Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[S'mon]

I remember when 5th Edition came out and WotC tried to sell the spiel that there were three equal pillars. My comment: just because you say it does not make it true The game still devoted the main chunk towards combat, and the three-equal-pillars talk? I consider it just marketing.

They were trying to move away from Wyatt 4e "D&D is a game about killing horrible monsters, not traipsing through fairy rings interacting with the little people" - that's close to 'actively suppressing' exploration & social interaction. 5e 'gave permission' to do those things, which was enough for many people and helped make 5e very popular.

Personally I don't think mechanical support is a good thing for social interaction play; it tends to get in the way since most of us know how talking works IRL. Some more exploration type mechanics might have been nice.

 

[Thomas Shey]

They were trying to move away from Wyatt 4e "D&D is a game about killing horrible monsters, not traipsing through fairy rings interacting with the little people" - that's close to 'actively suppressing' exploration & social interaction. 5e 'gave permission' to do those things, which was enough for many people and helped make 5e very popular.

Personally I don't think mechanical support is a good thing for social interaction play; it tends to get in the way since most of us know how talking works IRL. Some more exploration type mechanics might have been nice.

The problem is that people's sense of how social interaction works is limited by the range of it they've had. And that's over and above the case, as with all such things, that the particular skills involved are far, far from evenly distributed, so you have to decide to what degree you want to limit being able to do so effectively, to people who can do so effectively personally.

(To make it clear, I don't consider this a simple question; at one end of the process you have an exercise in die rolling with no player involvement other than aiming their character, at the other its basically token play with the character being irrelevant to how well it works. And this isn't only limited to social interaction; its an issue with problem solving and even things like combat. Its just a case where different people are comfortable with where on the line you're comfortable with in different venues).

 

[Justice and Rule]

I'll be honest: are there actual, affirmative arguments to keeping it as "phylactery" beyond "That's what it's always been" or "Think of what they might change next?" Like, if I used a term and someone in my game didn't like it, I'd probably change it unless I had an argument or a reason as to why it had to be called as such. This is not a mechanical change or anything, so I'm confused as to why there'd need to be all that much resistance.

The problem is that people's sense of how social interaction works is limited by the range of it they've had. And that's over and above the case, as with all such things, that the particular skills involved are far, far from evenly distributed, so you have to decide to what degree you want to limit being able to do so effectively, to people who can do so effectively personally.

(To make it clear, I don't consider this a simple question; at one end of the process you have an exercise in die rolling with no player involvement other than aiming their character, at the other its basically token play with the character being irrelevant to how well it works. And this isn't only limited to social interaction; its an issue with problem solving and even things like combat. Its just a case where different people are comfortable with where on the line you're comfortable with in different venues).

Don't want to take this off-topic, so my one comment on the matter: I find that players tend to engage with games wherever their mechanics lie. A lot of players don't like to leave things completely up to the GM, and I have players that would rather have a hard die roll than to just have to convince me on the merits (even if I would likely agree with them). If you give players tools, they will find ways to use them. If you give them no tools, they'll figure that they aren't supposed to engage with that area (or at least, as much).

It's why I like social systems in games: it tells the player that they are supposed to engage with that area and gives them options to use instead of relying on me to hand them things.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Don't want to take this off-topic, so my one comment on the matter: I find that players tend to engage with games wherever their mechanics lie. A lot of players don't like to leave things completely up to the GM, and I have players that would rather have a hard die roll than to just have to convince me on the merits (even if I would likely agree with them). If you give players tools, they will find ways to use them. If you give them no tools, they'll figure that they aren't supposed to engage with that area (or at least, as much).

I'd also argue that players will tend to engage where their own skills lay in many cases when avowedly they aren't areas their characters have. So I think mechanics are two-sided coin; they both allow players to engage with things they might not be good with, and don't allow players to entirely translate their real world skills to in game skills even when inappropriate.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

So?

Can you let me know how many people have to be offended before we change something? And, what percentage offended do they have to be?

"Oh, sorry, you're only 12 per cent offended, so, we'll ignore you. If you were only 13 per cent offended, then we would do something."

