Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Ixal]

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.



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.

Thats again a huge double standard, claiming on one side that language shifts and that needs to be accepted and on the other that even after 2 decades the meaning is still the same and has not changed. (But on the other (third?) hand the original meaning of protective amulet doesn't apply because, surprise, the language changes...)

 

[Maxperson]

Archliches don't use phylacteries.

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

Right. They created a magic item to hold their souls, just like normal liches. If only there was a word for that. This item was mysteriously NOT a phylactery, despite normal liches being able to create an identical item as a phylactery.

You also ignored Baelnorn's there. Probably because that good lich does have an explicit phylactery and didn't try to weasel a phylactery by another name.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Thats again a huge double standard, claiming on one side that language shifts and that needs to be accepted and on the other that even after 2 decades the meaning is still the same and has not changed. (But on the other hand neither the original meaning applies because, surprise, the language changes...)

What's the double standard? Language changes, but history does not. While words evolve, they still carry the momentum of what came before. In this case, specific meaning overrode general over hundreds and hundreds of years, and Gygax's usage is still meant as a reference to that specific meaning.

Right. They created a magic item to hold their souls, just like normal liches. If only there was a word for that. This item was mysteriously NOT a phylactery, despite normal liches being able to create an identical item as a phylactery.

Man, if they don't call if a phylactery, what does that say about phylacteries?

You also ignored Baelnorn's there. Probably because that good lich does have an explicit phylactery and didn't try to weasel a phylactery by another name.

It explicitly doesn't. Monsters of Faerun, page 90:

"Baelnorns are tall, impressive-looking undead elves with shriveled skin and glowing white eyes. They do not radiate an aura of fear, nor do they have phylacteries (though some do make use of the clone spell), but they otherwise share the standard powers and abilities of liches."

You should look these things up before you post them.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

No. You can also change to a different meaning of a word and alter the item so that it is no longer representative of the appropriated term. No matter how you try, you can never make a single metal box with arcane runed parchment inside equate to two leather boxes with a leather arm wrap and verses from the Torah inside. They aren't the same, or even all that similar. And that would be if the box was the only type of phylactery. But you want to equate rings, gems, bracelets, books, marbles, daggers, balls, candles, and literally every other object(all types of phylacteries) with an arm wrap attached to two leather boxes containing a verse from the Torah. It just doesn't work.

The word hasn't been an appropriation since at least the year 2000.

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.

Either D&D history is important, or it isn't. Which is it? You keep going on and on about how what happened in 1e matters now(it doesn't), but now you don't want to go back even 2 editions.

 

[Justice and Rule]

No. You can also change to a different meaning of a word and alter the item so that it is no longer representative of the appropriated term. No matter how you try, you can never make a single metal box with arcane runed parchment inside equate to two leather boxes with a leather arm wrap and verses from the Torah inside. They aren't the same, or even all that similar. And that would be if the box was the only type of phylactery. But you want to equate rings, gems, bracelets, books, marbles, daggers, balls, candles, and literally every other object(all types of phylacteries) with an arm wrap attached to two leather boxes containing a verse from the Torah. It just doesn't work.

To appropriate is to use. If you are still using the word, you are appropriating it. That's how appropriation works. I'm not sure how else to make that simpler.

The word hasn't been an appropriation since at least the year 2000.

I mean, it's still being appropriated today. If you want to argue how close it is to the source, then the break starts at 4E at the latest.

Either D&D history is important, or it isn't. Which is it? You keep going on and on about how what happened in 1e matters now(it doesn't), but now you don't want to go back even 2 editions.

History is important, but trying to act like a few edge cases (Which don't actually apply) suddenly change things comes off as desperate. I've used the term "momentum" a bunch, and this is why: a few cases don't change the overwhelming flood on materials on the other side describing liches as terrible, evil beings.

 

[Maxperson]

It explicitly doesn't. Monsters of Faerun, page 90:

"Baelnorns are tall, impressive-looking undead elves with shriveled skin and glowing white eyes. They do not radiate an aura of fear, nor do they have phylacteries (though some do make use of the clone spell), but they otherwise share the standard powers and abilities of liches."

You should look these things up before you post them.

Lore changes. This is the 4e Baelnorn.

"Lich Lore
A character knows the following information with a
successful Religion check.

DC 27: Eladrin become baelnorn liches for a variety of reasons. Many choose this path so they can act as guardians of ancestral vaults and tombs. Unlike most liches, baelnorns are not necessarily evil. The creatures are less power-hungry and covetous than other liches, and they often keep their phylacteries in close proximity to the places they guard. A few baelnorn have no phylacteries at all; rather, their prolonged existence is achieved through a powerful ritual or the blessing of a deity."

 

[Maxperson]

To appropriate is to use. If you are still using the word, you are appropriating it. That's how appropriation works. I'm not sure how else to make that simpler.

If a word has multiple meaning and you switch meanings, you are no longer using the word associated with Tefillin. You are using the word associated with protective devices.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Lore changes. This is the 4e Baelnorn.

"Lich Lore
A character knows the following information with a
successful Religion check.

DC 27: Eladrin become baelnorn liches for a variety of reasons. Many choose this path so they can act as guardians of ancestral vaults and tombs. Unlike most liches, baelnorns are not necessarily evil. The creatures are less power-hungry and covetous than other liches, and they often keep their phylacteries in close proximity to the places they guard. A few baelnorn have no phylacteries at all; rather, their prolonged existence is achieved through a powerful ritual or the blessing of a deity."

And lore has changed so that liches have to feed souls to their phylacteries, which wasn't the old way but way more explicitly evil. Searching for edge cases doesn't negate the common and overwhelming D&D usage.

If a word has multiple meaning and you switch meanings, you are no longer using the word associated with Tefillin. You are using the word associated with protective devices.

Except that the new definition was made as an explicit reference to the previous definition. Again, this is evolution. There is no "clean break" from the past. It's being appropriated, regardless of how you feel about it.

You do realize that appropriation is just an act and inherently neutral, right? It's how it's executed that matters.

 

[Maxperson]

And lore has changed so that liches have to feed souls to their phylacteries, which wasn't the old way but way more explicitly evil. Searching for edge cases doesn't negate the common and overwhelming D&D usage.

I didn't search for edge cases. You made the claim that liches are universally evil. They aren't and haven't been for at least 33 years.

Except that the new definition was made as an explicit reference to the previous definition. Again, this is evolution. There is no "clean break" from the past. It's being appropriated, regardless of how you feel about it.

The "new"(21 years old) definition doesn't refer to leather arm wraps with a box containing religious writings at all. Not even a little bit.

You do realize that appropriation is just an act and inherently neutral, right? It's how it's executed that matters.

And the switch to making phylacteries be literally any object is a rather good execution. It sidesteps the Tefillin completely.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I didn't search for edge cases. You made the claim that liches are universally evil. They aren't and haven't been for at least 33 years.

I said that once, while previously in the thread I've said "almost universally". Being pedantic is just ignoring the argument, not addressing it.

The "new"(21 years old) definition doesn't refer to leather arm wraps with a box containing religious writings at all. Not even a little bit.

It's a little box that contains important writings to the lich. Getting everything correct is not a requirement of appropriation. In fact, it misses that bad appropriation makes such mistakes all the time.

And the switch to making phylacteries be literally any object is a rather good execution. It sidesteps the Tefillin completely.

Except that the most commonly-used version is still referencing the Tefillin.