world Jakarta in Indonesia was called Batavia during the Dutch reign there, try not to confuse your players with that.

For Belgium just Belgica would work. Terms like Brabantia, Flandria, Wallonia are all loaded terms when playing with some actual Belgians, but if you don't have any each of those if usable.

Bogwoppit
2017-09-29, 11:51 AM
But since your idea of 'doing the right thing' is not committing such crimes as re-stickering England as 'Albion' and Scotland as 'Orkney' in a private tabletop RPG session, it's an absurdly trivial, nitpicking concern that any normal person would consider a non-issue.
We're not supposed to discuss political current affairs here, so I'll just suggest you go look elsewhere for the historical and present day objections to the Scots and Welsh being conflated with / ruled by the English.
As for "Orkney" being acceptable - the word includes an element meaning island, so it's just plain wrong unless you re-do your pseudo-Scotland as an island.

There are of course other name suggestions that have come up here that I've also pointed out problems with, but you're only interested in picking on the ones you think after silliest - because you don't seem to give a damn about respect for minorities and their cultures.

Lastly, I started offering comments about how names for places might be offensive with the word "Please". You insist on privacy as a defence. You can go ahead and say any offensive, insensitve, dismissive crap in your own home.

ExLibrisMortis
2017-09-29, 11:58 AM
As for "Orkney" being acceptable - the word includes an element meaning island, so it's just plain wrong unless you re-do your pseudo-Scotland as an island.
Insofar the etymology is at all relevant (which it isn't), that's easily solved. The early settlers of Scotland either mistook it for an island, or it's the name of all of Britain. Big deal.


Lastly, I started offering comments about how names for places might be offensive with the word "Please".
'Please' is not in and of itself enough to excuse unconstructive nitpicking.

Altair_the_Vexed
2017-09-29, 12:35 PM
I'm British, of mixed heritage (Scottish, Welsh, Irish and English), and yes, I'd be a bit pissed off if someone named an England-substitute "Albion" - why not use "Avalon", or "Anglia", or something else that is more English, or at least isn't inherently British - but I think we're well past the point of the OP now.

Pex
2017-09-29, 01:21 PM
Angel Isles - Great Britain and Ireland
Galliant - France
Ibisnia - Spain
Dankshain - Germany

Guizonde
2017-09-29, 01:40 PM
Other thoughts:

Europe: Europa, not original but it sounds old timey
British Isles: Albion
Ireland: Éire (actual name in Irish Gaelic)
France: Gallia (or Wiwi if you go Maori, derived from how the French say "yes, yes")
Netherlands/Holland: Hulandes (derivative of the name in a local language)
Canada: Acadia
USA: Columbia
Germany: Alemannia
Iceland: Thule

let's take that one a bit further: france has always (since the merovingians at least) been divided north-south by the tongue they spoke before french. the north was "langue d'oïl" and the south was "langue d'oc" or "languedoc", "oïl" and "oc" were the ways people said "yes". so, there's some food for thought in that tidbit of info. being from an area in the current languedoc, i'd be pretty chauvinistic in saying "name your ersatz france that". but i'll do it anyway. "france" is named that simply because it was the kingdom of the tribe that prospered there, ie, the franks. it was gaul, could have been the merovingian kingdom, was the carolingian empire, then they settled on france because remembering the different royal lineages is a pain even for me, a french historian specialized in medieval history.

and, because i can't resist feeding the trolls,


- France: Gaulle, Grande Aquitaine (the Hundred Years War ending significantly differently)

you can take my raymond's cross from my cold, dead hands before i call myself aquitain. (the duchy of aquitaine and the county of toulouse have been mortal enemies for about 1000 years, give or take. it's still a very serious rivalry to this day). plus, and more significantly, aquitaine was british, so essentially, you'd be making france english with a name like that.

Bogwoppit
2017-09-29, 02:14 PM
you can take my raymond's cross from my cold, dead hands before i call myself aquitain. (the duchy of aquitaine and the county of toulouse have been mortal enemies for about 1000 years, give or take. it's still a very serious rivalry to this day). plus, and more significantly, aquitaine was british, so essentially, you'd be making france english with a name like that.

That is exactly my point.

Mr Beer
2017-09-29, 02:34 PM
We're not supposed to discuss political current affairs here, so I'll just suggest you go look elsewhere for the historical and present day objections to the Scots and Welsh being conflated with / ruled by the English.
As for "Orkney" being acceptable - the word includes an element meaning island, so it's just plain wrong unless you re-do your pseudo-Scotland as an island.

There are of course other name suggestions that have come up here that I've also pointed out problems with, but you're only interested in picking on the ones you think after silliest - because you don't seem to give a damn about respect for minorities and their cultures.

Lastly, I started offering comments about how names for places might be offensive with the word "Please". You insist on privacy as a defence. You can go ahead and say any offensive, insensitve, dismissive crap in your own home.

I'm not going to support your agenda of being offended over non-issues by going any further down this rabbit hole with you.

Deaxsa
2017-09-29, 05:03 PM
That is exactly my point.

It is? I thought your point was avoiding cultural appropriation, while in this situation, he's correctly including clues as to how the history was altered without making light of the cultural norms of any particular group. A very analogous situation would be the US being controlled by the descendants of some native american nations and you claiming that was insulting to white colonists. It's not. It's an informed interpretation of a fictional universe like ours, and doesn't play off stereotypes (which is the part of the argument that rings true to me).

Guizonde
2017-09-29, 10:22 PM
It is? I thought your point was avoiding cultural appropriation, while in this situation, he's correctly including clues as to how the history was altered without making light of the cultural norms of any particular group. A very analogous situation would be the US being controlled by the descendants of some native american nations and you claiming that was insulting to white colonists. It's not. It's an informed interpretation of a fictional universe like ours, and doesn't play off stereotypes (which is the part of the argument that rings true to me).

thank you for supporting my point, although i fear you give me too much credit. i find being blindly regionalist fun, and although i've gotten into scuffles with bordelais scum a few times, it's still very much a minor squabble in the grand scheme of things. i was just baiting the troll in the sense that what they said was offensive in some contrived way, ergo generating a silly and useless double standard they created.

... that, and i really hate the aquitains with a passion and i am loathe to miss an opportunity to mess with them, but that's neither here nor there.

Bogwoppit
2017-09-30, 02:35 AM
Look, there are some things I've been railing against here, and for some reason people are merging them and attacking me for things I don't hold to be true.

1. Using a real name for a section of a place for the whole of it, when that name ignores that the real place is shared with other people, especially when those people have been oppressed by that section, is a bad thing to do.
E.g.: Albion (an alternate name for Great Britain) = England (ignoring that Scotland & Wales still resent English rule to the extent that there have been wars and more recently a referendum on independence).

2. If you acknowledged the alternate history that can lead you to your chosen name being correct, including the implications of oppression of peoples or otherwise - then good! You're helping to expose and discuss the darker parts of our nations' past, and by extension their present.
E.g.: The Confederation of American States, where the Union lost, and slavery persisted - might be a grim but worthy setting to explore.

3. Getting toponymy plain wrong is just annoying to me - using terms that have meanings that don't apply to the place you're wanting to name.
E.g.: Using Orkney as a name for a non-island nation, using -Stan as a suffix for a non-Persian colony.

I started with polite suggestions that some naming ideas were incorrect.
What's been making me angry is when certain people have been saying that they don't care about being offensive to minorities.
It still makes me angry, and I'm still going to say that such attitudes are poor and should be called out.

ImNotTrevor
2017-09-30, 04:16 PM
Look, there are some things I've been railing against here, and for some reason people are merging them and attacking me for things I don't hold to be true.

1. Using a real name for a section of a place for the whole of it, when that name ignores that the real place is shared with other people, especially when those people have been oppressed by that section, is a bad thing to do.
E.g.: Albion (an alternate name for Great Britain) = England (ignoring that Scotland & Wales still resent English rule to the extent that there have been wars and more recently a referendum on independence).

The OP is not requesting to randomly rename nations. He needs names that INVOKE SIMILAR IDEAS.



2. If you acknowledged the alternate history that can lead you to your chosen name being correct, including the implications of oppression of peoples or otherwise - then good! You're helping to expose and discuss the darker parts of our nations' past, and by extension their present.
E.g.: The Confederation of American States, where the Union lost, and slavery persisted - might be a grim but worthy setting to explore.

Again, he's not doing alternate history. He's doing a different world with nations that have similar cultural reference points to our own and can be identified as occupying similar frameworks. This oppresses no one.



3. Getting toponymy plain wrong is just annoying to me - using terms that have meanings that don't apply to the place you're wanting to name.
E.g.: Using Orkney as a name for a non-island nation,
Ummm.... Scotland is an island. Specifically, half of an island.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR_Qnaa856Wbyr5Z0Cftm7D7qpkNRLfq n1eJpUae7w1YFY71ebf

If you're going to start criticising people of being ignorant, make sure you actually know what you're talking about.




I started with polite suggestions that some naming ideas were incorrect.
What's been making me angry is when certain people have been saying that they don't care about being offensive to minorities.
It still makes me angry, and I'm still going to say that such attitudes are poor and should be called out.


In order to be offensive there has to be someone to offend and who takes offense. If none of the 6 people at the table are offended, it's not offensive. There are vegans who would be offended by the sentence "there is nothing better than a good steak," but if I say it at a family BBQ where there aren't any Vegans, guess what? It's not offensive. Because there's no one to be offended.

Again, you're pulling the "oppression" and "offense" cards for a game that will be played by 6 people for fun. And as I've said before, they could literally play as nazi's and the world would become 0% worse for it. Because fictional elf games are not exactly a vehicle for widespread oppression.

But hey, at least you have a nice view up there on your highest of horses.

Seclora
2017-10-01, 12:40 AM
I would use Granada for Spain, having the fall of the Moorish kingdom at the hands of Aragon and Castile replaced by the fall of Castile at the hands of the Kingdom of Granada.

For France, I would keep the history of conflict with not-England, since it creates player-exploitable circumstances. However, perhaps the people's rebellion has already occurred and the Republic of the Enlightened Scholars has succeeded the Sun King. With minds such as Descartes and Voltaire leading the nation.

Strictly speaking, the British monarchs at the time would have been the Hanoverian rulers, George the first one, George the one who spoke slightly more English, and better known then the first two George, the one with the button collection. Maybe just make it the kingdom of Hanover, and acknowledge that much of the kingdom; the Emerald Isle, Highlands, and that other one with the Dragon flag and the funny language(I love the Welsh :smalltongue:) are really just waiting for the right time to revolt.

There is no Germany. Germany is a figment of your imagination. Doctors like to dispose of Germs, any of them. Is that what you meant?

Italy is also not a thing. The kingdom of Naples in the south would still exist though, since King Ferdinand and the Pope never conquered it.

I do not pretend to know Dutch History. I honestly don't even know enough to make jokes, and that is a shame.

Ironically, Denmark has a great built in name; Jutland. I'm not really sure for the other Scandinavian countries.

Russia can be Muscovy, should anyone ever have reason to go there.

Brother Oni
2017-10-01, 02:31 AM
In order to be offensive there has to be someone to offend and who takes offense. If none of the 6 people at the table are offended, it's not offensive. There are vegans who would be offended by the sentence "there is nothing better than a good steak," but if I say it at a family BBQ where there aren't any Vegans, guess what? It's not offensive. Because there's no one to be offended.

While I agree with you on this and that within a private game, pretty much anything goes provided all the players agree beforehand what the limits of acceptability are, there should be at least an awareness that particular terms can be offensive and that use of those terms outside the context of the event can be offensive.

A gaming example would be using period correct cultural views and language in a 1920s era Call of Cthulhu game. Just because nobody at the table finds the racial epithets or misogynistic views offensive (because all players agreed beforehand that they would be playing their game period correct), doesn't mean they're not offensive when used outside the game.

While I don't agree with the way Bogwoppit is trying to put their point across, I do feel the issue of players losing the aforementioned awareness after the game (or not having it in the first place) is a valid one.

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-01, 02:44 AM
While I agree with you on this and that within a private game, pretty much anything goes provided all the players agree beforehand what the limits of acceptability are, there should be at least an awareness that particular terms can be offensive and that use of those terms outside the context of the event can be offensive.

A gaming example would be using period correct cultural views and language in a 1920s era Call of Cthulhu game. Just because nobody at the table finds the racial epithets or misogynistic views offensive (because all players agreed beforehand that they would be playing their game period correct), doesn't mean they're not offensive when used outside the game.
Are you entirely sure you wanna equate literal racial slurs with using the "wrong" etymological root for a fictional nation acting as a bizarro version of one we have?



While I don't agree with the way Bogwoppit is trying to put their point across, I do feel the issue of players losing the aforementioned awareness after the game (or not having it in the first place) is a valid one.
I'm unconvinced that a nation for which the sun LITERALLY does not set on all of its territories, (The UK) counts as a minority.

