Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Bohandas]

but note that what I wrote "an amulet, charm, or safeguard against harm or danger."
Merriam-Webster defines safeguard as "something that protects and gives safety". The phylactery (in 2e and 3e) contains the lich's soul for its protection.

Its arguably more of a failsafe.

(edit: Although at this point I'm admittedly mincing words)

 

[Bohandas]

Anyway, I still like Greg K's implicit suggestion of changing the game term to "Phylaktḗrion". That eliminates the misleadingness and incorrectitude, and also sounds way spookier

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Possibly. My brain and memory are still a bit faulty from long COVID. However, I do recall back in 1e we assumed that the lich could be destroyed by destroying the phylactery. Perhaps we did read it somewhere.

It was my understanding, "confirmed" by a popup in the recent Pathfinder CRPG Wrath of the Righteous, that destroying the phylactery doesn't destroy the lich, but you'd need to destroy it after killing the lich to prevent its return.

 

[Bohandas]

It was my understanding, "confirmed" by a popup in the recent Pathfinder CRPG Wrath of the Righteous, that destroying the phylactery doesn't destroy the lich, but you'd need to destroy it after killing the lich to prevent its return.

I thought you could do them in either order.

In any case though, this is loosely related to what I was talking about when I said it was a failsafe and not a safeguard. The lich is equally easy to destroy with or without it, but with it they can come back afterward

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I thought you could do them in either order.

It was my understanding that a functional lich can recreate a phylactery at will, so while you could do that in either order, it's certainly easier to destroy the lich first then the phylactery, since it can't make another before reforming, which takes some time.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Thanks for your contribution to this thread, @Sepulchrave II. Your posts here and elsewhere on ENWorld lead me to believe you're an academic specialising in the history of religion so your expertise is much appreciated.

Not guilty; I'm just a cook.

But I would urge caution when engaging with the academy vis-à-vis religion in the centuries around the beginning of the Common Era; it can be infuriatingly resistant to new ideas - often because many scholars of this period have a vested faith interest.

If I understand you, you're saying that it's very difficult to distinguish between phylactery in the sense of the Jewish tefillin and phylactery in the sense of a protective amulet in the Greek speaking world because Greek language and culture had a major influence on Judaism during and after the Hellenistic Period (323 to 31 BCE).

Yep.

We have created and continue to perpetuate these ideas of difference, of deep distinction, between the two cultural spheres but Hellenistic thought shaped Judaism profoundly.

I won't say any more, as we're treading on shaky ground. But I'd like to reiterate just how slowly these ideas percolate by quoting your own post:

Preface to WD Davies and L Finkelstein, The Cambridge History of Judaism Volume Two (1989):

The evidence for the mutual interpenetration of Judaism and Hellenism inside Palestine and in the Diaspora… is evidence for an almost ubiquitous interpenetration which is now increasingly cogent. The traditional neat distinction made between Jerusalem and Athens, between Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism, has had to be radically modified even if it cannot be wholly abandoned. Hellenistic culture encroached intrusively and effectively on Judaism.​

This was more than thirty years ago, and we're still waiting for that radical modification.

 

[Myth Master]

Nice! But I’m just not digging either term. I think the old one needs dropping from this use but dang I wish there was another that is usable.

Phylacteries are a form of amulet, worn for protection, tied at some point to one of the wearer's limbs, as opposed to being worn around the neck

 

[Hussar]

Yes, technically, the Holodormor is a holocaust. I thought you were referring to the debate as to whether it was genocide or the result of some other cause
That it (the Holocaust) has become associated with genocide through a specific genocide, it (imo) should not prevent other groups from refering to similar events of genocide as a holocaust provided they refer it as a specific holocaust for clarity

So, just so I'm clear here. You are saying that it's okay to appropriate the term phylactery because some people appropriate the term Holocaust to refer to any genocide?

Is that the argument?

 

[Hussar]

/snip. Native American, Rwanda (half-million to a million murdered), and Armenian (600k-1million+) are in my opinon examples of genocides that could be labeled holocausts.

And yet, no one does.

 

[Ixal]

The problem is that (as I pointed out before) a lich's phylactery generally isn't worn as an amulet and doesn't contain a relic.

Nor is it worn wrapped around your hand or head and doesn't contain scripture.