Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Ixal]

Sorry, @Greg K , I think my question got lost in the scrum. So, I'll repeat it here.



And, thinking about it later, I have a second question.

Is it worth it? What is the benefit here of keeping a word where you need to have a disclaimer (please use This definition and not That definition for this word) every time you use it? Because, remember, we're not just writing for right now, but, also for some years down the line as well. If they keep phylactery, and somehow include these examples, they need to include these examples every single time they use the word or they are going to run into problems again with people reading phylactery without the examples in some later publication, presuming that it means the first dictionary definition and coming back and questioning the use.

So, what's the upside here? What is the benefit of keeping phylactery?

The same benefit as keeping Demon and Devil instead of Tanar'ri.

 

[Umbran]

The US Government wanting to use law enforcement against the parents who question and challenge School Boards and what is being taught to their kids, whether it’s Common Core garbage or the bigotry separating people in the US as either the oppressed or the oppressor.

Mod Note:

ANd this is over the line into politics. How about you go find some discussions that don't lead you to breaking site rules.

 

[Cadence]

The same benefit as keeping Demon and Devil instead of Tanar'ri.

The first bunch of definitions of demon in the OED isn't keyed to a particular religion, and it is being used in the sense of the primary definition in the game.

Devil's first definition does seem to fit the biblical religious sense (especially when capitalized and used in the singular), but it's being used in a manner similar to that meaning in the game. So if the discussion was mostly about the phylactery of health and the like it would seem more relevant to me as a comparison.

Making something whose primary definition is evil in an IRL religion good, or something whose primary definition is good in an IRL religion bad, both seem like things I'd probably avoid if I had editorial control.

 

[Ixal]

The first bunch of definitions of demon in the OED isn't keyed to a particular religion, and it is being used in the sense of the primary definition in the game.

Devil's first definition does seem to fit the biblical religious sense (especially when capitalized and used in the singular), but it's being used in a manner similar to that meaning in the game. So if the discussion was mostly about the phylactery of health and the like it would seem more relevant to me as a comparison.

Making something whose primary definition is evil in an IRL religion good, or something whose primary definition is good in an IRL religion bad, both seem like things I'd probably avoid if I had editorial control.

So who decides what is an acceptable use of a religious term?
You obviously had practising Christians protesting the use of Devil in the game.

 

[Irlo]

So who decides what is an acceptable use of a religious term?

First, the writers, editors, and publishers. Also retailers who sell the game products. Customers who buy the game products. Players who play the games. And everyone else who might have an opinion.

 

[Argyle King]

This is so far from the topic it's dizzying.

Please let's not turn this into a debate about the definition of empathy.

I imagine with @Tormai is trying to get at is the mythical idea (that's been floated in this thread before) about being "offended on behalf" of someone. As if one shouldn't be disturbed by unkind behavior towards others.

Tormai, is that where you are heading with your "too much empathy?" If not, please do correct me.

I don't feel that what you've mentioned is a "myth."

I mentioned narcissistic savior complexes earlier.

In terms of "too much empathy," I do believe it is possible to become neurotic and unable to function in day-to-day life.

I cannot say that is what others who brought up the concept meant. But that's how I see it.

 

[transmission89]

Well this thread has been endlessly entertaining - who knew a word having multiple meanings in different contexts could cause such strife?
Word appropriation is not a bad thing, if one is uncomfortable with that and English is your first language - there's some bad news for you. It is why it is a great, wonderfully flexible language. One that shamelessly magpies terms and words from other languages, giving them new meanings and leases of life with maycare disregard to their origin as language evolves and changes. It has pretty much done so since its inception.

Paizo can do as they wish for whatever reason they wish. Within pop culture, Phylactery has gained a specific meaning within a fantasy genre: a soul receptacle for a lich. I can't see that changing anytime soon. At no table ever was one mistakenly led to believe they were on a quest to visit a Rabbi.

Do as you wish for your table, mine will always have liches with phylacteries.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Well this thread has been endlessly entertaining - who knew a word having multiple meanings in different contexts could cause such strife?
Word appropriation is not a bad thing, if one is uncomfortable with that and English is your first language - there's some bad news for you. It is why it is a great, wonderfully flexible language. One that shamelessly magpies terms and words from other languages, giving them new meanings and leases of life with maycare disregard to their origin as language evolves and changes. It has pretty much done so since its inception.

I think saying "word appropriation is not a bad thing" misses that it can be bad, but it isn't always. Word appropriation is neutral, and it's all in what you do and how you do it.

Paizo can do as they wish for whatever reason they wish. Within pop culture, Phylactery has gained a specific meaning within a fantasy genre: a soul receptacle for a lich. I can't see that changing anytime soon. At no table ever was one mistakenly led to believe they were on a quest to visit a Rabbi.

This basically the South Park defense we were referencing earlier: the idea that there is a new definition completely disconnected from the old one, thus it's alright.

 

[transmission89]

I think saying "word appropriation is not a bad thing" misses that it can be bad, but it isn't always. Word appropriation is neutral, and it's all in what you do and how you do it.


This basically the South Park defense we were referencing earlier: the idea that there is a new definition completely disconnected from the old one, thus it's alright.

It’s not bad though, it’s how languages (particularly English) work. They change, become corrupted in form or meaning and we use them. If some were to question whether it’s bad or not, that’s not appropriating or what you do with it is bad, that’s them judging it so. If They wish to be moral arbiters of the English language, good luck to them.


A new definition disconnected from the old one IS alright. That’s how words work. Hence why we have multiple definitions for words in dictionaries.

 

[Justice and Rule]

It’s not bad though, it’s how languages (particularly English) work. They change, become corrupted in form or meaning and we use them. If some were to question whether it’s bad or not, that’s not appropriating or what you do with it is bad, that’s them judging it so. If They wish to be moral arbiters of the English language, good luck to them.

It's not necessarily bad. Yes, language evolves. But when you take cultural ideas and practices from other cultures, it depends on how you frame and execute on them. If you do it right, it adds to people's understanding and knowledge, while if you don't it creates shallow and offensive disconnects.

The process is neutral. How you do it matters.

A new definition disconnected from the old one IS alright. That’s how words work. Hence why we have multiple definitions for words in dictionaries.

But it's not. Again, South Park tried to argue this with a homophobic slur, saying that it had evolved beyond that to a more general curse. Just because you create a new definition doesn't eliminate the history of the word itself: it's a continuation and evolution, not a completely new thing.