I'm unconvinced that this isn't a pet peeve given false bravado by equating "naming your fake country wrong" with actual real life oppression and cultural destruction as if they are even in the same zip code.

If you wanna talk about the latter, find another venue. If you wanna have a pet peeve, call it what is actually is. Don't try to justify your pet peeve as making you literally a more moral person than people who peeve you.

Bogwoppit
2017-10-01, 02:56 AM
The OP is not requesting to randomly rename nations. He needs names that INVOKE SIMILAR IDEAS.
Of course, who suggested otherwise? Not me.



Again, he's not doing alternate history. He's doing a different world with nations that have similar cultural reference points to our own and can be identified as occupying similar frameworks. This oppresses no one.
If you chose a real world name for an invented place, and then use that real world name to gloss over a whole culture of people that would normally be included in that, then you're being ignorant at best, and deliberately provocative at worst.



Ummm.... Scotland is an island. Specifically, half of an island.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR_Qnaa856Wbyr5Z0Cftm7D7qpkNRLfq n1eJpUae7w1YFY71ebf

If you're going to start criticising people of being ignorant, make sure you actually know what you're talking about.
Ummm... No, it really is not.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island

Scotland is NOT surrounded by water on all sides. It's PART of an island, but that doesn't make it an island itself - any more than New South Wales is an island because it's part of Australia.

"If you're going to start criticising people of being ignorant, make sure you actually know what you're talking about."





In order to be offensive there has to be someone to offend and who takes offense. If none of the 6 people at the table are offended, it's not offensive. There are vegans who would be offended by the sentence "there is nothing better than a good steak," but if I say it at a family BBQ where there aren't any Vegans, guess what? It's not offensive. Because there's no one to be offended.

Again, you're pulling the "oppression" and "offense" cards for a game that will be played by 6 people for fun. And as I've said before, they could literally play as nazi's and the world would become 0% worse for it. Because fictional elf games are not exactly a vehicle for widespread oppression.

But hey, at least you have a nice view up there on your highest of horses.
What we do in private when no one is looking goes to the heart of who we are. For example, if you get enjoyment out of shouting "N****R!" in private, what does that say about you?
So if you get enjoyment out of wilfully ignoring historical grievances and current day oppression in the language you choose to use for your entertainment, then what does that say about you?

I've just been trying to point out that there are these grievances. Since making that point, I've been forced to defend it against attack from people who don't seem to care about using offensive language, people who think privacy makes it okay.

EDIT: I just saw this post-

Are you entirely sure you wanna equate literal racial slurs with using the "wrong" etymological root for a fictional nation acting as a bizarro version of one we have?


I'm unconvinced that a nation for which the sun LITERALLY does not set on all of its territories, (The UK) counts as a minority.

I'm unconvinced that this isn't a pet peeve given false bravado by equating "naming your fake country wrong" with actual real life oppression and cultural destruction as if they are even in the same zip code.

If you wanna talk about the latter, find another venue. If you wanna have a pet peeve, call it what is actually is. Don't try to justify your pet peeve as making you literally a more moral person than people who peeve you.
No, the UK is not a hard done by minority -
I don't think any said that. Please stop inventing arguments to attack.

The point you're obviously missing here is that Scotland and Wales are minority nations within the UK. Both have been subject to oppression, and have only in the last 30 years gained any measure of home rule. Their native languages have been systematically nearly wiped out. Their names have been Anglicised. Resentment of the English rule over these culturally and ethnically distinct nations is not something to be ignored - or you make yourself part of the problem.

So calling the England of your game "Albion", when that name refers to the whole of Great Britain, including Scotland and Wales - that is insensitve.

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-01, 03:26 AM
Of course, who suggested otherwise? Not me.


If you chose a real world name for an invented place, and then use that real world name to gloss over a whole culture of people that would normally be included in that, then you're being ignorant at best, and deliberately provocative at worst.

Or!
It's not a real place, real places steal names from erased cultures ALL THE TIME (see: Utah, literally any state with a name based on the Indian tribes within it, Texas just using a bastardization of its mexican name, Paraguay getting its name from the Guarani peoples who they've tried to culturally remove a few times in the past, Uruguay getting its name from the same source but actually succeeding, we called native americans indians for a long time due to Columbus screwing up, etc.)
Having a Britain anologue who just stole a name from another culture and pissed all over said culture in the doing is pretty dang believable, friend. They certainly didn't mind stomping all over cultures around the globe.



Ummm... No, it really is not.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island

Scotland is NOT surrounded by water on all sides. It's PART of an island, but that doesn't make it an island itself - any more than New South Wales is an island because it's part of Australia.

"If you're going to start criticising people of being ignorant, make sure you actually know what you're talking about."

Allow me to destroy this terrible nitpick really easily:
If you are a norseman, and you sail out to a landmass which is surrounded by water and start living on it, would you be correct in referring to this landmass as being an Island?
Island refers to LANDMASSES, not NATIONS.
Also, you somehow missed literally the third image on your source:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/MODIS_-_Great_Britain_and_Ireland_-_2012-06-04_during_heat_wave.jpg/267px-MODIS_-_Great_Britain_and_Ireland_-_2012-06-04_during_heat_wave.jpg

Scotland is a country on an island. Having linguistic reference to islands in its name is not incorrect. How you're not managing to see how a nation ON AN ISLAND might have A REFERENCE TO ITS LANDMASS BEING AN ISLAND be part of its name and how that might be ok boggles the mind.

Again, if you're going to be cheeky and try to boomerang something back at someone, it helps to not fumble it this hard.



What we do in private when no one is looking goes to the heart of who we are. For example, if you get enjoyment out of shouting "N****R!" in private, what does that say about you?
Please note you are now equating naming a fictional country wrong to sitting in your house screaming racial slurs as if they occupy even vaguely the same moral zipcode.



So if you get enjoyment out of wilfully ignoring historical grievances and current day oppression in the language you choose to use for your entertainment, then what does that say about you?

I've just been trying to point out that there are these grievances. Since making that point, I've been forced to defend it against attack from people who don't seem to care about using offensive language, people who think privacy makes it okay.

Nay, friend. We are noticing someone buoying up a petpeeve with terms like Oppression and Racism so that people must either agree or be Bad People. Which is grade-A BS that I and a few others reject out of hand. If anyone actually from those cultures wants to step forward and make a greivance to a tabletop group, sure. I'm OK with that. Hell, I have been wanting to run a Western Fantasy game but knowing how to handle "Native American" culture is a concern of mine, because it is an actual culture. And many of them. And I plan for this game to be openly available, so care and caution are advised, especially since these cultures will be important.

Note how I can be both concerned about how I represent an analogue of a culture and reject your attempt to make me out as a bad person for not agreeing with your pet peeve.

So no. I acknowledge your pet peeve and reject the rest of the pomp.

Mr Beer
2017-10-01, 03:34 AM
While I agree with you on this and that within a private game, pretty much anything goes provided all the players agree beforehand what the limits of acceptability are, there should be at least an awareness that particular terms can be offensive and that use of those terms outside the context of the event can be offensive.

A gaming example would be using period correct cultural views and language in a 1920s era Call of Cthulhu game. Just because nobody at the table finds the racial epithets or misogynistic views offensive (because all players agreed beforehand that they would be playing their game period correct), doesn't mean they're not offensive when used outside the game.

While I don't agree with the way Bogwoppit is trying to put their point across, I do feel the issue of players losing the aforementioned awareness after the game (or not having it in the first place) is a valid one.

I think this is all true in a general sense but not really applicable here.

Let's say a poster goes:

"I ran a game last night set in a fantasy version of China and all the NPCs were like Krusty the Klown when he did that bit about a Chinese person - 'Me So Solly!!' Ha ha ha it was hilarious and all my players laughed!"

Well obviously they are going to be criticised and if they say 'well it's in my house', it's true that they're allowed to do it but it's still racist and not acceptable to most RPG groups.

Now if a poster says:

"I ran a game set in a fantasy version of China called Ming..." and another poster immediately starts in with:

"You can't call it that! Ming was a Han-lead dynasty not the country of China so it's totally inaccurate! And it's offensive to minorities!"

Then OP points out that it's in their own home and the offended person responds with:

"PRIVACY IS NO DEFENSE IT IS RUDE AND DISPRESPECTFUL AND OFFENSIVE TO MINORITIES!!"

Then you know you are dealing with someone who is just looking for an excuse to be offended and there is no need to take them seriously.

Vitruviansquid
2017-10-01, 03:34 AM
Wow, you drop a quick answer for a quick question and it turns into this.

If you are wondering why people seem to be so hostile to your suggestion that some people's ideas for names of fakey fictional versions of nations should not be used... realize that you did not "start with polite suggestions," you started with accusing BlaCKnight and hymer of attempting to "steal your culture."

Bogwoppit
2017-10-01, 03:40 AM
Don't call me "friend".

You can insist that Scotland is an island if you want, but you're utterly wrong. Don't try to debate facts.

I've added to the quoted post while you were writing - to summarise: the Celtic nations of the UK have been and are subject to what many consider foreign rule from the London government, and oppression for centuries. So it is quite real to say that oppression of the Celts in Britain is a current race issue.

Mr Beer
2017-10-01, 03:47 AM
Nay, friend. We are noticing someone buoying up a petpeeve with terms like Oppression and Racism so that people must either agree or be Bad People. Which is grade-A BS that I and a few others reject out of hand.

Yeah it's pretty patronising when the handwringers of this world try to weaponise terms like 'racism' in order to police one's opinions. Everyone must think the same way and if they don't, they're evil. No sorry, I don't agree to your paradigm.

hymer
2017-10-01, 04:30 AM
Wow, you drop a quick answer for a quick question and it turns into this.

If you are wondering why people seem to be so hostile to your suggestion that some people's ideas for names of fakey fictional versions of nations should not be used... realize that you did not "start with polite suggestions," you started with accusing BlaCKnight and hymer of attempting to "steal your culture."

Well, s/he did say 'please'. :smallamused:

Altair_the_Vexed
2017-10-01, 05:35 AM
Here's a handy long list of national names etymologies - and their poetic alternatives, like "Kemet" for Egypt, or "Batavia" for the Netherlands - from the real world. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country-name_etymologies)

Tobtor
2017-10-01, 06:06 AM
Or!

Allow me to destroy this terrible nitpick really easily:
If you are a norseman, and you sail out to a landmass which is surrounded by water and start living on it, would you be correct in referring to this landmass as being an Island?
Island refers to LANDMASSES, not NATIONS.

Let me destroy YOUR nitpick. Norsemen NEVER refered the British isles as a whole as "an island". They didnt refer to England as an Island either. Its way too big for the term in their view. In theory all landmasses are islands. Except that modern definitions have termed some of the larger ones continent. This is not how it was done historically.

I feel that calling all of Scotland Orkney would be silly - it simply sounds wrong. It is like calling a country clearly modelled on western culture USA "the Hawaiian island". I think you would find some hawaian who was anoyed at this.

Orkney is a mix of a pictish and old norse name, which is typical for the islands north of Scotland. Most Orkadians do not consider themselves to be Scottish, bt a distincct culture group. Using terms wich are contested in real life about something "wrong" CAN cause various internet argument (like using Israel as a "fcitatious" name for a Muslim state would!).

Are you allowed to do so at your gaming table. Sure. This is however the internet and not your gaming table. So doing so is likely to spark debate (and at some point we might break forum rules?).

Brother Oni
2017-10-01, 07:05 AM
Are you entirely sure you wanna equate literal racial slurs with using the "wrong" etymological root for a fictional nation acting as a bizarro version of one we have?

Just using it as an over-exaggeration to try and clarify my point of an 'acceptable' level of offensiveness. The 1920s CoC setting is the first one that came to mind.



I'm unconvinced that this isn't a pet peeve given false bravado by equating "naming your fake country wrong" with actual real life oppression and cultural destruction as if they are even in the same zip code.

If you wanna talk about the latter, find another venue. If you wanna have a pet peeve, call it what is actually is. Don't try to justify your pet peeve as making you literally a more moral person than people who peeve you.

Or you talking about my pet peeve or Bogwoppit's?

If you want to discuss my pet peeve, it's casual racism repeated so often to the point that a person believes it's acceptable. While it's a long step from this to 'naming your country wrong' and the associated implications, the point I was trying to make was that repeated exposure to potentially offensive terms can make someone forget that they're potentially offensive in the first place.


Then you know you are dealing with someone who is just looking for an excuse to be offended and there is no need to take them seriously.

That's a much more eloquent way of making my point - thank you! :smallbiggrin:

Mr Beer
2017-10-01, 07:08 AM
That's a much more eloquent way of making my point - thank you! :smallbiggrin:

:fistbump:

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-01, 11:08 AM
Let me destroy YOUR nitpick.
That's an example, not a nitpick. Which, funnily enough, you nitpick about particulars.



