Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Hussar]

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

Umm, we still have Tanar'ri and Baatezu referenced in the game. Or did they do away with that in 5e? I wasn't paying that close of attention to be honest.

 

[Hussar]

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.

No, it really doesn't. You will find that almost no words with multiple definitions are disconnected from each other.

 

[Cadence]

No, it really doesn't. You will find that almost no words with multiple definitions are disconnected from each other.

Although sometimes the connections leave me nonplussed :-/

 

[Hussar]

Just another point about demon and devils and why it doesn't really apply here.

The meaning of demon or devil in D&D isn't (much) different than the commonly understood meaning. Big, bad, nasty evil thing that eats souls is pretty much the definition of demon or devil. Additionally, demons and devils in D&D are the antagonists. They are the stuff you fight against - again, very much in keeping with the intent of demons and devils in real world beliefs.

In other words, instead of substituting a new meaning, imposed by the authors of D&D, as is the case in phylactery, demons and devils are not culturally appropriating anything. The meaning is largely unchanged and the intent of the concepts is kept.

Unless you believe that a phylactery is created through a thoroughly evil act (3e definition), or that it needs to regularly fed souls (Paizo definition) the definition of phylactery is definitely being changed quite a lot.

 

[transmission89]

No, it really doesn't. You will find that almost no words with multiple definitions are disconnected from each other.

Really? I’m nonplussed by that. I’ll have to mark the date I learnt that whilst I eat my date on my date with my partner. Since I’ve been sat here, I’ve had to crane my neck to see a crane flying overhead passing a crane at a building site. Earlier, I found my dog likes to bark at tree bark and when he leaves the house, likes to chase leaves. I left one of my glove at home and my left hand was cold.

I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point. Good job I’m typing rather than blunting the point of a pencil writing by hand.

Even if a word is only slightly related such as crane being named for the long neck of the bird, it still tracks. Phylactery being an amulet, amulet being a synonym of charm or fetish to protect, evil lich uses it to protect their soul: liche‘s phylactery.

 

[transmission89]

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.



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.

Being a different definition of something, it doesn’t need to add to understanding or definition of something else. There’s no requirement to. Huh, what’s a liche’s phylactery? Huh, a place where they keep their soul. Awesome, I’m good.

It doesn’t eliminate the history of the word true. Good job a word can have more than one meaning then isnt it so the history of the word can be preserved! Thankfully, people are able to differentiate based on the context of that word‘s use, so I think we are good without others needing to take it upon themselves wagging a finger saying “actually that word means this in this specific context…” Eventually, some meanings are obscured, forgotten, others take prominence. Such is the ebb and tide of language.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, but, that's what you folks are doing - wagging your fingers and insisting that we use this definition and not that definition.

 

[transmission89]

Yes, but, that's what you folks are doing - wagging your fingers and insisting that we use this definition and not that definition.

Far from it. I’m not changing anything in published books or endlessly hand wringing if a word is appropriate or not, or trying to come up with a new word as the proposed change feels a little flat.

As I said, do what you wish for your table, it’s of no consequence to mine, phylactery it was and shall remain. My table is always open to those that wish to play, as it always has been across hundreds and thousands of tables since D&D‘s inception.

 

[Maxperson]

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 new. The non-Jewish version has been in use(no matter what you might think) for at least 21 years. Much more than that if the Dragon Magazine issue counts.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

D&D has been appropriating and misapplying terms and concepts for its entire - now rather long - history. It has shamelessly plundered pretty much every culture and belief system, past and present, in order to fuel an esoteric vocabulary of stuff for no other reason than it looks or sounds cool. This is primarily due to the positioning of its creators who - although no doubt well-read in a certain sense - were steeped in ideas and understandings which were already painfully outdated at the time of the game's inception in the 1970s, and were intent on including "exotic" terms within the game in order to create a certain literary feel. I am sympathetic to this aesthetic urge, but today is 2021, and times have changed.

Some of these terms are innocuous ahistorical inventions which have entered the wider game-playing consciousness (e.g. longsword); some are based on 19th-century ethnological or anthropological ideas (race, savage, primitive, tribe); some reflect Victorian Romanticism (druid); and so on; and so forth. The misappropriation continued well into the 3E era where we added chausubles and dorjes and Spirit Shamans and heaven-knows-what else. In many cases, the appropriation has not been intelligent or considered - although I'm not sure that makes much of a difference, in terms of whether it is entirely suitable or proper.

I love the 1E Deities and Demigods, both for the nostalgia it evokes in me and in recognition that - had I not encountered it - my own, lifelong, obsession with religion and mythology might never have been sparked. But when I open the book and look at the Indian Mythos section, I need to squint and consider its context and all of its Orientalist glory: at best, I can afford it a kind of charming naivete. And I sometimes wonder how much damage it has done, in terms of how it has shaped countless, plastic, pre-adolescent minds in their understanding of myth, religion and religiosity; just a few days ago, a poster casually mentioned Kali in the same breath as Tharizdun and I cringed inwardly. This confusion is due to the Indian Mythos section in the 1E DDG, and to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom - because what else could it be?

With New Religious Movements we are presented with another ethical question: terms like witch, druid, shaman are self-identifying names for people who profess a particular spirituality. There are various forms of ethnic religiosity which have crystallized in recent decades around Norse, Slavic and pre-Abrahamic Hellenistic thought. We might dismiss these ideas as reimaginings, misappropriations and inauthentic, but we are then left with the problem what are the criteria for authenticity, and who gets to decide this? The reasons why we don't use terms like Rabbi or Imam in the game are the same reasons we should be cautious about using any term with religious overtones. At the end of the day, all religion is invented by people, somewhere, at some time, for the same purpose - to forge an ethnic and/or cultic identity and foster a sense of inclusion.

There are no simple answers to these questions, which I guess is my point.