Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Hussar]

Oh, don't think for one second that Pazio isn't trying to influence the culture around their games through their editorial choices.

Of course they are and they should be.

Why would you think anyone is different?

Since they're trying to influence their culture to be more respectful of other people's cultures, I'm not really sure that's a bad thing. But, in any case, all corporate entities try to influence the culture around their products. The entire industry of advertising is predicated on influencing the culture around products.

 

[Hussar]

Usually I'd be on your side, but the fact of the matter is that they weren;t using the word correctly. To fit the definition it needs to either be a worn item or to contain a physical relic, and the lich's "phylactery" generally checks neither box.

Now I just wish they would stop using the word "race" incorrectly. Tgat's the big onenthat's causing problems, and the only criticism I can legitimately give this decision is to raise the possibility that they may have deferred that important change to deal with this minor one.

Heh, I think that come the new release of 5e, the term "race" may have ahem run its course.

I can just imagine the midden hitting the windmill when WotC makes that announcement though.

-----------

As far as the moral angle goes, well, frankly, that's unavoidable. There is a moral dimension here. Using cultural concepts incorrectly is wrong. It's all wrapped up in cultural imperialism and various other issues and, since there is a moral aspect to this, @Galandris is correct in saying that any change is going to receive push back. I'm not sure that there's really anything that can be done to avoid that. For example, if they do remove the term "race" from the books, that's really tantamount to making a moral judgement on the past, no matter how you spin it.

Honestly, the only way forward is through open engagement and a willingness to listen and respect other viewpoints. (and, yes, I am perfectly aware of the irony of me saying that, thankyouverymuch) It's just something that is going to take time, just like any other social change. I grew up using language that would not be anywhere near acceptable to use now to refer to all sorts of different people. As did everyone around me. Autistic might be the word now but it certainly wasn't in common usage when I grew up. But, times change and we need to adjust.

 

[Bohandas]

Of course they are and they should be.

Why would you think anyone is different?

Since they're trying to influence their culture to be more respectful of other people's cultures, I'm not really sure that's a bad thing. But, in any case, all corporate entities try to influence the culture around their products. The entire industry of advertising is predicated on influencing the culture around products.

I use an ad-blocker personally. Although I try to find apps that don;t have ads to begin with

 

[Justice and Rule]

Now I just wish they would stop using the word "race" incorrectly. Tgat's the big onenthat's causing problems, and the only criticism I can legitimately give this decision is to raise the possibility that they may have deferred that important change to deal with this minor one.

Hey, you're in PF2 land here. We use "Ancestry".

 

[Argyle King]

So, why would you presume that a phylactery would be something to store a spirit in? After all, that's very much not what a phylactery is.

It's a box containing something of value for a specific person: namely religious/spiritual texts on special paper.

That makes sense for a lich needing a container in which to store something related to the ritual to transform into and exist as a lich.

Perfect translation? No, certainly not. But I can see similarities which would make "phylactery" a better choice of word to give a general idea of the concept than some other options.

•small container with a spiritual value to the owner
•sacred texts... profane in the case of a lich

Sidenote: the texts kept in a phylactery are often written on the same type of paper (vellum) that D&D once said arcane casters wrote spell formulas on. Becoming a lich is often described as a magical process.

I'm not bothered by changing the name for the concept of the item which binds a lich to unnatural life. At the same time, I can somewhat understand the thematic connections to having originally picked "phylactery."

 

[BrokenTwin]

I don't recall ever hearing anyone of Jewish faith complain about the use of the word phylactery in regards to D&D liches, but I'm not exactly eaten up over the change. I prefer the word reliquary as my personal substitution. My players (mostly new to the hobby) will understand soul jar a heck of a lot easier than they'll understand either of the former.

 

[Justice and Rule]

It seems to me to be the perfect word.

An ancient word for an item associated with magical script, charms and protection.

A different question might be, why did someone think it was a good idea to translate Teflin into a Greek word meaning charm or amulet instead of just calling it a Teflin. As a Jewish respondent said on the matter. All Teflin might be phylacteries but not all phylacteries are Teflin.