I feel that calling all of Scotland Orkney would be silly - it simply sounds wrong. It is like calling a country clearly modelled on western culture USA "the Hawaiian island". I think you would find some hawaian who was anoyed at this.
Sure. And they can feel free to comment when at my table.



Orkney is a mix of a pictish and old norse name, which is typical for the islands north of Scotland. Most Orkadians do not consider themselves to be Scottish, bt a distincct culture group. Using terms wich are contested in real life about something "wrong" CAN cause various internet argument (like using Israel as a "fcitatious" name for a Muslim state would!).

Are you allowed to do so at your gaming table. Sure. This is however the internet and not your gaming table. So doing so is likely to spark debate (and at some point we might break forum rules?).

Your pet peeve has been noted.

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-01, 11:15 AM
Don't call me "friend".

You got it, pal.



You can insist that Scotland is an island if you want, but you're utterly wrong. Don't try to debate facts.
>literally a picture with scotland in it from your source about islands
>literally no backup for this declaration this time
>mfw this much insisting on being wrong by even your own provided definition
https://www.askideas.com/media/37/Funny-Laughing-Gif-Picture.gif



Ain't gonna touch the politics.

Bogwoppit
2017-10-01, 12:18 PM
>literally a picture with scotland in it from your source about islands
>literally no backup for this declaration this time
>mfw this much insisting on being wrong by even your own provided definition.

You dimwit - Scotland is in the picture because it is PART of an island, and that island is LABELLED in that source as "Great Britain". What body of water separates Scotland from Great Britain?
Can't you tell the difference? Seriously? Go back to school.

rooster707
2017-10-01, 01:08 PM
*munches popcorn*

(FWIW, I can't think of any possible name for where I live or any other place that would offend me or anyone I know. And while I certainly can't be 100% sure what the rest of humanity would feel, I think this whole debate is ridiculous.)

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-01, 03:28 PM
You dimwit - Scotland is in the picture because it is PART of an island, and that island is LABELLED in that source as "Great Britain". What body of water separates Scotland from Great Britain?
Can't you tell the difference? Seriously? Go back to school.

>equating landmasses with the nations on them

Mk.

Additionally, the UK as a unit is considered an Island Nation, of which Scotland is a piece.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_island_countries

You are free to go now.

Bogwoppit
2017-10-01, 03:52 PM
Look, you belligerent willful antagonist - I live here. I can see the border, on the land. There's no sea between England and Scotland, or England and Wales. These nations are not islands. Great Britain is an island, but the constituent nations ARE NOT.

Those links are not relevant - Scotland is a PART of the UK, not the whole of it. Yes, the island of Great Britain is an island, but that does NOT make Scotland an island.

You're just going to ignore that Scotland has a frikken LAND border?

https://youtu.be/rNu8XDBSn10

Go ask a Glaswegian if Scotland is an island. Go on. I'll call you an ambulance afterward.

Grim Portent
2017-10-01, 04:38 PM
Speaking as a Scot;

1) Scotland is not an island, Britain is an island. Scotland has never been called an island, that's not how island or country naming works.

2) Calling Scotland Orkney would be both offensive and stupid. It essentially wipes away the fact that the people of Orkney are not Scottish in the same way people using Britain and England interchangably already does for the Scots, ignores the historical origins of Orkney being part of Scotland and defies basically every sensible naming convention for countries. It also doesn't sound at all fantastical or evocative because Orkney is one of the better known parts of Scotland so if you mention it most people will think of the island rather than NotScotland.

3) Alternate Celtic, Pictish or Gaelic names don't really make sense past a certain point of history. It'd be like naming Italy Rome. Dal Riata doesn't really evoke Scotland despite being a name for the region Scots originated in.


Anyway, on to how I'd work out alternate names for places, keeping on Scotland as an example, sensible ideas are to name alternate world countries after major rivers, major cities, dominant ethnicities that are still existent in the nation at the time, major regions or important places. Scotland is already named after the Scottish people, so that's out because there aren't really any large groups on non-Scots in Scotland historically speaking.

So rivers perhaps? In Scotland there are 3 major rivers we're going to look at, the Tay, the Clyde and the Forth. The Clyde is probably loosely known of to a lot of people if only because other things have Clyde in the name, not really suitable for a fantasy name because it sounds rather generic, and it's also a name used by people which kind of takes any interest out of it. The Forth is out because people will generally mistake it for the word fourth, which is sadly an issue when making good names. The Tay could work quite well. It's not particularly important other than passing by Dundee, so no one should be familiar with it, but sadly the idea of The Kingdom on the Tay works less than I'd like because while it sounds good it's far from the traditional capital of Scotland, so it doesn't really make sense.

Major cities, well currently that's basically Edinburgh, Dundee, Glasgow and Aberdeen. Not really much to be worked with honestly. None really make sense as a county name historically except maybe Edinburgh, but the burgh in the name means town, so I'd throw it out as an option.

Major regions we hit a bit of gold, there are two decent options. Lothian, the part of Scotland Edinburgh is in, though it's borders have changed a bit and it wasn't an original part of Scotland. Since Edinburgh has been the capital for a while it's a good contender. The Kingdom of Lothian sounds pretty good too. The other option I like is the Kingdom of Fife, which sits across the river Forth to the north of Edinburgh. It's thought to have been a kingdom in the past before the unification of Scotland, and is still often called the Kingdom of Fife in the country. It's close to the capital and historically important. Either of Fife or Lothian would work and should be obscure enough people won't think of the real one and still sound Scottish to those familiar with our place names. Argyll and Stirling deserve a mention, Argyll is roughly where some of the original Scoti tribes lived and sounds as Scottish as you can, and Stirling is historically quite important to the kings of Scotland, if a bit too common knowledge as a specific place for my taste.

This process can be repeated for more or less any country on the planet, especially ones with good historical records going back a few hundred years. Finding a good alternate name for areas that were colonised and named by Europeans might be awkward really because the names are often simple or abitrarily assigned. Peru for example is thought to have been named after a local ruler during the Spanish exploration. Still shouldn't take more than about 10 minutes of research to find something suitable.

Bogwoppit
2017-10-01, 04:49 PM
Speaking as a Scot;
...
Still shouldn't take more than about 10 minutes of research to find something suitable.
Thanks, pal.

I know I'm not winning friend here, but its pissing me right off that some people are ignoring basic facts.

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-01, 04:50 PM
Look, you belligerent willful antagonist - I live here. I can see the border, on the land. There's no sea between England and Scotland, or England and Wales. These nations are not islands. Great Britain is an island, but the constituent nations ARE NOT.

Those links are not relevant - Scotland is a PART of the UK, not the whole of it. Yes, the island of Great Britain is an island, but that does NOT make Scotland an island.

You're just going to ignore that Scotland has a frikken LAND border?

https://youtu.be/rNu8XDBSn10

Go ask a Glaswegian if Scotland is an island. Go on. I'll call you an ambulance afterward.

Why so mad, bud?

Remember: you're the one who argued that having a name with linguistic reference to Islands is wrong for a nation that is on an island. (Orkney)

Scotland, like it or not, is an island nation (a nation on an island.) Where you're splitting hairs is on whether the political entity and borders of Scotland constituten in its whole, an island. Which, sure.

But I'm really not concerned about that. Any traveler travelling to this island before it has political borders drawn on it will call it an island. Because it's an island. That they end up not owning the whole island has 0 effect on what kind of landmass it is.

Being a nation ON HALF AN ISLAND is not particularly differrent from being a nation ON A WHOLE ISLAND, at least not enough to prevent it from being lumped in with its neighbors on a list of ISLAND NATIONS.

Again, the discussion started because you insisted that having a reference to islands as a part of the name of Fictional Not-Scotland is factually wrong DESPITE the name not being based on the political entity of Scotland that didnt exist at the time, but was based on THE LANDMASS BEING SETTLED.

You're essentially arguing that you can't name the american continent Columbia because in modern current politics America is just one country. It's a non-sequiteur.

Bogwoppit
2017-10-01, 05:04 PM
You're denying that you just spent the last few posts claiming Scotland was an island now?

Of course! We were always at war with Eurasia.

Grim Portent
2017-10-01, 05:10 PM
Why so mad, bud?

Remember: you're the one who argued that having a name with linguistic reference to Islands is wrong for a nation that is on an island. (Orkney)

Scotland, like it or not, is an island nation (a nation on an island.) Where you're splitting hairs is on whether the political entity and borders of Scotland constituten in its whole, an island. Which, sure.

But I'm really not concerned about that. Any traveler travelling to this island before it has political borders drawn on it will call it an island. Because it's an island. That they end up not owning the whole island has 0 effect on what kind of landmass it is.

Being a nation ON HALF AN ISLAND is not particularly differrent from being a nation ON A WHOLE ISLAND, at least not enough to prevent it from being lumped in with its neighbors on a list of ISLAND NATIONS.

Again, the discussion started because you insisted that having a reference to islands as a part of the name of Fictional Not-Scotland is factually wrong DESPITE the name not being based on the political entity of Scotland that didnt exist at the time, but was based on THE LANDMASS BEING SETTLED.

You're essentially arguing that you can't name the american continent Columbia because in modern current politics America is just one country. It's a non-sequiteur.

1) No part of mainland Britain is referred to as an island or has island based words in it's name. It's not part of the naming conventions of any of the cultures that live there or even any of the ones that invaded it in the past.

2) Most large chunks of Britain are named after the people that live there. England after the Angles, Scotland after the Scoti, Ireland's named after an Irish goddess, Wales is named after a Celtic tribe.

3) Using a Norse derived name and culture to name Scotland would be more equivalent to naming America Iceland, except even that's not close to how innacurate Orkney as a name for Scotland would be.

Brother Oni
2017-10-01, 06:37 PM
3) Using a Norse derived name and culture to name Scotland would be more equivalent to naming America Iceland...

Unless say, in this alternate history world, Harald Hardrada won the Battle of Stamford Bridge and after a long gruelling campaign spanning years, defeated William the Bastard and conquered the whole of the British Isles. After several hundred years of integration and some curious parallels to real world England's history (eg the Hundred Years War still kicked off as Norse England went after France and took the land by conquest instead of via the French king attempting to reclaim sovereignty over a vassal's lands), Norse England during the Age of Sail is still pretty much the same, although the officers may be a bit more blond and taller and the language has more roots from Old Norwegian instead of Old French and may or may not sound a bit like drunken singing with a potato in the mouth (https://satwcomic.com/language-lesson). :smalltongue:

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-01, 07:29 PM
You're denying that you just spent the last few posts claiming Scotland was an island now?

Of course! We were always at war with Eurasia.

Again, you're splitting hairs between Is ON an Island and "it's borders are ocean." Scotland is an island because it's on an island for the same reason Haiti is an island nation despite not taking up the full island. (Already provided the link)

What I'm doing is pointing back to your claim that one of the problems with naming it Orkney is that this name references islands. Which is silliness that you're pretending didn't happen.


1) No part of mainland Britain is referred to as an island or has island based words in it's name. It's not part of the naming conventions of any of the cultures that live there or even any of the ones that invaded it in the past.
Ask Bogwoppit. He said the thing about the name Orkney relating to islands.



2) Most large chunks of Britain are named after the people that live there. England after the Angles, Scotland after the Scoti, Ireland's named after an Irish goddess, Wales is named after a Celtic tribe.

neat and irrelevant to a fictional land with similar culture output to modern UK but a different history.



3) Using a Norse derived name and culture to name Scotland would be more equivalent to naming America Iceland, except even that's not close to how innacurate Orkney as a name for Scotland would be.

http://www.scottishorigenes.com/sites/default/files/field/image/Scottish%20medieval%20ethnicity%20map_0.jpg

According to this (from scottishorigenes.com, feel free to check it out) it would be more like calling not-America "Louisiana," based on what is a minority of influence now being a majority influence. So this version of America would be a bit more like Canada but otherwise similar.

As an american, I would have 0 problem with 6 dudes playing a game where this is the case because it does not affect me in any way.

Bogwoppit
2017-10-02, 01:01 AM
"On an island" isn't the same as "is an island". That's like saying that France is a continent because it's part of Europe, or that your toes are sapient because they're part of a sapient being.

Mr Beer
2017-10-02, 02:30 AM
Quote made a while back:


Scotland is a country on an island.

No idea why we then need to see tedious nitpicking posts pretending Trevor is trying to mislabel Scotland's island status. But I guess someone has to stand up for the oppressed Celts, it's the hero Orkney needs, oops sorry Scotland needs. Dammit now I just attacked some minorities :smalleek:

Bogwoppit
2017-10-02, 05:43 AM
Ummm.... Scotland is an island. Specifically, half of an island.

...

