D&D General Rethinking the class name "Druid".

Blue Orange

Gone to Texas
I am always a little amused by this sort of thing because 70% of the people I played D&D with as a teenager were Jewish, and literally every lich we encountered in those years was run by a Jewish DM, and certainly none of them were offended. Not saying you couldn't be but...

I'm only genetically Jewish and wasn't raised that way (though I am from NYC so that probably counts for something), but in my cohort (Xennial) antisemitism was some weird thing that was supposed to come out of random fringe political characters like David Duke and Louis Farrakhan (this is before the rise of the alt-right) and nobody thought to get worked up about the phylactery in D&D--everyone assumed it was Gygax being too friendly with his thesaurus if they thought about it at all. I mean, he had every culture in there, half of the cleric spells (Part Water, Sticks to Snakes, Create Food and Water, Raise Dead) were from the Jewish or Christian holy texts, it was just part of the atmosphere.

I'm guessing with the alt-right people are more worried now.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Blue Orange

Gone to Texas
Yes, I was trying to remember that one, thank you.

There was also another class in a later supplement that was more "transformation-y" than the Greenbond's "nature priest": the Totem Speaker.

'Nature priest' to me sounds the most descriptive, though in a fantasy game you may want something more fanciful or tied to the setting.

Green's kind of a natural color (pun intended); plants are green.
 

jayoungr

Legend
Supporter
Out of curiosity, I looked up the etymology of phylactery. It's from a Greek word meaning "amulet," so it sounds like it's a similar situation to shaman--i.e., a word from outside of a culture used to describe a specific cultural thing. The word itself might also have wider applications. I'm not Jewish myself, but I assume there's probably a Hebrew name for the same object.

To the OP: Customizing terminology for your own setting is one of the things D&D is absolutely for! One thing to think about when you're renaming druids is, what exactly is their relationship to nature? Do they actually worship it or just hold it in high regard? What do they see as the proper relationship between nature and civilization?
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
Let's all not forget that this change has nothing to do nor need to worry any member of the general D&D populace. This is purely for ONE player and their ONE table wanting to make a change. So saying "there's no need to change it" completely misses the point.

Now that being said... my personal take is that what type of name selected depends on whether or not the name is actually used in-game by the populace at large... or if its just a game mechanic identifier. If it's the former... names like "greenpriest" or "wildpriest" to me trod upon the identity of the Clerics of the Nature domain. Me personally, anything related or connected to the term "priest" would be Cleric only because there should be by my way of thinking a substantial divide between Clerics and "Druids" (whatever they end up being called) in terms of how they get their power, what is important to them, how are they seen amongst the populace. Nature domain Clerics and Druids have a seeming overlap, so in-world there really should be a way they are separate and different from each other. And not attributing the obvious religious rank of "priest" to whatever the druid-equivalent is would be one important step in my opinion.

If you are going to have these nature / spirit / hermetic type people out in the world... ones who are not a part of the religious orthodoxy of your world... then it would be important to select a name that does not have religious connection. Which is why "Greenbonds" or "Greenseers" tend to get play. Other options could be things like "Forester", "Hermit", "Wilder", "Timberjack", "Agrarian", "Rustic", "Pillarist", "Henger" and so forth.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Out of curiosity, I looked up the etymology of phylactery. It's from a Greek word meaning "amulet," so it sounds like it's a similar situation to shaman--i.e., a word from outside of a culture used to describe a specific cultural thing. The word itself might also have wider applications. I'm not Jewish myself, but I assume there's probably a Hebrew name for the same object.

To the OP: Customizing terminology for your own setting is one of the things D&D is absolutely for! One thing to think about when you're renaming druids is, what exactly is their relationship to nature? Do they actually worship it or just hold it in high regard? What do they see as the proper relationship between nature and civilization?
Disclaimer: I am also not Jewish

There is another name for them, yes. Tefillin, which I believe is the more common term for them these days, though I’m not totally sure about that. At any rate, I do recall a post about its use doing the rounds on Tumblr, but it was from a non-Jewish (is Gentile the correct term?) user who’s known for weirdly appropriating Jewish culture and getting offended on behalf of Jewish people. But I have never heard, or even heard of, any actual Jewish folks taking issue with the use of the term phylactery in D&D. Doesn’t mean none ever have or do, but I don’t think there’s any general sentiment that its use in D&D is inappropriate.
 

Silvercat Moonpaw

Adventurer
Now that being said... my personal take is that what type of name selected depends on whether or not the name is actually used in-game by the populace at large... or if its just a game mechanic identifier. If it's the former... names like "greenpriest" or "wildpriest" to me trod upon the identity of the Clerics of the Nature domain. Me personally, anything related or connected to the term "priest" would be Cleric only because there should be by my way of thinking a substantial divide between Clerics and "Druids" (whatever they end up being called) in terms of how they get their power, what is important to them, how are they seen amongst the populace. Nature domain Clerics and Druids have a seeming overlap, so in-world there really should be a way they are separate and different from each other. And not attributing the obvious religious rank of "priest" to whatever the druid-equivalent is would be one important step in my opinion.
I don't really mind if the "wildpriest" steps on the cleric's toes, as I've never been wild (HA!) about D&D's iconic priestly class. Perhaps it's my general lack of interest toward religion.

But you do make a good point. If I wanted to say that a Nature Domain Cleric is the nature priest, I might take the "druid" even further from being a divine class at all: "greenmage", "nature mage", "wildmage"*, "green/brown wizard" (thanks!, Retreater), etc.


* With apologies to the fact that D&D already uses this to describe something.
 


