Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Umbran]

And since they're "red" on the List of Woke TTRPG Companies...

Mod Note:
Please review EN World's Terms and rules. Specifically, our inclusivity policy. Pejorative use of terms or dogwhistles (like how you use "woke" above) is not acceptable.

If you have some problem with this, please take it to PM with a member of the moderation staff, and they'll discuss it with you further.

 

[Hex08]

I visited an old high school friend today who used to be one of the people in my D&D group when I first moved to Ohio. He also happens to be a Jew. The reason for my visit was because his wife recently died and he was complaining about how bored is most of the time with her no longer around. I tried to get him to join my Sunday night gaming group to help alleviate the boredom. He declined but during the conversation I thought about this thread so I asked him if he knew what a phylactery is and his response was "isn't it where a lich keeps his soul?". I then brought up this discussion and he had no idea of it's religious significance and thought the change was silly.

I'm not trying to make a point here about the validity of Paizo's decision, the conversation just made me laugh.

​

 

[Bohandas]

Anyway, hopefully going forward they'll also clean up some of the other incorrect word usages that have been rattling around such as "monk" incorrectly used to mean "martial artist", and "barbarian" incorrectly used to mean "berserker"

 

[ReshiIRE]

Anyway, hopefully going forward they'll also clean up some of the other incorrect word usages that have been rattling around such as "monk" incorrectly used to mean "martial artist", and "barbarian" incorrectly used to mean "berserker"

Yeah; looking at how Level Up 5e handles the names and does exactly that, it seems strange to me Paizo didn't do that when they changed 'Paladin' to 'Champion'. Especially since Barbarian and Monk have much more name issues than 'Paladin' (Paladin isn't accurate and is a very specific word, but it also refers to something from a Western culture that had the word fall into disuse iirc).

 

[Hussar]

But when we talk about monk and paladin and barbarian, there is the second part of the issue - yes the word is being used incorrectly, sure, but, is it also promoting a negative view of those words. Paladin as holiest of holy warriors, for example, the shining example in the game of the best a person can be, is hardly a negative portrayal (despite all the other stuff that has been a problem at tables with paladins.) Monks and barbarians as a class have never been depicted as evil or bad in any way. Stronger than the average bear and able to kick your ass with bare hands isn't a terribly bad look.

The issue isn't simply appropriating words. That's just the start. There's more nuance here than that.

In the phylactery case, we have a word that has been appropriated, the meaning distorted considerably, and then applied to the most evil of undead in the game.

I hope that the difference is clear.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

there are beneficial and good phylacteries in D&D anyway; also paladins can now be any alignment. If not pathfinder, most players will still know this.

vestments usually associated with Christian clergy can be worn by clerics of asmodeus. Many cleric spells are based on biblical miracles and can be cast by villains and reversed.

by using phylacteries we are just doing more of the same. Phylacteries of faithfulness as an example familiar to many fantasy rpg players.

its ok to disagree but both sides have some counterpoints.

I think speaking for Jewish people and being offended for them is problematic in itself. Paizo says it’s not the Jewish community complaining.

and instead of just making a change that would probably slip by, we make an announcement of self congratulatory nature.

they can do what they want. It’s their game! But I don’t see them rushing to take other religious reference as seriously. Now if it was Jewish holy text that was baleful and not just a container, I would have more concern.

the phylacteries are like vestments, holy water, clerical spells, incense and whatever other religious trappings we find in game. They all can be good or in most cases, perverted to evil. All of them.

we use references to real world objects and traditions because it resonates and has associations with religion not because we are painting one religion as bad—and that is patently obvious.

but again, Paizo can do paizo. Whatever. Seems absurd to me. Some think this is a striking example of justice save maybe the Jewish people who could not care less (so far as we know).

And if they do find this uncool, why bend to that and not the other faiths that would stamp out fantasy fun?

 

[Hussar]

there are beneficial and good phylacteries in D&D anyway; also paladins can now be any alignment. If not pathfinder, most players will still know this.

vestments usually associated with Christian clergy can be worn by clerics of asmodeus. Many cleric spells are based on biblical miracles and can be cast by villains and reversed.

But, the thing is, the spells are not, in themselves, definitively evil. Control Water, to use an example, while having an obvious Biblical root, isn't described as an unholy act that perverts nature to murder the innocent.

by using phylacteries we are just doing more of the same. Phylacteries of faithfulness as an example familiar to many fantasy rpg players.

Any phylacteries of faithfulness are still in the game, AFAIK.

/snip

the phylacteries are like vestments, holy water, clerical spells, incense and whatever other religious trappings we find in game. They all can be good or in most cases, perverted to evil. All of them.