If you're going to start criticising people of being ignorant, make sure you actually know what you're talking about.

Trevor totally did say Scotland was an island, look, right there.
Then he says it's part of an island, and that means we should treat it as an island. Which is like saying Mexico is a continent.

So back to this Orkney stupidity: calling a pseudo-Scotland "Orkney" is like calling pseudo-India "Sri Lanka".
It's a relatively nearby island, so we'll just happily borrow the name, and ignore the culture. Cause who cares about getting anything right about foreigners' cultures? Obviously not you guys.

aberratio ictus
2017-10-02, 06:12 AM
As a foreigner, I just wanted to drop in to give you guys the permission to call your fantasy Germany (which happens to be the foreign nation I hail from) Swabosia, Bavaristan, Frankland, Föhr (which is an island off the coast) or whatever you please. :smallwink:

Nobody but right wing Nationalists would be offended by a couple of people using fantasy equivalents in their tabletop game, and those are the last people you should let spoil your fun. :smallwink:

Oh, and if that's (https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRvGSsr9pFdXUW0qrprq1Q8XcUwPUsgB uR9svTFpOwNqgs1Aq1KE4xOAqjo) the inhabitants, that's fine, too.

Eldan
2017-10-02, 06:19 AM
Fantasy does seem a bit divided over whether the Germans are orcs or dwarves, yeah. Meanwhile, we avoid that issue by never having fantasy equivalents.

aberratio ictus
2017-10-02, 06:46 AM
That up there is actually supposed to be a gorilla, not an orc, as far as I know. :smallwink:

Grim Portent
2017-10-02, 09:30 AM
Nobody but right wing Nationalists would be offended by a couple of people using fantasy equivalents in their tabletop game, and those are the last people you should let spoil your fun. :smallwink:

The reason I'm making a point about this is for the same reason that people should make a point to properly identify the different indiginous tribes of America rather than lumping them all together as one homogenous blob. Their traditions, language, religion, history and culture are all different, they live in different ways and hold different ideals. If I was going to set a game or write a story set in pre-colonial America I'd spend weeks researching the basics of which tribes lived where, how they lived day to day and what their relation to their neighbours was.

Over here in Scotland Orkney, Mann (not part of Scotland, but often lumped in when it's not just ignored) and the myriad small islands are distinct from mainland Scotland, most never became part of the homogenized culture and many still have traditions seen nowhere else in the country, though they'd been dwindling over the years as the islanders emigrate. South Scotland is basically the most English part of the country, and it gradually gets more Gaelic as you go north, there's long histories of oppression, violence, rebellion, financial mistreatment and racist discrimination against the minorities from the north and islands in excess of what the south ever felt.

aberratio ictus
2017-10-02, 10:17 AM
Oh, I get your reasoning, absolutely.

The German people mostly identify along the lines of the old tribal duchies, all with quite some cultural differences and in parts extremely different dialects.

So why wouldn't I care about the OP creating Bavaristan, a land populated by giant gorillas wearing Pickelhauben?

Maybe because I'm not that sensitive about my culture? Probably.

But mostly because I don't think it is my place to police a private game of some Americans who openly admit accuracy of any kind is not their primary goal.

Do you really think this is the appropriate place to take a stand for appropriate cultural representation?

I would get it if someone intended to make and publish a historical game or book or whatever to a broad audience and making grave mistakes like that.

Here however, to me it seems you are just harrassing people who try to have innocent fun.

Grim Portent
2017-10-02, 12:37 PM
Oh, I get your reasoning, absolutely.

The German people mostly identify along the lines of the old tribal duchies, all with quite some cultural differences and in parts extremely different dialects.

So why wouldn't I care about the OP creating Bavaristan, a land populated by giant gorillas wearing Pickelhauben?

Maybe because I'm not that sensitive about my culture? Probably.

But mostly because I don't think it is my place to police a private game of some Americans who openly admit accuracy of any kind is not their primary goal.

Do you really think this is the appropriate place to take a stand for appropriate cultural representation?

I would get it if someone intended to make and publish a historical game or book or whatever to a broad audience and making grave mistakes like that.

Here however, to me it seems you are just harrassing people who try to have innocent fun.

I'm not sure how telling someone who suggests Orkney as a name for Scotland that's it's stupid, explaining why and providing several alternate ideas for names is harrassing them.

As far as I'm concerned addressing issues to do with cultural and historical accuracy always makes sense, it doesn't matter if it's for someone's private game or for a hollywood movie. It takes scarcely any time to research basic facts about something and if you're going to do something you should do it properly.

Rusvul
2017-10-02, 01:19 PM
Even irrespective of cultural sensitivity, Orkney is probably not an ideal name for a location in a fantasy setting. Either it's full of orcs, in which case it's a bit on the nose, or it isn't full of orcs, in which case it's misleading.

As far as cultural sensitivity goes... I certainly think it's admirable, and ought to be a necessity for any published work, be it movie, book, game, whatever. In a private game, you certainly get bonus points for cultural sensitivity, but if you're not alienating or upsetting anyone at your table, it doesn't really matter. If you, with your friends in your own home, want to play Chesthair Battleaxe of the Viking People, wandering the seas in a dragon-headed longboat doing heroic deeds... who cares? Sure, your game would probably be better if you did your research and, I don't know, didn't call your medieval Scandinavian analogues "the viking people," for starters, but again, as long as your whole group is cool with it, it's not like you're hurting anyone.

There is a point at which that sort of thing can cross into blatant racism, though. That's... not cool, of course. But even then, the worst case scenario is that you and your friends are being ignorant and/or hateful asses in your own home, with no-one around to be bothered by it. As far as hatefulness goes... that's not so bad.

For ignorance's part, that's... all it is. Innocent, harmless (in a private game), ignorance. It would absolutely be ideal to educate oneself thoroughly on a culture before drawing from it at all in one's world-building, but a person can only dedicate so much time to RPGs. If someone cuts some corners, skips some research, and calls their fantasy-Scotland Orkney in their private game... If there's no-one in the group who takes offense, no harm done.

Of course, this only holds true for private games. I strongly believe in the importance of cultural sensitivity in published works. If you ignorantly treat all Native American cultures as homogeneous in your home game, you're being a bit racist, but you're not hurting anyone. If you do the same in a widely available feature film, you're contributing to public ignorance of Native American culture, and thus having a tangible negative effect on the lives of Native Americans.

To be ignorant is unfortunate. To spread ignorance is unacceptable.

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-02, 01:37 PM
Trevor totally did say Scotland was an island, look, right there.
Then he says it's part of an island, and that means we should treat it as an island. Which is like saying Mexico is a continent.

Then you've missed the point.
Lets say I arrive at a landmass in the ocean. It is about the size of Rhode Island.
I decide to call this piece of land Islandland.
Islandland becomes a nation with the name given to it by me, the person who wanted to name it.
Turns out some other people are there, but we end up dividing the space up and now we have Islandland and Lesser France on the same island.
This continues for a few centuries.
300 years later, someone on a forum says the name Islandland is inappropriate because the nation didn't cover the whole island.



So back to this Orkney stupidity: calling a pseudo-Scotland "Orkney" is like calling pseudo-India "Sri Lanka".
Or Delhi. Our a variety of names for the purpose of indicating what nation is being eluded to and perhaps hinting at any changes. "Pseudo" implies passing resemblance, not carbon copying.



It's a relatively nearby island, so we'll just happily borrow the name, and ignore the culture. Cause who cares about getting anything right about foreigners' cultures? Obviously not you guys.
It isn't a foreign culture. It's a fictional culture with some cultural reference points with to give it a passing resemblance to a culture in reality sufficient to operate a game for like 6 dudes.

Bogwoppit
2017-10-02, 03:43 PM
Then you've missed the point.
Lets say I arrive at a landmass in the ocean. It is about the size of Rhode Island.
I decide to call this piece of land Islandland.
Islandland becomes a nation with the name given to it by me, the person who wanted to name it.
Turns out some other people are there, but we end up dividing the space up and now we have Islandland and Lesser France on the same island.
This continues for a few centuries.
300 years later, someone on a forum says the name Islandland is inappropriate because the nation didn't cover the whole island.


Or Delhi. Our a variety of names for the purpose of indicating what nation is being eluded to and perhaps hinting at any changes. "Pseudo" implies passing resemblance, not carbon copying.


It isn't a foreign culture. It's a fictional culture with some cultural reference points with to give it a passing resemblance to a culture in reality sufficient to operate a game for like 6 dudes.

Okay, when we absorb the reasons for the unusual name etymology into the game setting, then that's good. That's interesting and full of alt-history. And that's a thing I've repeatedly urged along the way through this argument - urged badly, it seems.

So if that is the position we're both coming from - which I really did not find clear from your posts, and you obviously didn't from mine - then I have to apologise for misunderstanding you.

Ultimately, the important thing is that we pick names for our pretend places with an understanding and acknowledgement of what the implications of those names is in the real world.
Otherwise, why don't we just call our pretend nations Beebeldeebopdeboop and Flooblegleek.

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-02, 03:57 PM
Okay, when we absorb the reasons for the unusual name etymology into the game setting, then that's good. That's interesting and full of alt-history. And that's a thing I've repeatedly urged along the way through this argument - urged badly, it seems.
I mean, this isn't an alt-history exercise.
It's making cheese-flavored snacks that aren't actually cheese.
Britain-flavored nation that isn't actually Britain.



So if that is the position we're both coming from - which I really did not find clear from your posts, and you obviously didn't from mine - then I have to apologise for misunderstanding you.

Ultimately, the important thing is that we pick names for our pretend places with an understanding and acknowledgement of what the implications of those names is in the real world.
Otherwise, why don't we just call our pretend nations Beebeldeebopdeboop and Flooblegleek.

I mean, I don't think it is worth raising a stink over a game for 6 dudes, and especially not worth heavily implying that doing it wrong means the individuals are racist or malicious. It's worth mentioning as a pet peeve. As a moral value judgement? Not even a little. Not in the same zipcode.

Bogwoppit
2017-10-02, 04:29 PM
I mean, I don't think it is worth raising a stink over a game for 6 dudes, and especially not worth heavily implying that doing it wrong means the individuals are racist or malicious. It's worth mentioning as a pet peeve. As a moral value judgement? Not even a little. Not in the same zipcode.
Sorry, but I still have to disagree with that.

If I'm doing thing that I know will piss off the Scots, Welsh, Walloons, Ainu, or Bantu, or whoever in my own house; well, it may be in private, but I'm still doing those things - and wouldn't it be better if I didn't?

rooster707
2017-10-02, 04:43 PM
Otherwise, why don't we just call our pretend nations Beebeldeebopdeboop and Flooblegleek.

I think I'm going to steal these for my next game...

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-02, 05:23 PM
Sorry, but I still have to disagree with that.

If I'm doing thing that I believe will piss off some Scots, Welsh, Walloons, Ainu, or Bantu, or whoever in my own house; well, it may be in private, but I'm still doing those things - and wouldn't it be better if I didn't?

I've taken the liberty of correcting a few things here.

Feel free to poll how many of them object to having a pseudo-scotland called Orkney in a private game that exactly 6 people MAX will ever play. With the full context they'll likely find it silly or inaccurate but I'm truly not suspecting outrage.

These people are grownups and can be offended for their own selves without you doing it for them. People, by and large, tend to not care.

As I said before, if some british dude is running a game where all of America is just called Utah, even though I think Utah is the worst state, I can't think up a reason to care.

Hell, there's an entire game called Dogs in the Vineyard that makes use heavily of themes from my religious life and gets a lot wrong or twisted. And I really don't care, despite a long history of literal massacres of my actual ancestors. Why? Because it's fiction, it's no worse than anything else I've seen, and I don't have time to waste on something so trivial.

(Also it affects me in no way.)

Eldan
2017-10-03, 02:27 AM
I give you full permission to make a nation called Helvetistan inhabited by yodeling Bavarians who hide their nazi gold in clockwork safes made of cheese.

dps
2017-10-03, 02:29 AM
But since your idea of 'doing the right thing' is not committing such crimes as re-stickering England as 'Albion' and Scotland as 'Orkney' in a private tabletop RPG session, it's an absurdly trivial, nitpicking concern that any normal person would consider a non-issue.

Yeah, this is essentially my problem with the stance that Bogwoppit takes in this thread--he's being offended over something that IMO no one should reasonably take offense at. I'm an American of Irish extraction, and I can honestly say that I don't think there's any alternate name you could give to the US or Ireland in a private fantasy game that would offend me. Are there people more sensitive and easily offended than me? Obviously. Should I take into consideration in both my private and public conduct the opinions of others, including those more sensitive than me? Yep. How much weight should I give their opinions? Well, that's a tough one. I can't make all of my actions and statements things that will be completely inoffensive to everyone, because there's always someone, somewhere, who will be offended by anything I might say or do. So I just try to use common sense--terms that I think are offensive (and context can be important here; a term that might be offensive in one context may not be offensive in another), I don't use. Terms I don't think are offensive, but someone else says they find offensive, I'll use, but I'll listen to arguments as to why they might be offensive, and if I think the argument has merit, I'll stop using, and even if I don't stop using it altogether, I'll try to avoid it around anyone who has said they find it offensive, not because I agree with them, but because I'm not interested in going out of my way to try to offend people.

