Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Ixal]

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.

That doesn't matter.
Some believers were obviously upset about the use of Christian terms in D&D and when the point is to be respectful towards religious groups it doesn't matter if you think that the terms where used correctly or not.

 

[TheSword]

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.

This whole topic dances and skips along the ‘no religion’ prohibition. But for the record a lot of people don’t think that was the reason religions were created. I say that as a gay man excluded from most of the worlds religions for the majority of their existence. We can’t get into it here though.

[Edited to recognize some very recent reforms]

 

[Sepulchrave II]

This whole topic dances and skips along the ‘no religion’ prohibition. But for the record a lot of people don’t think that was the reason religions were created. I say that as a gay man excluded from most of the worlds religions. We can’t get into it here though.

Yes, often that inclusion is selective, and many of my own views are also inappropriate to this forum.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

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.

They did away with it in at least 4e and 5e continued that. Not sure what 3e did

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Yes, often that inclusion is selective, and many of my own views are also inappropriate to this forum.

I think @TheSword is talking about the restriction on the forum about discussing religion, not their personal views, but I could be wrong

 

[Justice and Rule]

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.

Nah, that's not how language works. It's a word that was co-opted and affects the context of the word.

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.

Just because there are different definitions doesn't mean there is an instant and completely clean break from previous definitions, especially when the new definition is created in reference to an older one. Even with different context, the history of the word still exists and just because you've created a new definition doesn't remove the baggage from the old one, particularly the new definition is a careless appropriation of the old word and definition.

That doesn't matter.
Some believers were obviously upset about the use of Christian terms in D&D and when the point is to be respectful towards religious groups it doesn't matter if you think that the terms where used correctly or not.

Okay, let's get this straight: they weren't upset that "Christian terms" were being used as much as the idea that D&D was converting kids to Satanism.

Which does bring up a good point, and it's something you always have to deal with when talking about these subjects: good-faith. One of the things I find people have problems with is separating good-faith critiques and bad-faith critiques. In the case of the Satanic Panic backlash, the critiques were inane and without merit: they weren't based around the usage of the word in the game, but around made-up fears. Now, are there actual possible critiques of the use of devils and demons? Maybe. But these were not it.

This contrasts with Paizo's analysis of phylactery: it's something that was clearly appropriated and in this specific instance it's usage is connected with something that is universally evil. While it might not be outright offensive, they see it as problematic and want to get ahead of that. That's pretty reasonable, all in all.

 

[transmission89]

Nah, that's not how language works. It's a word that was co-opted and affects the context of the word.



Just because there are different definitions doesn't mean there is an instant and completely clean break from previous definitions, especially when the new definition is created in reference to an older one. Even with different context, the history of the word still exists and just because you've created a new definition doesn't remove the baggage from the old one, particularly the new definition is a careless appropriation of the old word and definition.



Okay, let's get this straight: they weren't upset that "Christian terms" were being used as much as the idea that D&D was converting kids to Satanism.

Which does bring up a good point, and it's something you always have to deal with when talking about these subjects: good-faith. One of the things I find people have problems with is separating good-faith critiques and bad-faith critiques. In the case of the Satanic Panic backlash, the critiques were inane and without merit: they weren't based around the usage of the word in the game, but around made-up fears. Now, are there actual possible critiques of the use of devils and demons? Maybe. But these were not it.

This contrasts with Paizo's analysis of phylactery: it's something that was clearly appropriated and in this specific instance it's usage is connected with something that is universally evil. While it might not be outright offensive, they see it as problematic and want to get ahead of that. That's pretty reasonable, all in all.

There can be new definitions, hence lich’s phylactery. You are defining it as “careless appropriation”, it is not in fact, it just is, that’s a value you and some others ascribe to its use. The “baggage” also just known as history of the word is irrelevant to it in this context.

The critiques of this word are just as inane made up as the satanic panic was in the day. It’s just a new performative moral panic today. Same story, same tune. No more right today than it was then. It is what it is. If paizo feel uncomfortable with it, that’s on them, they are welcome to do what they want, as are you at your table. My table will be unaffected.

 

[Justice and Rule]

There can be new definitions, hence lich’s phylactery.

No, because those definitions don't spring from thin air. Gygax's usage was a clear reference to a religious object he clearly knew about. That "new definition" is linked rather directly to the old one in that regard.

You are defining it as “careless appropriation”, it is not in fact, it just is, that’s a value you and some others ascribe to its use. The “baggage” also just known as history of the word is irrelevant to it in this context.

I mean, I define it as "careless appropriation" because there's nothing in a lich's description in the original MM that actually explains the phylactery's purpose and how it functions with the lich, only that it need be destroyed to kill the lich. Given the confusion as to what it was and how it worked afterwards, I think "careless" is pretty generous in how it was used. If you want to dispute that, show me any more care beyond Gygax choosing the word or object because it's exotic.

The critiques of this word are just as inane made up as the satanic panic was in the day. It’s just a new performative moral panic today. Same story, same tune. No more right today than it was then. It is what it is. If paizo feel uncomfortable with it, that’s on them, they are welcome to do what they want, as are you at your table. My table will be unaffected.

I mean, it's not: they're changing something because it references a religious item in a careless manner and in a way that doesn't really reflect either the religious item or the game item. Whether you still want to use it is your choice, but don't act like their reasoning is the same as the a Chick Tract. You're just comfortable with that appropriation, while they are not.

 

[Cadence]

If you want to dispute that, show me any more care beyond Gygax choosing a word or object because it's exotic.

I would have guessed for this, and for lots of things in 1e from level titles to class names, that Gygax had simply grabbed a thesaurus.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I would have guessed for this, and for lots of things in 1e from level titles to class names, that Gygax had simply grabbed a thesaurus.

Nah, given that there is a fairly close definition in the DMG it's probably that he had a cursory knowledge of what one was. He was a wargamer and fan of history, it makes sense that he knew at least an idea of what it was. But having a little more knowledge doesn't make the usage any better.