No, it's not. Like, this is the opposite of perfect and exactly what you want to avoid: simply taking a word because "it sounds cool" without actually taking the context of what it is used for or what it is. Talking about "how all phylacteries aren't tefflin" misses that it's the first and primary definition of the word and how it is used in real life, given that the previous general usage has basically completely falling off for the specific usage.

I think that’s my point. We’re quibbling over words chosen when the words themselves are only approximations. The word itself is a translation. Plucked from the air. It seems strange then to invest the word phylactery with the kind of association that using out of the typical context causes offense.

In other words if we took the Tallit and invested the same significance the word shawl that we’re investing in phylactery then Robert Jordan would be in all kinds of trouble.

I think it’s a good thing to give freedom of language the benefit of the doubt in all but egregious cases.

No, this comparison doesn't work because "shawl" didn't start as a translation for a specific Jewish tradition. If shawl was used in this way as phylactery is, then yes it would be problematic. But it's not, which is why this is a useless comparison.

It's a box containing something of value for a specific person: namely religious/spiritual texts on special paper.

That makes sense for a lich needing a container in which to store something related to the ritual to transform into and exist as a lich.

Perfect translation? No, certainly not. But I can see similarities which would make "phylactery" a better choice of word to give a general idea of the concept than some other options.

•small container with a spiritual value to the owner
•sacred texts... profane in the case of a lich

Sidenote: the texts kept in a phylactery are often written on the same type of paper (vellum) that D&D once said arcane casters wrote spell formulas on. Becoming a lich is often described as a magical process.

...

to me, tabernacle implies something very different than phylactery.

I'm sorry, a container that is literally meant to carry the body of Christ for Communion. It's a far more direct comparison to what a lich is storing than spiritual texts.

Also, these sorts of very vague connections are exactly the wrong sort of justification when you are taking a very specific ethnic or religious item. The vague idea of "It's a box that holds something important" is more of a justification for calling it a SoulSafe©. If you are going to use a word like this, it should be a specific and deliberate reference to what the item is, rather than trying to create a grab-bag justification because the word seems exotic.

 

[Greg K]

So, why would you presume that a phylactery would be something to store a spirit in? After all, that's very much not what a phylactery is.

Some other definitions of phylactery

"(in the early Christian church) a receptacle containing a holy relic.
an amulet, charm, or safeguard against harm or danger."

And if you go back to the Greek origin, phylaktḗrion, from which phylactery is ultimately derived, it not only includes amulets tefellin and safeguard, but a guarded place.

 

[Hussar]

Some other definitions of phylactery

"(in the early Christian church) a receptacle containing a holy relic.
an amulet, charm, or safeguard against harm or danger."

And if you go back to the Greek origin, phylaktḗrion, from which phylactery is ultimately derived, it not only includes amulets tefellin and safeguard, but a guarded place.

And, again, none of those include the notion of storing a soul, nor any connection to anything profane or unholy.

A lich's soul cage is not a thing to safeguard anything. It's an unholy receptacle in which to destroy souls. Remember, we do have to continue to feed souls into this thing from time to time to keep it powered up so it can continue torturing the lich's soul - since the soul isn't going on to its afterlife, I'm going to assume that the process isn't pleasant for the soul.

Funny how folks lose their poop over the notion of the Wall of the Faithless, but, appropriate a culturally important word from a real world religion, twist the meaning completely and apply it to a totally evil monster? Oh, that's okay.

 

[Greg K]

A lich's soul cage is not a thing to safeguard anything. It's an unholy receptacle in which to destroy souls. Remember, we do have to continue to feed souls into this thing from time to time to keep it powered up so it can continue torturing the lich's soul - since the soul isn't going on to its afterlife, I'm going to assume that the process isn't pleasant for the soul.

Did Pathfinder change the phylactery? I never paid it attention when looking at PF 1e. From AD&D to 3e, the phylactery was where the lich stored its own soul for protection. If that is no longer what it does in Pathfinder, then, yes, I see why phylactery would not be appropriate.