Again, though, context matters. I can see why people from the UK are sensitive to the fact that the terms UK/England/Great Britain don't refer to exactly the same thing. But if, for example, there was a major terrorist attack by Islamic radicals in Edinburgh, and a group of Americans were discussing how terrible it was while in the check-out line at a grocery store, and some of them referred to "the attack in England", obviously that's not correct. Edinburgh, for those who don't know, is in Scotland, not England. But should anyone be offended? No, I don't think so. It should be fairly obvious that there would be no intent to offend. OTOH, if the same discussion took place on an internet forum with an international membership, I think it's reasonable to ask for a higher degree of precision.

So, Scotland in a fantasy/alt-history setting. Calling alt-Scotland "Orkney"? A bit stupid (though probably not any stupider than the name of the American state "Rhode Island") in terms of real-world history/geography, but I don't think anyone should be offended by it--after all, in this setting, maybe Scotland was settled by people from the Orkney Islands. Or maybe it's an Orc kingdom.

Calling alt-Scotland "Bagpipeland"? In real-world terms, possibly more justified than calling it "Orkney" but also sillier (and intentionally silly on my part). But Scotland is traditionally associated with bagpipes, and I see nothing offensive in acknowledging that. I don't see it as suggesting that there's nothing unique or interesting about Scotland except bagpipes, or that everyone there likes or plays bagpipes, and I just can see it as being offensive. Obviously, some people disagree. That's fine; we don't have to see everything the same way. OTOH, if we call alt-Scotland "Cheapskateland", I can see that being offensive, not because being cheap is a stereotypical Scots trait, but because being cheap is perceived as a negative trait.

Ok, starting to ramble. I'll quit now.

Kami2awa
2017-10-03, 02:36 AM
Poitescme (pronounced "pwah tehm") is a mythological region in the south of France. They're often at war with the Saracens, a golden age Moslem empire.

A surprising number of countries have mythical regions; England has Lyonesse and Wales has Cantre'r Gwaelod, both of which are supposedly sunken lands off the coast (and there is evidence that both might have been real). These could be used as inspiration for alternate names.

Bogwoppit
2017-10-03, 09:34 AM
As a {person not from the place in question}, I see no problem with naming my {fictional country designed to evoke a certain place} as "{possibly annoying or upsetting stereotype of that place -land"}, because that's what it's most well known for.

If you don't see any problem with that, then I'm obviously never going to change your mind.

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-03, 10:10 AM
As a {person not from the place in question}, I see no problem with naming my {fictional country designed to evoke a certain place} as "{possibly annoying or upsetting stereotype of that place -land"}, because that's what it's most well known for.

If you don't see any problem with that, then I'm obviously never going to change your mind.

I already gave equivalent examples for my own country and faith, applied specifically to my reactions to both and how I am not affected.

So I dismiss this as the strawman it is.

Bogwoppit
2017-10-03, 11:38 AM
I already gave equivalent examples for my own country and faith, applied specifically to my reactions to both and how I am not affected.

So I dismiss this as the strawman it is.
Who said I was addressing you? This is clearly, by it's nature, a generic template.

So "strawman" right back at ya.

dps
2017-10-03, 12:12 PM
As a {person not from the place in question}, I see no problem with naming my {fictional country designed to evoke a certain place} as "{possibly annoying or upsetting stereotype of that place -land"}, because that's what it's most well known for.

If you don't see any problem with that, then I'm obviously never going to change your mind.

Why would someone go with the alternative of naming after something it's not well known for? Do you understand what the term "evocative" means?

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-03, 01:37 PM
Who said I was addressing you? This is clearly, by it's nature, a generic template.

So "strawman" right back at ya.

Except nobody is arguing the point as stated. At worst they're stating distaste with a pet peeve being backed up as if it's a deeply concerning moral issue and are disagreeing that anyone aggravating your peeve is a bad person. It has nothing to do with their location. (Which hasn't been stated in most cases, so you must infer this)

Arguing against something that was never argued is a strawman.

Bogwoppit
2017-10-03, 03:03 PM
Calling pseudo-Scotland "Bagpipeland" and "Haggisland" doesn't trip your "might be offensive" alarm?

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-03, 03:20 PM
Calling pseudo-Scotland "Bagpipeland" and "Haggisland" doesn't trip your "might be offensive" alarm?

No more than calling pseudo-US Burgerland or Obesitonia or Trumpopolis or Worsecanadastan.

When the purpose is poking fun and it's equal opportunity, then we're good to go.

My russian friend is fine with Vodkadia and Putinsburg for names for Not-Russia, my english friend is ok with Crumpeton, The Tea Island, and Hogwarts. During this process my canadian friend offered up Mooseville, Mapleton, Leaf and Tim Horton's Megastore as alternate names for her nation.

So yes. Equal opportunity mocking is ok. Poking fun is ok. Most people are cognizant of the stereotypes of their peoples and why they persist, and what ways they apply, and even, shockingly, may understand why they're funny and be able to laugh at themselves. This is known as a Healthy Sense of Humor.

It's a joke, not a blow to the head. Don't take it so hard.

Eldan
2017-10-04, 04:45 AM
Calling pseudo-Scotland "Bagpipeland" and "Haggisland" doesn't trip your "might be offensive" alarm?

Not... really? I've never been to a nation where people didn't make those jokes, especially about themselves.

Bogwoppit
2017-10-04, 06:31 AM
If you people can't even imagine that these national stereotypes and cultural erasures are potentially offensive, then there really is nothing more to say.

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-04, 10:04 AM
If you people can't even imagine that these national stereotypes and cultural erasures are potentially offensive, then there really is nothing more to say.

The word "butterfly" is offensive to someone. I'm not gonna stop talking about them because this person exists.

Name any individual thing, and someone will find a way to be offended by it. I find that walking on eggshells is a waste of time. If someone is important to me and has a legitimate complaint, I'll make sure not to offend. The Russian I know is fine with the dumb jokes about his nation, and even makes a few himself. But the fact that there might be a hypothetical offended russian is insufficient reason to forbid my friend and I from having fun.

Altair_the_Vexed
2017-10-04, 10:09 AM
Inspired by this thread (:smallfrown:), and because I like to bring solutions instead of pointing pout problems (:smallbiggrin:), I've written a blog post on how to sensibly make up names for places (http://running-the-game.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/fantastic-toponymy-inventing-place-names.html), with some sources for good naming roots and so on.

I hope it helps.

Wardog
2017-10-04, 11:39 AM
Again, please don't use the "-stan" ending for a non-Persian-based place. Same reasons as above, really.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/-stan

"-stan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-stan)" is Persian origin, but it's used more widely than just "Persian-based" places. But yes, it still wouldn't make much sense to use in the Caribbean unless Persian or related cultures either got there, or were sufficiently influential that whoever did go there were thinking in Persian terms.

The Caribbean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caribbean#Etymology_and_pronunciation)is named after one of the peoples who lived their originally (the Caribs). I'd suggest that the best way to come up with an alternative name would be to name it after one of the other peoples who lived there.

Thinker
2017-10-04, 12:04 PM
If you people can't even imagine that these national stereotypes and cultural erasures are potentially offensive, then there really is nothing more to say.

It sounds like you're opposed to renaming anything in an alternate history.

Vogie
2017-10-04, 12:45 PM
It sounds like you're opposed to renaming anything in an alternate history.

"Why is this place called New York? The Dutch settled here, and have been here for nearly 300 years. Shouldn't it be something like 'New Amsterdam'?"
"I'm offended that you would even bring up something like that"

Bogwoppit
2017-10-04, 01:39 PM
It sounds like you're opposed to renaming anything in an alternate history.

No, I just want people to acknowledge, understand and be sensitive to the implications of any names that you choose.

But that's apparently not a popular opinion on this forum.

Thinker
2017-10-04, 04:02 PM
No, I just want people to acknowledged, understand and be sensitive to the implications of any names that you choose.

But that's apparently not a popular opinion on this forum.

So, what are some examples of thoughtful, inoffensive names for geographic areas covering Germany + Poland, Scandanavia minus Finland, a Norman Scotland, and a republic centered on Sicily that also controls Malta, Sardinia, and parts of North Africa?

Seclora
2017-10-04, 07:38 PM
So, what are some examples of thoughtful, inoffensive names for geographic areas covering Germany + Poland, Scandanavia minus Finland, a Norman Scotland, and a republic centered on Sicily that also controls Malta, Sardinia, and parts of North Africa?

The Teutonic Confederacy, Ostmenland, How did the Normans even get there? It'd still be Scotland though, they didn't change the name of Angle-land when they conquered it, and The Republic of Carthage(or Syracuse, if you want to change less history).


Edit; mostly punctuation.

dps
2017-10-04, 08:10 PM
No, I just want people to acknowledged, understand and be sensitive to the implications of any names that you choose.

But that's apparently not a popular opinion on this forum.

I understand a lot of things. I don't much do sensitive. And I see no good reason to "acknowleged" your irrational hangups.

Thinker
2017-10-05, 10:25 AM
The Teutonic Confederacy, Ostmenland, How did the Normans even get there? It'd still be Scotland though, they didn't change the name of Angle-land when they conquered it, and The Republic of Carthage(or Syracuse, if you want to change less history).


Edit; mostly punctuation.

The Teutonic Confederacy ignores the brutal wars between the Polish government. It also ignores the fact that Teutonic refers to Germanic, whereas the Polish were (and are) Slavic. That implies suppression of the Polish people, which would remind everyone about what happened the last time Germans overran Poland. It would be quite inconsiderate to anyone who remembers that horror. A more neutral name would be appreciated. Something like The Heartland would probably be good.
Why would the people call themselves "Men from the East" when that's their homes? It's nonsensical.
The Normans might have gotten there the same way they got to Southern Italy - arriving as mercenaries and then taking over after a long period of time (and creating the Kingdom of Sicily). Perhaps it was because there wasn't an already-legitimate kingdom there the way there was in England, so Scotland might get to keep her name if not her identity.
Carthage is a wholly inadequate name as it refers to a few cities in North Africa and their subjects elsewhere. They never owned Sicily. Syracuse might work if you assume it's some ancient domain that never got conquered and also seems to diminish the influence over the area. It's unimaginative at best.

AMFV
2017-10-05, 10:47 AM
Please don't - Albion is for the whole of Great Britain, including England, Scotland and Wales. And please, if you don't know why that's important, then please don't try to steal our culture.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion

Here's the problem with that, YOU ARE NOT THE EMPEROR OF BRITISH CULTURE. You only get to speak for the opinions of a single british person, and you don't own the culture or the language. If you, a Brit, are going to lecture people on linguistic appropriation, you're already starting out from an incredibly hypocritical position, if you are taking ownership or claiming ownership of your entire linguistic history, and if you don't understand why that would be, you don't understand your own culture or language.



Again, please don't use the "-stan" ending for a non-Persian-based place. Same reasons as above, really.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/-stan

Yeah cause the Afghans, Kyrgyz, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, and Turkmens, and Pakistanis would really love to be told that they're Persian, you should go to some of those countries and suggest that to them, and see how that pans out for you. Of course, I'm not sure that you would survive that experience. As a matter of fact I cannot of any ethnically Persian country that has a name ending in "-istan". I mean Afghanistan has a population certainly, but the language is mostly all they share, and the other examples don't even share that language.

It's very important to remember that the Persian forcibly inflicted that language on multiple places that were not Persian, as such I see no problem with using similar phrasings, particularly since others have adopted those phrasings without being Persian. The Kurds for example, are not Persian, do not speak Farsi, and they have adopted the name Kurdistan for their own location. So I would say that your self-righteousness does not reflect what we see in reality, and I've not really heard any Iranians being that upset about Kazakhstan or Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan or Pakistan, the things they're upset about would not be board friendly.

pwykersotz
2017-10-05, 11:30 AM
No, I just want people to acknowledge, understand and be sensitive to the implications of any names that you choose.

But that's apparently not a popular opinion on this forum.

That's not what you asked for. You didn't ask for acknowledgement, understanding, or sensitivity. You asked for willful censorship. You specifically asked:


Please don't - Albion is for the whole of Great Britain, including England, Scotland and Wales. And please, if you don't know why that's important, then please don't try to steal our culture.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion

Again, please don't use the "-stan" ending for a non-Persian-based place. Same reasons as above, really.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/-stan

Those are not the same thing. If you had instead posted "Albion has some pretty heavy negative contexts among a wide swath of people, so consider what roots and offenses your gamers might have before using it. And just know that if you talk about it on forums casually, you might get some negative backlash. Here's the link pointing out why", then many fewer people would have had a problem.