Your last sentence there, "can be good or perverted to evil" is the most important point. There is no such thing as a GOOD lich's phylactery. It doesn't exist. It is flat out evil and definitively described as such. So, no, a lich's phylactery is not like vestments, holy water, clerical spells, incense or whatever other religious trappings we find in the game.

we use references to real world objects and traditions because it resonates and has associations with religion not because we are painting one religion as bad—and that is patently obvious.

No, it is not patently obvious. Because you are defending taking a word, substituting an entirely new definition for the word that is only tenuously linked to that word, and then pretending that it's all the same.

but again, Paizo can do paizo. Whatever. Seems absurd to me. Some think this is a striking example of justice save maybe the Jewish people who could not care less (so far as we know).

And if they do find this uncool, why bend to that and not the other faiths that would stamp out fantasy fun?

Because you are missing the point?

Again, one more time, the issue isn't necessarily about offending Jewish people. That's not the reason (or at least the only reason) for doing this. They are correcting something that never should have been done in the first place. Like has been mentioned, why don't we use the term Tabernacle instead of Phylactery?

There's a very, very good reason why the devils in D&D are not named for the Apostles.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Again, one more time, the issue isn't necessarily about offending Jewish people. That's not the reason (or at least the only reason) for doing this. They are correcting something that never should have been done in the first place. Like has been mentioned, why don't we use the term Tabernacle instead of Phylactery?

Probably because publishers, knowing that some people, notably many in the US which is their primary market, keep giving value to religions and so they chose to tactically not reduce their potential customer base? Or that many of their potential customers, would subscribe to the idea that "freedom of religion" equals or implies a "need to consider all religions as good things that are deserving respect" and might choose not to buy their products as a result.

This idea isn't necessarily common anywhere, notably outside of the US where there is a very specific view on religions. Elsewhere, freedom of thought, for example, does mean that Flat Earther are free to think the Earth is flat, and might even be able to express it, but it doesn't mean that their belief should be respected: it's not morally wrong, from this point of view, to say "look, Flat-Earthism is a silly idea, let's laugh about it". Same with religions. People have the right to worship anything, but they shouldn't expect others to respect the god their worship or in this case, an item they use in their worshipping practice. This moral position, representative of the culture of atheistic countries, is certainly not common in the US, and Paizo didn't want to lose customers by calling the BBEG of a campaign Saint Luke, because they could lose a few customers that would be miffed by the name choice and a few other, maybe more, that wouldn't care particularly about Saint Luke but would say "hey, they are not respectful to a religious figure, it's wrong of them."

From your post, I dedude that you are adhering to the idea that all religions are worthy of respect by themselves ; which is fine, but it might make you not understand the position of others in this thread, for which religions are not more nor less praise-worthy than Flat Earthism. There are even stronger opinions that all religions are intrinsicly evil, mostly from actively atheistic/anticlerical cultures. I doubt it would be possible to reconcile all these philosophical views to formulate a consensual opinion on the moral use of phylactery.

On the other hand, the argument that "phylactery" isn't an accurate word to represent a soul-storing item isn't based on adhering to a particular moral view on religions, it's... a definition. If the lich was using it as a protective amulet containing arcane texts to protect against death and keep living, it would be spot on to call that a phylactery (albeit morally wrong for some, right for others, depending their philosophical stance on religions), but Paizo chose to make their liches need a soul storing item, and there is no reason to call that a phylactery, because it's not what a phylactery is. It's as wrong to call it a phylactery than to call that a teapot, and nobody would defend teapot. This is, I hope, consensual because it's factual and this explanation isn't narrowed by the need to subscribe first to any moral idea regarding religions.

 

[TheSword]

This guy, makes it extremely clear, in quite amusing way why Paizo dropping this word from D&D really doesn’t improve the overall happiness in the world. Only a minute long but makes the point far more eloquently than I can.


In essence (for those who can’t abide videos in forums) the speaker (Jeremy Shuback, a Jewish animator exploring Judaism) says that Tefillin are Tefillin. The internet and the dictionary seems to suggest to the world that Tefillin are also called phylacteries but he makes it clear that no one who was ever actually wearing a Tefillin would ever call it a phylactery. There aren’t two equally good words for the object, they’re just called Tefillin so stop calling them phylacteries.

 

[Cadence]

There aren’t two equally good words for the object, they’re just called Tefillin so stop calling them phylacteries.

I guess they should let the folks who put together the Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Encyclopedia Britannica, The Jewish Encyclopedia, etc... know they've been wrong all these years about what they've been listing as the primary meaning of the word Phylactery when used in English? Which, of course has nothing to do with which word is preferred by those who use them, or the origin of the word. English speakers are good about picking their own words for other countries, people, and their things (Suomi, Deutsch, etc...).