Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[TheSword]

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.

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.

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.

Your exoticism argument relies entirely on the fact that you claim there is no apparent other reason for choosing the word.

What is the point of asking for the explanation when it has been given to several times over, myself and other people.

That’s not the reason at all. It’s not just because the word sounds cool. It’s because it’s meaning both ancient and contemporary fits the item in game. A container for ritual words, that is a magic charm, that is also a protection. Plus it sounds cool. Naming conventions where something sounds good AND is relevant to the thing described. Its good.

It isn’t that there isn’t an explanation, it just doesn’t fit into your world view, or the extremely strident (dare I say hectoring) position you’ve taken in this thread.

I always find it fascinating when a poster in a thirty page thread posts more than the next two posters combined. It’s not a good sign

 

[Justice and Rule]

Your exoticism argument relies entirely on the fact that you claim there is no apparent other reason for choosing the word.

What is the point of asking for the explanation when it has been given to several times over, myself and other people.

It isn’t that there isn’t an explanation, it just doesn’t fit into your world view, or the extremely strident (dare I say hectoring) position you’ve taken in this thread.

No, my argument relies on the primary definition of the word and the fact that any other time the word is used, it refers to the specific religious object. It is not my fault that arguing for the archaic usage of the term is not particularly convincing. In fact, it'd be a lot easier to just concede that the term was a reference rather than constructing fanciful scenarios trying to decouple it from the primary definition as it tells me people know that the term is somewhat problematic.

I always find it fascinating when a poster in a thirty page thread posts more than the next two posters combined. It’s not a good sign

People drop in and out of threads. Given the responses to my posts, I suspect that more people would be posting in this thread if I weren't already saying what they think.

 

[Umbran]

I always find it fascinating when a poster in a thirty page thread posts more than the next two posters combined. It’s not a good sign

Mod Note:
Don't. Make. It. Personal.

When you get to the point where you cannot resist claiming the issue is a character flaw in the poster, that's the time to just walk away.

 

[Umbran]

It’s just a new performative moral panic today.

Mod Note:
Using different words does not mean we cannot understand you are trying to dismiss a position as virtue signaling.

And that, folks, is not acceptable - please review our inclusivity policy. So, you're done in this thread.

 

[Aldarc]

@TheSword, I have posted in this thread before. I think that @Justice and Rule is doing a great job arguing Paizo's position, so I am content to let them continue. Would you prefer if everyone else who agrees with Justice engage in more dog-pile tactics against those who disagree with Paizo? But yes, it's a sign that Justice is being more patient than I am in engaging those who disagree.

 

[Justice and Rule]

@TheSword, I have posted in this thread before. I think that @Justice and Rule is doing a great job arguing Paizo's position, so I am content to let them continue. Would you prefer if everyone else who agrees with Justice engage in more dog-pile tactics against those who disagree with Paizo?

Yeah, it's nice to be able to just sign on to someone's opinion rather than feeling like you need to rewrite it to show support for it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, it's nice to be able to just sign on to someone's opinion rather than feeling like you need to rewrite it to show support for it.

This is one of the things I appreciate about fora with a Like system; I don't have to reinvent the wheel in discussion just to show I concur.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Some issues with this post. First, Paizo's use was never appropriated. The term stopped being appropriated at least 21 years ago, possibly more. Paizo took over an unappropriated version. Second, Liches haven't been universally evil since at least 1988, when Baelnorn's(good elven liches) entered the scene.

Edit: Archliches are also not evil and entered the scene in 1990.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Some issues with this post. First, Paizo's use was never appropriated. The term stopped being appropriated at least 21 years ago, possibly more. Paizo took over an unappropriated version.

That's not how "unappropriated" works. If you "unappropriate" something, you stop using it. While continue to use it, you are still appropriating it. And again, your timeline is wrong; even Paizo concedes that the 3E box was clearly referencing the religious item. Acting like it doesn't misses that the people using it clearly thought otherwise.

Second, Liches haven't been universally evil since at least 1988, when Baelnorn's(good elven liches) entered the scene.

This is a weak argument. That's only for one setting and isn't even mentioned in the 5E MM, where it's expressly said that they have to feed souls into their phylacteries to continue to live.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Edit: Archliches are also not evil and entered the scene in 1990.

Archliches don't use phylacteries.

Edit: Neither do Baelnorns, now that I look it up.