Bogwoppit
2017-10-05, 01:14 PM
Here's the problem with that, YOU ARE NOT THE EMPEROR OF BRITISH CULTURE. You only get to speak for the opinions of a single british person, and you don't own the culture or the language. If you, a Brit, are going to lecture people on linguistic appropriation, you're already starting out from an incredibly hypocritical position, if you are taking ownership or claiming ownership of your entire linguistic history, and if you don't understand why that would be, you don't understand your own culture or language.

Who said I was emperor of anything? Not me. Who said I owned any languages? Not me! That'd be bloody stupid, wouldn't it?

I'm saying that if you don't understand why the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish and the English don't get on, and why any of the Celtic nationals might be annoyed at being arbitrarily lumped in with the English - then you really shouldn't be trying to portray these cultures. Do some research.


Yeah cause the Afghans, Kyrgyz, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, and Turkmens, and Pakistanis would really love to be told that they're Persian, you should go to some of those countries and suggest that to them, and see how that pans out for you. Of course, I'm not sure that you would survive that experience. As a matter of fact I cannot of any ethnically Persian country that has a name ending in "-istan". I mean Afghanistan has a population certainly, but the language is mostly all they share, and the other examples don't even share that language.

It's very important to remember that the Persian forcibly inflicted that language on multiple places that were not Persian, as such I see no problem with using similar phrasings, particularly since others have adopted those phrasings without being Persian. The Kurds for example, are not Persian, do not speak Farsi, and they have adopted the name Kurdistan for their own location. So I would say that your self-righteousness does not reflect what we see in reality, and I've not really heard any Iranians being that upset about Kazakhstan or Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan or Pakistan, the things they're upset about would not be board friendly.

What I meant is that the word ending is derived from Farsi, just like the -ia ending is derived from Latin. So where Farsi was the common language, you get -stan and -istan endings, and where Latin was the common language, you get -ia endings.
So unless - as I already posted elsewhere in this stupidly long thread - you're Caribbean is settled by people from a region that at least used to speak Farsi, Caribistan is inappropriate.

I'm sick of this excrement. Some of you are obviously never going recognise that some of these name suggestions are offensive - not just to me, but to some of the other posters in this thread.

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-05, 03:20 PM
I'm sick of this excrement. Some of you are obviously never going recognise that some of these name suggestions are offensive - not just to me, but to some of the other posters in this thread.

As has been said by me:
Yup. Some of them are offensive. Literally everything is offensive to someone.
The director of PETA finds the existence of Pit Bulls offensive. People have been attacked by them. This will not prevent me from having an NPC own a Pit Bull in my games.

People have been killed, maimed, and traumatized by war. But I will still have soldiers in my games.

If you disallow anything where exists the off chance that maybe someone somewhere might maybe be offended, then you have no more game. Everything goes away because for anything that exists, someone somewhere finds it offensive, triggering, and/or disgusting.

So no. 100/7,000,000,000 people being offended (who won't actually be offended because they won't know this game exists) is an insufficient number to make me feel bad. I'm sure there's someone out there running a game that would offend me RIGHT NOW. (FATAL exists, after all)
But guess what? I'm fine. Unaffected. It has no bearing on my life at all.
Life entails a certain level of risk. Risk of injury, sickness, and even hurt feelings. While all reasonable effort should be made to reduce that risk, answer me this:
Who in Scotland stands to be HARMED, emotionally or physically, directly or indirectly, by calling a similarly shaped island in a fictional universe and vaguely similar culture "Orkney" in a game they will never be aware of?

Bogwoppit
2017-10-05, 03:40 PM
Scotland is still not a f-ing island you ignorant p---k.

Guizonde
2017-10-05, 03:48 PM
As has been said by me:


People have been killed, maimed, and traumatized by war. But I will still have soldiers in my games.

If you disallow anything where exists the off chance that maybe someone somewhere might maybe be offended, then you have no more game. Everything goes away because for anything that exists, someone somewhere finds it offensive, triggering, and/or disgusting.


... anybody else have got landmines, flamethrowers, punji pits, poison gas, or spike bayonets in their games? in the name of the lost and damned in the past wars, you can't have those in your fantasy session anymore.

i'm with you on this point. this is beyond silly. frankly, i think a lot of people (of the tumblrsphere, mostly) have forgotten what "playing pretend" and "having fun" means. then again, my universe includes strong german accents, anti-tank mines as intimidation tactics, cannibalism, and excessive drug use on a regular basis. oh, and that's before talking about the pc's.

AMFV
2017-10-05, 03:52 PM
Scotland is still not a f-ing island you ignorant p---k.

But you could have a "similarly shaped Island" meaning an isle that's shaped like the physical place, Scotland.

Bogwoppit
2017-10-05, 04:04 PM
blah blah blah...
Some people are pissed off, some aren't. You think you're right, I don't. You think I'm wrong, I don't.

This conversation can serve no purpose any longer.

MrNobody
2017-10-05, 04:54 PM
Scotland is still not a f-ing island you ignorant p---k.

You are pretty rude and verbally aggressive for being someone that cares so much about others being offended...

Going back to the topic, it could be a nice idea to name nations according to their flags or coat of arms: easy to link to each state (you only have to look for the right flag for that timeline) and mostly free from the risks of hurting people.

Take France, for example: during XVIII century it was ruled by monarchy and had a golden fleur de lis in his coat of arms. How about calling it "Kingdom of the Golden Lily"?

Netherlands heavily focused its early culture on unity, expressed in its motto with the word 'concordia': lets call it Concordia then!


*Written from my phone, it could have been written better...*

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-05, 05:18 PM
Scotland is still not a f-ing island you ignorant p---k.

But in my fictional world, it is culturally represented by a nation which is its own standalone island, rather than occupying half of an island.

Honestly, dude, you've lost all credibility here. You claim to want to have a rational discussion, but the moment someone doesn't acquiesce to your emotional demands, you throw a temper tantrum as seen above.

I have never, once, insulted you direcyly. in this thread. Been snarky? Hell yeah. Called you names? Nope.

Have I broken down to throwing oh-so-edgy "curse words" to inflate my point? No.

Have I presented my reasoning for disagreement with you without judging your character? Yes.

Yet, these same courtesies have not been returned. You've now called me names, tried to leverage swearing, and have implied that my disagreement is tantamount to bigotry.

So here's the deal:
I have no respect for this kind of behavior. I get enough of it from the children I work with.
Snark? Whatever. I have a thick hide. Hell, even this blatant disrespect hasn't darkened my day any. I'm about to walk downstairs and hug my wife and my little girl, and we're going to snuggle on the couch and watch Sing, and I'll see if there's any BS in this thread worth catching up on before bed or when I poop.
Meanwhile, you have gotten so worked up about insisting a country on an island isn't an island and should in no way be associated with islands or be mentioned in threads which have previously mentioned islands that you delivered a one-line response trying to cuss someone out on a censored board.

Which, as far as behaviors go, is fairly pathetic and uncool, bro.

Also, any time you wanna answer my question instead of nitpicking about it, feel free. I notice that's been left conveniently unanswered in favor of this hill you've weirdly decided to die on.

Seclora
2017-10-05, 06:41 PM
The Teutonic Confederacy ignores the brutal wars between the Polish government. It also ignores the fact that Teutonic refers to Germanic, whereas the Polish were (and are) Slavic. That implies suppression of the Polish people, which would remind everyone about what happened the last time Germans overran Poland. It would be quite inconsiderate to anyone who remembers that horror. A more neutral name would be appreciated. Something like The Heartland would probably be good.
Why would the people call themselves "Men from the East" when that's their homes? It's nonsensical.
The Normans might have gotten there the same way they got to Southern Italy - arriving as mercenaries and then taking over after a long period of time (and creating the Kingdom of Sicily). Perhaps it was because there wasn't an already-legitimate kingdom there the way there was in England, so Scotland might get to keep her name if not her identity.
Carthage is a wholly inadequate name as it refers to a few cities in North Africa and their subjects elsewhere. They never owned Sicily. Syracuse might work if you assume it's some ancient domain that never got conquered and also seems to diminish the influence over the area. It's unimaginative at best.


You're the one who wanted to combine Germany and Poland. The bad history was inevitable to the request. Heartland does't translate in Polish, and the German 'Herzland' is likely to attract the same complaints of Polish Oppression. Ojczyzna is Polish for Homeland, per Google. I can't pronounce it, because as an English speaker I have Latin and Germanic linguistic patterns, not Slavic ones. Also, most of my American associations with Poland call up the Cold War and the -Warsaw- Pact, which was a painful and terrifying time in Polish History that should -also- not be forced to the forefront. Polish history, to my knowledge, consists heavily of bad things happening to the Poles because all of their neighbors wanted their things.

I did a basic google on what the vikings called themselves, the answer I got was 'Ostmen'. I thought it sounded dumb, but this is a hypothetical situation and it seemed better than 'Fjordia'. Scandinavia is their name for their lands, but you already said no because you don't want to include the Fins, who are awesome by the way.

There was no legitimate kingdom in England, that's why the Normans invaded. William the I-Can't-Use-His-Other-Title-In-Good-Company's claim was as or more valid than Harold's. He also had the resources to hold the kingdom, and Harold didn't, thus proving his 'Divine Right'.

Their subjects elsewhere was pretty much exactly what you just named, plus much of Spain and parts of Southern France. The Romans can try to erase Carthage's accomplishments, but their accomplishments should not be brushed aside by Latin Elitists.
Also, United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland is a incredibly stupid and uncreative name and yet there it is. How about People's Republic of China? I can go on. Creativity is not how you name countries. Practicality is how you name countries. Call it what people will be able to remember, and then govern the gosh danged thing.

rooster707
2017-10-05, 07:04 PM
Scotland is still not a f-ing island you ignorant p---k.

Aaaand you've offended me. Partly because you've descended all the way to childish insults when you couldn't get anyone to agree with you, but also because you replaced "uck" with one dash, and "ric" with three. That *really* bothers me. No, seriously... why?

Bogwoppit
2017-10-06, 04:52 AM
Honestly, dude, you've lost all credibility here.
...
Have I presented my reasoning for disagreement with you without judging your character? Yes.
...

Oh, come on! Really? You have constantly attacked my character.


Scotland is still not a f-ing island you ignorant p---k.

Yes, that's being offensive. It was deliberate. I reserve the right to deliberately be offensive back to people who are deliberately attacking and provoking me ("been snarky"). Maybe I could have held my metaphorical tongue? Sure, but I don't care to, this has long since stopped being a sensible discussion about the OP.

---

So as this is the first time I've been posting from a proper PC and not using my phone screen (I've been travelling), I can compose things more easily.

There are two strands of arguments on my part - one about toponymic accuracy, and one about offensive stereotyping.

Toponymic accuracy:
Yes, I'm "nitpicking" over the FACT that Scotland is not an island, but ImNotTrevor (in particular) thinks that that's no reason not to give it a name that includes an island toponym.
Yes, you've since modified your argument to say that if "not-Scotland" was an island, then Orkney would be okay - and sure, that'd be okay.
That's not what I'm arguing about. I'm saying that you don't use island toponyms for non-island places, or you're going to look stupid.

Where this bleeds into the other argument, I'll touch on below.

Offensive stereotyping
The crunch of this disagreement is that you and others here seem to think it's okay to causally use stereotyping and insulting national and ethnic terms that strongly annoy and or offend people of those nations and ethnicities ("Haggisland", "Bagpipeland", using the "-istan" ending flippantly).

In the UK, and other places where certain people feel threatened by Muslims, the use of the "-istan" suffix on the end of a place name is a deliberate pejorative slur against the Muslim population who live there. It's used to infer that the place is "overrun" by Muslims (e.g.: Londonistan, Leicesteristan), who are feared/hated by those who are using the term.
Sure, there's a legitimate reason we might use "-istan" as a toponym ending, as there are lots of places within the region of (historically) Farsi-speaking influence that use it. But the Caribbean isn't one of them - and unless your Caribbean analogue in your pirate game is supposed to have been settled / discovered by Farsi-speakers of old, merging "-istan" to "Caribbean" is going to be inflammatory to people who take it as meaning you're afraid the place is "overrun" by demonised Muslims.

Reducing the Scots to a jocular reference to a stereotypical aspect like haggis and bagpipes is something the Scots have to suffer in the UK all the time. It's annoying, it grinds us down. It's part of a language of superiority by the English that goes hand-in-hand with their imposed rule from afar and with their (perceived) undermining of Scottish prosperity to the point where Scotland is poorer, less healthy, has more addiction problems, and all those other signifiers that go with .
It is very much like (but not exactly the same as) the casual use of racial terminology in the USA (the N-word in particular), which is thankfully now recognised as being grossly offensive. One might say of these terms that no-one should be upset by them, as they're legitimate words derived from innocent origins. People used to say that about the N-word. The origin of the term is not the point, it's the history of its use. It's their use as deliberate insults that taints those terms.