Greg K

Legend
A few thoughts.
Neither druid nor shaman are terms used in specific real world religions. These were terms used by others to label them, not things they called themselves. Much like the various Native American tribes did not generally call themselves many of the names that were used to refer to them.
I think the bigger point that gets missed is this, that most people only object to terms that are used to reflect negatively on their real world beliefs or customs. Take the issue around the use of Phylactery as an example. A Phylactery specifically refers to a small leather box containing Hebrew texts on vellum, worn by Jewish men at morning prayer as a reminder to keep the law in the real world. Turning it into a vessel that is used to trap souls and house the soul of a necromancer could definitely be seen as an offensive perversion by many devout real world Jewish people, while they likely would not mind if it were used in game for some more benevolent purpose. That said, I am not Jewish and do not propose to speak for Jewish people. I just think it is less about the words or terms being used and more about the way in which they are used.
Personally, as I wrote in another thread, I and the various Jewish friends and friends with at least one Jewish parent or grandparent with whom I have played since the late 1970s have never been offended. However, we do not get to speak for everyone. That stated, the issue of any offense should not be the term phylactery, but the description of the Lich's phylactery if there is anything to be offended by at all.

First, what you described is a Tefellin. A Tefellin is a type of phylactery (because phylactery is derived from a Latin word derived from a Greek word and Jews lived in the Roman and Greek "worlds" for a time as well as later in Medieval Europe). However, not all phylactery are Tefellin.

The definitions for a phylactery according to Dictionary.com:
The first definition is as you described. However, the next two definitions are as follows:
2. "(in the early Christian church) a receptacle containing a holy relic."
3. "an amulet, charm, or safeguard against harm or danger"

The definitions according to Merriam-Webster:
1. again is the phylactery as you described (but only since the 14th century).
2. an amulet
However, if you trace the word back to the Greek origin from which phylactery is derived, you will see that the lesser used safeguard (as seen in the definition in dictionary.com) also applies as well as the origin used by the early Christian church for a receptacle containing a holy relic.

Merriam-Webster traces the origin as follows:
Middle English filaterie, philacterie, borrowed from Late Latin filactērium, phylactērium "amulet, tefellin," borrowed from Greek phylaktḗrion "guarded place, outpost, safeguard, amulet, tefellin," from phylaktḗr "guard, guardian" (from phylak-, stem of phylássein "to keep watch on, guard, preserve"

As a side note, the concept of wearable prayers and sacred texts housed in an item are not unique to the Jewish faith. They were found in the Islamic faith as well. With regards to boxes, specifically, small wearable boxes with prayers text are said to have been worn by followers of Islam in the Medieval Meditarranean Islamic World. And, while not boxes, in Central and Western Asia, a common Islamic amulet was a written sacred verse wrapped in triangular paper packages often worn by infants and young children.

Anyway, as stated at the begining, myself as someone of the Jewish faith and those of my players whom were Jewish and/or had a Jewish parent or grandparent, but did not practice the faith never took offense. The earliest versions lich in D&D simply stated the lich was created through conjurations, enchantments and a phylactery. Even later when Tefellin became described we never assumed it was a Tefellin. You need to store the lich's soul and/or the spells in an item for protection, the word phylactery (to us) was still applicable without being tied to the Jewish faith.
Is there anything wrong with Paizo changing the term? No. It is their perogative. I just disagree with those stating that all phylactery = Tefellin, the use of the word phylactery is, automatically, offensive to those of us of the Jewish faith (it may be to some unaware of the word's origin, alternate definitions, or that similar objects have been used elsewhere), and, therefore, the term phylactery itself need be abandoned.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Sure, but way less confusing than having warlocks and witches be different things.
That isn’t confusing at all. Most people’s idea of a warlock comes from modern fantasy media, where witches are hedge-magic wise women, and warlocks are either practitioners of dark/forbidden magic or specifically evil foils to the work’s primary “good” or normal magic users.
It is really, because Wizard doesn't mean female Sorcerer.
Nor does warlock actually mean male witch.
Exactly.
I'm only genetically Jewish and wasn't raised that way (though I am from NYC so that probably counts for something), but in my cohort (Xennial) antisemitism was some weird thing that was supposed to come out of random fringe political characters like David Duke and Louis Farrakhan (this is before the rise of the alt-right) and nobody thought to get worked up about the phylactery in D&D--everyone assumed it was Gygax being too friendly with his thesaurus if they thought about it at all. I mean, he had every culture in there, half of the cleric spells (Part Water, Sticks to Snakes, Create Food and Water, Raise Dead) were from the Jewish or Christian holy texts, it was just part of the atmosphere.

I'm guessing with the alt-right people are more worried now.
I’ve known several Jewish nerds who have compared it to someone using “crucifix” as a name for the same thing or otherwise expressed that it is pretty egregiously insulting to their beliefs, especially as it’s being used by a game that is very “Christian-centric” and also uses “golem” in a pretty offensively cavalier way. Especially referring to frankenstein-style monsters as “flesh golems”.
Disclaimer: I am also not Jewish

There is another name for them, yes. Tefillin, which I believe is the more common term for them these days, though I’m not totally sure about that. At any rate, I do recall a post about its use doing the rounds on Tumblr, but it was from a non-Jewish (is Gentile the correct term?) user who’s known for weirdly appropriating Jewish culture and getting offended on behalf of Jewish people. But I have never heard, or even heard of, any actual Jewish folks taking issue with the use of the term phylactery in D&D. Doesn’t mean none ever have or do, but I don’t think there’s any general sentiment that its use in D&D is inappropriate.
Nate Silver has a good breakdown on it in his episode of Adventuring Academy from Dimension20, if you’re curious.
 


Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top