For some reason people seem to see only the specific issue and not the general. The general idea is that it's bad to misappropriate ANY cultural elements and repurpose them. Doesn't matter what that thing is. That's not important. The important part is that it's a bad idea to do it to anyone's culture.

I mean, I mentioned earlier in this thread that the module I'm using uses real world Aztec deities as Far Realms monsters. Is this acceptable or not? And, if it's not acceptable to repurpose someone's god as a Lovecraftian monster bent on destroying the world, why is it acceptable to repurpose someone's religious artifacts as a focus for hideous, evil rites for creating monstrous, evil undead?

Then Paizo needs to get rid of all the Christian or Christian-adjacent elements as well. Just off the top of my head, asmodeus, baphomet, baalzebul are all contained in the extended extra-biblical/apocryphal writings and tradition of Christianity as well as other near east religions. Djinn, efreeti, and shaitan are explicitly mentioned in the koran and permeate Islamic and Arabic culture.

While Paizo treats them as evil, which the Christian probably wouldn't object to, they may very well feel like this is trivializing a very serious concept in their religion.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Then Paizo needs to get rid of all the Christian or Christian-adjacent elements as well. Just off the top of my head, asmodeus, baphomet, baalzebul are all contained in the extended extra-biblical/apocryphal writings and tradition of Christianity as well as other near east religions. Djinn, efreeti, and shaitan are explicitly mentioned in the koran and permeate Islamic and Arabic culture.

While Paizo treats them as evil, which the Christian probably wouldn't object to, they may very well feel like this is trivializing a very serious concept in their religion.

So I think you're both off-base and inadvertently on-base here.

For the whole Christian demon thing, demons within the canon are generally interpretations of the gods of other cultures and such, and are often taken from Hebrew documents and are generally not even canon for either. None of them really compared to the concept of a phylactery, in any case.

But on Djinns? I think there is a discussion to be had, and I don't think it should be shied away from. Certainly with how some settings depict Efreet culture as largely Arabesque is probably something that should get discussed... and I don't see a problem with starting with a discussion on such a topic. I mean, how long did the Vistani last as Romani stereotypes before they started to get changed around?

 

[CleverNickName]

Then Paizo needs to get rid of all the Christian or Christian-adjacent elements as well. Just off the top of my head, asmodeus, baphomet, baalzebul are all contained in the extended extra-biblical/apocryphal writings and tradition of Christianity ...

Been there, done that. Many of us here can remember the "Satanic Panic" of the 80s, and the damage it did to the hobby.

 

[S'mon]

The problem is that people's sense of how social interaction works is limited by the range of it they've had.

Most people have had a lot of social interaction across a pretty wide range.

Anyway I'm not against a CHA stat, or even Diplomacy/Persuasion type rolls to aid GM adjudication. CHA like INT in RPGs is one of those grey areas where the ability of the player inevitably interacts with the ability of the PC. I don't see that as a bad thing. If I'm playing a game, I expect my own competence to be engaged, not delegated to the PC sheet. But a high CHA can be a resource to work with, as a low CHA can be a handicap to overcome (or not).

 

[kenada]

Just because a player thinks they made a compelling argument that should obviate the need for a social roll doesn’t mean it will be taken that way by the audience. The way I handle these situations (and think they ought to be handled) is by having the audience react accordingly when the player rolls poorly in spite of good “roleplaying”. The roll functions as a prompt for me (the GM). Sometimes you can get incongruent results, but figuring out how to respond appropriately usually leads to interesting and unexpected situations.

I had a situation once in a PF1 game (running The Dragon’s Demand) where the party’s face was trying to improve the party’s standing with people in town. He was talking to the blacksmith and was very flattering about what he thought of the blacksmith’s work, thinking that would get him in good with the blacksmith, and then he rolled a natural 1 (plus his skill, which wasn’t enough, since skill checks don’t automatically fail on a 1 in PF1). The blacksmith was suspicious, and subsequent interactions confirmed to him that this guy was way too interested in his business and up to no good.

 

[LongTimeLurker]

Seems like much ado about nothing. Making words off limits is dumb.