So this is why I rail against the suggestion that Haggisland and Bagpipeland are acceptable names for a pseudo-Scotland.

In the same way, the marginalisation of Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland by misnaming the UK as "England" has long been perceived as an insult by the Celts. It's perceived as ignorant at best, and insulting at worst. You belittle our nations by ignoring them, by disregarding them. Yes, it's common practice outside the UK, and even within it (by the English), but by being common these insults are no less insulting.


Privacy as a defence for offence
Some posters have argued that doing things in private makes it acceptable. My argument here is that if it wouldn't be okay for a wider audience, then why do you feel that you have to do it at home in private? Once you know that the terms you're using are insulting or offensive, you have a choice.
If you're saying "My game is a light-hearted silly satire, we're calling not-Scotland 'Haggisland', not-France 'Frogland' and England 'Toffland' - what fun!" - then maybe for your gaming group that's a good laugh, and you go ahead.
But if you're thinking that your game is straight, and you want to research some appropriate cool names - then racial slurs are not cool. If you insist on using those terms, then you have that right, of course. And I reserve the right to be disgusted by your language, when you deliberately use pejorative language.

Additionally, the privacy defence doesn't really apply here in the Playground. We're here on a public forum. These terms are being put forward as suggestions, and I am saying that I object.

Survey results
Someone told me I should take a poll and see who actually says they find these things offensive, upsetting, or whatever. So I did that on a UK RPG forum.

https://www.ukroleplayers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=22567

Haggisland, Bagpipeland and Caribistan were overwhelmingly judged to be offensive and forum users would not want to play in games using those names. A third said they would urge the GM not to use the Haggis and Bagpipe names, and two thirds said the same about Caribistan.
Few were upset by Albion and Orkney, but no one thought Orkney was a good name for pseudo-Scotland.

So there seems to be a strong regional divide between who finds what offensive - the mainly UK site were mostly annoyed by the insulting terms for parts of the British Isles, and for using the "-istan" ending inapropriately, whereas here, on a mainly North American site, there's less concern.

ExLibrisMortis
2017-10-06, 07:24 AM
So there seems to be a strong regional divide between who finds what offensive - the mainly UK site were mostly annoyed by the insulting terms for parts of the British Isles, and for using the "-istan" ending inapropriately, whereas here, on a mainly North American site, there's less concern.
So... you decided to start a poll called "National insults - fun or offence", on a highly specific UK forum (friends of yours?), and from the eleven replies you draw this thrilling conclusion, which is not only unsupported*, but also, I might add, shows that you started this thread making rude demands about things that nobody finds offensive in the first place?

I mean, there's begging the question, and there's begging the question under cover of doing research. As a scientist, I find that (attempt at a) poll an insult to my culture.




*By your own results, Albion and Orkney aren't considered offensive, though Haggisland and Bagpipeland are. That's a fifty-fifty split, which doesn't support your conclusion, but worse: they aren't at all comparable, because--for starters--Albion and Orkney are etymologically opaque, whereas Haggisland and Bagpipeland are not. In general, the setup of your questionnaire leaves incredibly much to be desired. You wouldn't pass a year eight sociology test with that kind of bias.

ImNotTrevor
2017-10-06, 07:30 AM
Oh, come on! Really? You have constantly attacked my character.
Point out a place where I attacked your character directly and I will apologize.



Yes, that's being offensive. It was deliberate. I reserve the right to deliberately be offensive back to people who are deliberately attacking and provoking me ("been snarky"). Maybe I could have held my metaphorical tongue? Sure, but I don't care to, this has long since stopped being a sensible discussion about the OP.

Provoking, maybe a little.
Attacking you, calling you names? Nope.

You don't get the luxury of claiming nobody should be offensive and then get a free pass to break your own rule because you got bad feels. That ain't how it works.



So as this is the first time I've been posting from a proper PC and not using my phone screen (I've been travelling), I can compose things more easily.

There are two strands of arguments on my part - one about toponymic accuracy, and one about offensive stereotyping.



Toponymic accuracy:
Yes, I'm "nitpicking" over the FACT that Scotland is not an island, but ImNotTrevor (in particular) thinks that that's no reason not to give it a name that includes an island toponym.
Yes, you've since modified your argument to say that if "not-Scotland" was an island, then Orkney would be okay - and sure, that'd be okay.
That's not what I'm arguing about. I'm saying that you don't use island toponyms for non-island places, or you're going to look stupid.

So... the original settlers who picked a name for their chunk of an island landmass using a name that involves Island are wrong and stupid. Ie, the people from whom Orkney comes. They were wrong and stupid.

So here's where you've got things confused:
When I say I'm talking about Landmasses, I mean ONE OF THE THINGS PEOPLE CONSIDER WHEN NAMING PLACES WHERE THEY ARE SETTLING. Hence my Islandland description, which you seemingly understood but now have gone back to not understanding.



Offensive stereotyping
The crunch of this disagreement is that you and others here seem to think it's okay to causally use stereotyping and insulting national and ethnic terms that strongly annoy and or offend people of those nations and ethnicities ("Haggisland", "Bagpipeland", using the "-istan" ending flippantly).
Conveniently leaving out (as you did in the poll, you sneaky boy) that two of those are JOKES in a setting where EVERYONE has a stupid name, and have only been pushed forward as such.



In the UK, and other places where certain people feel threatened by Muslims, the use of the "-istan" suffix on the end of a place name is a deliberate pejorative slur against the Muslim population who live there. It's used to infer that the place is "overrun" by Muslims (e.g.: Londonistan, Leicesteristan), who are feared/hated by those who are using the term.
Sure, there's a legitimate reason we might use "-istan" as a toponym ending, as there are lots of places within the region of Farsi-speaking influence that use it. But the Caribbean isn't one of them - and unless your Caribbean analogue in your pirate game is supposed to have been settled / discovered by Farsi-speakers of old, merging "-istan" to "Caribbean" is going to be inflammatory to people who take it as meaning you're afraid the place is "overrun" by demonised Muslims.
This is an impressive logical leap.



Reducing the Scots to a jocular reference to a stereotypical aspect like haggis and bagpipes is something the Scots have to suffer in the UK all the time. It's annoying, it grinds us down. It's part of a language of superiority by the English that goes hand-in-hand with their imposed rule from afar and with their (perceived) undermining of Scottish prosperity to the point where Scotland is poorer, less healthy, has more addiction problems, and all those other signifiers that go with .
It is very much like (but not exactly the same as) the casual use of racial terminology in the USA (the N-word in particular), which is thankfully now recognised as being grossly offensive. One might say of these terms that no-one should be upset by them, as they're legitimate words derived from innocent origins. People used to say that about the N-word. The origin of the term is not the point, it's the history of its use. It's their use as deliberate insults that taints those terms.
If you're willing to say one word, but not the other, the second word is the worse one. So, obviously comparing the one you're ok with saying with the N-word is silly.



So this is why I rail against the suggestion that Haggisland and Bagpipeland are acceptable names for a pseudo-Scotland.
Still deliberately leaving out the joke part of that suggestion.



Privacy as a defence for offence
Some posters have argued that doing things in private makes it acceptable. My argument here is that if it wouldn't be okay for a wider audience, then why do you feel that you have to do it at home in private? Once you know that the terms you're using are insulting or offensive, you have a choice.
If you're saying "My game is a light-hearted silly satire, we're calling not-Scotland 'Haggisland', not-France 'Frogland' and England 'Toffland' - what fun!" - then maybe for your gaming group that's a good laugh, and you go ahead.
But if you're thinking that your game is straight, and you want to research some appropriate cool names - then racial slurs are not cool. If you insist on using those terms, then you have that right, of course. And I reserve the right to be disgusted by your language, when you deliberately use pejorative language.
The irony of the statement on jokes is stifling, and I did indeed laugh out loud that you either somehow missed that, or are trying to deliberately mislead about my intentions for the names.



Additionally, the privacy defence doesn't really apply here in the Playground. We're here on a public forum. These terms are being put forward as suggestions, and I am saying that I object.

Your objections were noted and dismissed as insufficient in several cases. Which is where you went off the rails and threw a temper tantrum.
You get to object. We get to overrule. Deal with it.



Survey results
Someone told me I should take a poll and see who actually says they find these things offensive, upsetting, or whatever. So I did that on a UK RPG forum.

https://www.ukroleplayers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=22567

Haggisland, Bagpipeland and Caribistan were overwhelmingly judged to be offensive and forum users would not want to play in games using those names. A third said they would urge the GM not to use the Haggis and Bagpipe names, and two thirds said the same about Caribistan.
Few were upset by Albion and Orkney, but no one thought Orkney was a good name for pseudo-Scotland.

So there seems to be a strong regional divide between who finds what offensive - the mainly UK site were mostly annoyed by the insulting terms for parts of the British Isles, and for using the "-istan" ending inapropriately, whereas here, on a mainly North American site, there's less concern.

I never argued for the accuracy for Caribistan, and it never made particular sense to me.

But your poll DID conveniently leave out that two of those options were jokes in the context of a game where every nation would be parodied rather than legitimate. (Offered without this context, they are obviously stupid.) In fact, you didn't contextualize any of them.

And so, shame on this poll. Though it did prove me right about Albion and Orkney, which are the ones that actually matter, so I'll go ahead and feel smug. Thank you for proving my point there.

Now rerun the results where every nation gets a stupid name and players are encouraged to participate in a bit of self-depricating humor. (Hence why I offered up Burgerland for the US, but I could also offer up Baconia, Eagleton, FREEEEEDOOOOOOMMM, and Murica for my own nation. I can make up more.) So that the results aren't biased by a lack of context. ;D

(Or more accurately, a misleading context)

Bogwoppit
2017-10-06, 09:12 AM
So... you decided to start a poll called "National insults - fun or offence", on a highly specific UK forum (friends of yours?), and from the eleven replies you draw this thrilling conclusion, which is not only unsupported*, but also, I might add, shows that you started this thread making rude demands about things that nobody finds offensive in the first place?

I mean, there's begging the question, and there's begging the question under cover of doing research. As a scientist, I find that (attempt at a) poll an insult to my culture.




*By your own results, Albion and Orkney aren't considered offensive, though Haggisland and Bagpipeland are. That's a fifty-fifty split, which doesn't support your conclusion, but worse: they aren't at all comparable, because--for starters--Albion and Orkney are etymologically opaque, whereas Haggisland and Bagpipeland are not. In general, the setup of your questionnaire leaves incredibly much to be desired. You wouldn't pass a year eight sociology test with that kind of bias.
It's a UK specific RPG forum because I wanted the opinions of a UK population.
The UK Role players site is run by a group of convention organisers and games writers.
I started an account specifically to create that poll.

My conclusions - if you look again at my comment - are that most people didn't find Albion and Orkney offensive.

Me, I'm only offended by the dismissal of my concerns about accuracy with regards to these two names. And by extension, I'm annoyed by the casual dismissal of the need to be accurate about the fringe nations of the UK. Its the attitude to these inaccurate names that annoys me, not the names themselves.

hamishspence
2017-10-06, 09:35 AM
When nations are being merged, as per GW Warhammer (France and England are merged to produce Bretonnia, for example) sometimes names are freed up.

Thus, "Albion" is more Scotland with a hint of Ireland in the Warhammer-verse - there isn't much of England there.

2D8HP
2017-10-06, 10:14 AM
I

I hope it helps.


:cool:
Thanks for the link, the blog looks cool!

I haven't read every post in this thread so someone else may have suggested these, but besides just using the 7th Sea names that I linked to up-thread (which I in my laziness would probably do), a fantasy name for the place England is could be:

[Url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logres]Logres (http://running-the-game.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/fantastic-toponymy-inventing-place-names.html),

and a fantasy name for a place that Russia is could be:

Markovy (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1257579.Firebird).

One can also just some places be re-named to emphasis that those are the places that most diverge from the real world (there be Dragons!), so a Spanish fencing master may visit "Logres", or a French Knight visit "Markovy".

You can also just squeeze in fictional nations in between real ones, i.e.:

"Scythia-Pannonia-Transbalkania" (https://karavansara.live/2015/02/07/back-to-scythia-pannonia-transbalkania/)


"Zubrowka" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Budapest_Hotel)


"Ruritania" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruritania)

I like that a lot.

Thinker
2017-10-06, 10:48 AM
You're the one who wanted to combine Germany and Poland. The bad history was inevitable to the request. Heartland does't translate in Polish, and the German 'Herzland' is likely to attract the same complaints of Polish Oppression. Ojczyzna is Polish for Homeland, per Google. I can't pronounce it, because as an English speaker I have Latin and Germanic linguistic patterns, not Slavic ones. Also, most of my American associations with Poland call up the Cold War and the -Warsaw- Pact, which was a painful and terrifying time in Polish History that should -also- not be forced to the forefront. Polish history, to my knowledge, consists heavily of bad things happening to the Poles because all of their neighbors wanted their things.

I did a basic google on what the vikings called themselves, the answer I got was 'Ostmen'. I thought it sounded dumb, but this is a hypothetical situation and it seemed better than 'Fjordia'. Scandinavia is their name for their lands, but you already said no because you don't want to include the Fins, who are awesome by the way.

There was no legitimate kingdom in England, that's why the Normans invaded. William the I-Can't-Use-His-Other-Title-In-Good-Company's claim was as or more valid than Harold's. He also had the resources to hold the kingdom, and Harold didn't, thus proving his 'Divine Right'.

Their subjects elsewhere was pretty much exactly what you just named, plus much of Spain and parts of Southern France. The Romans can try to erase Carthage's accomplishments, but their accomplishments should not be brushed aside by Latin Elitists.
Also, United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland is a incredibly stupid and uncreative name and yet there it is. How about People's Republic of China? I can go on. Creativity is not how you name countries. Practicality is how you name countries. Call it what people will be able to remember, and then govern the gosh danged thing.

My apologies. I misread and thought that Bogwoppit had replied to my hypothetical and so I was trying to show him how ridiculous his criteria are. I do think that it is impossible to come up with names that are evocative (like the OP requested), contain no potentially-problematic/offensive content, and are historically accurate/plausible.

For my own answers to my question, here would be my names:

The New Moravian Republic, or commonly just Moravia. We'll put its seat of power in Prague.
I'd go with the Kalmar Union or commonly just Kalmar. This is based on the short-lived union of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, though at the time Sweden controlled much of Finland, we can say that the Finns earned their independence at some later point.
For a Norman Scotland, you're right that it would probably stay as Scotland, but that's not very evocative. Let's go with The Kingdom of Albany or commonly just Albany. As an aside, England was a legitimate kingdom - it already had a king, its succession was simply disputed. There was no king of Sicily before the Normans. They invented it wholesale and got the pope to agree.
Carthage is certainly evocative and you're right about their spread and influence. I'd favor the Sultanate of Ifriqiya, or commonly just Ifriqiya, and make it a Muslim-dominated, multicultural/multi-religious nation with its economic base in Sicily.

dps
2017-10-06, 11:08 AM
Offensive stereotyping
The crunch of this disagreement is that you and others here seem to think it's okay to causally use stereotyping and insulting national and ethnic terms that strongly annoy and or offend people of those nations and ethnicities ("Haggisland", "Bagpipeland", using the "-istan" ending flippantly).

In the UK, and other places where certain people feel threatened by Muslims, the use of the "-istan" suffix on the end of a place name is a deliberate pejorative slur against the Muslim population who live there. It's used to infer that the place is "overrun" by Muslims (e.g.: Londonistan, Leicesteristan), who are feared/hated by those who are using the term.
Sure, there's a legitimate reason we might use "-istan" as a toponym ending, as there are lots of places within the region of (historically) Farsi-speaking influence that use it. But the Caribbean isn't one of them - and unless your Caribbean analogue in your pirate game is supposed to have been settled / discovered by Farsi-speakers of old, merging "-istan" to "Caribbean" is going to be inflammatory to people who take it as meaning you're afraid the place is "overrun" by demonised Muslims.

I wasn't aware that adding a -stan ending to a place name in the UK was a way of suggesting that it was "overrun" with Muslims. It's not used that way in the US; if you had explained that in the first place, you might have been taken more seriously and gotten a better reception. In the US, putting -stan as an ending of a place name is just a slightly humorous naming devise--it doesn't imply any connection to Persia or the presence of Muslims.

(And FWIW, I find the idea that suggesting a place has a large Muslim population is somehow a big negative offensive; I just don't link it in anyway with the use of the -stan suffix.)


Reducing the Scots to a jocular reference to a stereotypical aspect like haggis and bagpipes is something the Scots have to suffer in the UK all the time. It's annoying, it grinds us down. It's part of a language of superiority by the English that goes hand-in-hand with their imposed rule from afar and with their (perceived) undermining of Scottish prosperity to the point where Scotland is poorer, less healthy, has more addiction problems, and all those other signifiers that go with .
It is very much like (but not exactly the same as) the casual use of racial terminology in the USA (the N-word in particular), which is thankfully now recognised as being grossly offensive. One might say of these terms that no-one should be upset by them, as they're legitimate words derived from innocent origins. People used to say that about the N-word. The origin of the term is not the point, it's the history of its use. It's their use as deliberate insults that taints those terms.

Context matters, though. From a US perspective, Scotsmen here have never faced widespread, systematic discrimination, unless they got mistaken for Irishmen. There was a good bit of discrimination against the Irish, but A) for the most part, that was a 19th century issue, and B) it never came even close to being as bad as how African-Americans were treated.

And I'll repeat my earlier question: Do you understand what evocative means? Bagpipe evoke Scotland, much as baseball might evoke the US. I simply don't equate using such evocative terms with any sort of an attitude of superiority.


So this is why I rail against the suggestion that Haggisland and Bagpipeland are acceptable names for a pseudo-Scotland.

Serious question--are those terms frequently used by the English to insult the Scots?


In the same way, the marginalisation of Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland by misnaming the UK as "England" has long been perceived as an insult by the Celts. It's perceived as ignorant at best, and insulting at worst. You belittle our nations by ignoring them, by disregarding them. Yes, it's common practice outside the UK, and even within it (by the English), but by being common these insults are no less insulting.

I'm not sure it's an insult if people truly don't know any better, and I think that there are a lot of people who truly don't understand the differences among the UK, Britain, and England. It anyone should be insulted it geography and civics teachers.


Privacy as a defence for offence
Some posters have argued that doing things in private makes it acceptable. My argument here is that if it wouldn't be okay for a wider audience, then why do you feel that you have to do it at home in private? Once you know that the terms you're using are insulting or offensive, you have a choice.
If you're saying "My game is a light-hearted silly satire, we're calling not-Scotland 'Haggisland', not-France 'Frogland' and England 'Toffland' - what fun!" - then maybe for your gaming group that's a good laugh, and you go ahead.
But if you're thinking that your game is straight, and you want to research some appropriate cool names - then racial slurs are not cool. If you insist on using those terms, then you have that right, of course. And I reserve the right to be disgusted by your language, when you deliberately use pejorative language.

Intent and, again, context matters. I would agree that if someone was trying to seriously come up with an alternate name for Scotland, "Bagpipeland" would, at best, show a significant lack of research. But I thought we were suggesting light-hearted names for a light-hearted game. And in that context, I'm not willing to concede to you the right to determine what silly names are and aren't offensive.


Additionally, the privacy defence doesn't really apply here in the Playground. We're here on a public forum. These terms are being put forward as suggestions, and I am saying that I object.

True, but we were putting forth suggestions for a private game, not a forum game.


Survey results
Someone told me I should take a poll and see who actually says they find these things offensive, upsetting, or whatever. So I did that on a UK RPG forum.

https://www.ukroleplayers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=22567

Haggisland, Bagpipeland and Caribistan were overwhelmingly judged to be offensive and forum users would not want to play in games using those names. A third said they would urge the GM not to use the Haggis and Bagpipe names, and two thirds said the same about Caribistan.
Few were upset by Albion and Orkney, but no one thought Orkney was a good name for pseudo-Scotland.

So there seems to be a strong regional divide between who finds what offensive - the mainly UK site were mostly annoyed by the insulting terms for parts of the British Isles, and for using the "-istan" ending inapropriately, whereas here, on a mainly North American site, there's less concern.

Well, again, context. In the UK (or is it just in England? Frankly, I don't know), "bloody" is a fairly strong curse word (my understanding is that it's not considered nearly as strong as it used to be, but that's not the point) while in the US, it's simply a term to describe something that literally has blood on it. Should people in the US start using it as a curse, because it's used that way across the Pond? I don't think so.

Wardog
2017-10-08, 04:03 AM
I was going to wade further into the arguments about what is/is not offensive and why, but then decided that that way madness lies.

Instead, I think we should go back to the original question, and as for a bit of clarification about what exactly is wanted.

What sort of twists and fantasy elements are you talking about that make "the world is not exactly like the real one"? Because that would/could determine what would be reasonable alternative names. Is it just "like the real world, but with different names to indicate that it isn't actually the real world"? Or is it "alternative history, resulting in different rulers and/or borders"? Several of the suggestions that have been criticised would imply different groups or nations dominating an area (either presently or historically) - if that is an actual part of the background to the world, I don't think there would necessarily be anything wrong with that.

Lots of countries are named after a particular tribe or local power, that either came to dominate the whole area and/or was the first that an outside power came into contact with (remember that many countries and places have different names in different languages).


For some actual ideas, you could look at His Dark Materials for examples of alternative place names (some of which are real historic names):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Dark_Materials#Terminology_used_in_the_books

Satinavian
2017-10-08, 05:35 AM
In the UK, and other places where certain people feel threatened by Muslims, the use of the "-istan" suffix on the end of a place name is a deliberate pejorative slur against the Muslim population who live there. It's used to infer that the place is "overrun" by Muslims (e.g.: Londonistan, Leicesteristan), who are feared/hated by those who are using the term.
Sure, there's a legitimate reason we might use "-istan" as a toponym ending, as there are lots of places within the region of (historically) Farsi-speaking influence that use it. But the Caribbean isn't one of them - and unless your Caribbean analogue in your pirate game is supposed to have been settled / discovered by Farsi-speakers of old, merging "-istan" to "Caribbean" is going to be inflammatory to people who take it as meaning you're afraid the place is "overrun" by demonised Muslims.That is a pure British thing because so many UK Muslims come from Pakistan based on colonial history. It is basically a regional slur unknown anywhere else which is the reason most people in this thread don't find Carribistan offensive at all. (Even in most other English speaking countries Muslims are assosiated primarily with Arabs not with Pakistanis.)

If you had explained that sooner, people might have had a better chance understanding your peoblem with Carribistan specifically.



Some posters have argued that doing things in private makes it acceptable. My argument here is that if it wouldn't be okay for a wider audience, then why do you feel that you have to do it at home in private?Because maybe one does not think this term is offensive and that the people claiming otherwise are just idiots. But instead of insisting on public use and argueing about it, one might save the time and energy and use it privately instead.

Potato_Priest
2017-10-09, 01:04 PM
I thought about a similar setting for a while and my favorite name conversion was Tortuga->Tortilla

Vogie
2017-10-09, 03:14 PM
You could also use the very historically accurate practice of a place having multiple names. Specifically, a name that the people call themselves (autonyms) versus what outsiders call them (exonyms).

"Deutschland" being called "Germany"

The entire United Kingdom referred to as "England", as mentioned above, to an excessive amount of debate.

Nippon-koku being called "Japan"

Côte d'Ivoire still being called "the Ivory Coast"

The Romani people being referred to as "Gypsies" even though there was little to no tie to the actual Egyptians.

The Greeks still calling the city "Constantinople" (Κωνσταντινούπολη), even though it's been Istanbul since the early 1700s.

The infamous scene from Crash: "They think we're Arab. When did Persian become Arab?"

As a person born & raised in Central Florida, other Americans calling me "Southern". Definitely, no :smallsigh:

Even the name "barbarian" comes from the Greek term for people whose language sounded like "bar bar bar bar bar" - Originally an insult for the Turks, but applied at various points to most of "not-us" Europe by the Greeks and later the Romans. Basically, it's an ancient "Charlie Brown Teacher Speak" applied to entire regions of "not-us".

D+1
2017-10-09, 04:10 PM
Going for the gag on your names would be fine - Haggisland, Froggia, Disneyland, whatever - but that'd be very different in tone from a supposedly "evocative" name with cultural baggage.
What's irking me is that the slightest research into these names will show up that they're being used wrong. Toponymy isn't hard, folks.

What irks me about this response is that the use of "Haggisland" with a complete absence of any respect is deemed permissible as a name intended to be evocative of Scotland, and "Froggia" no less acceptable as insultingly evocative of France... but the use of "Albion", even with an intent to RESPECTFULLY be merely evocative of England is actually labeled ignorant, rude and unacceptable. And this for a game setting not even intended for publication but for casual personal use. I find no merit in these objections whatsoever. You have no objection to derision and outright insults to other real-world places in naming conventions, but England alone is, apparently, sacred? Bollocks.

To the OP: Use WHATEVER simply sounds good to your ears and does not grate on YOUR OWN sensibilities or those of your players. Ignore ALL protestations of others to the contrary.