D&D General Drow & Orcs Removed from the Monster Manual

[FrozenNorth]

Cradle Catholic here, but go off...

Born Catholic as well, and I don’t remember Asmodeus from the Bible or from Church.

 

[TiQuinn]

Waiting for the Catholics for Asmodeus contingent to complain about appropriation in D&D.

 

[Bae'zel]

My point is that most practicing Christians don't know anything about demons other than Satan and a generalized idea of their existence.

As much as I used to cringe at my parents' devout Anglicism, at least they appreciated works of art tapping into this stuff, and were very familiar with Milton and Dante. My mom was also a huge fan of the "Wrinkle in Time" book series, which brought in terms like Nephilim and Seraphim, and I vividly remember an illustration of an "angel" that looked like a ball of eyes and several pairs of wings. Creeped me the hell out... at first.

In retrospect, I'm kind of impressed that they knew about all of that stuff.

No offense to the writers of D&D's lore, but I think I was spoiled by more... imaginative interpretations of fallen angels / demons. I still had Wayne Barlowe's Inferno in my mind's eye when I saw the illustrations in the 2014 MM of a Bearded Devil and... well was NOT impressed at all.

 

[TiQuinn]

My point is that most practicing Christians don't know anything about demons other than Satan and a generalized idea of their existence. Most of the demonic names to your average worshipper are foreign and they don't know their Pazuzu from their paparazzi. The people who do know are esoterics, theologians, and "ghost hunters." Believe me, anyone who would have an issue with Asmodeus had a problem with D&D long before you get to the specific names. i get a desire to draw equivalency so that you can show that everything is offensive therefore nothing is, but this is grasping at straws.

But sure, go ahead and complain and get their names changed if you're offended. D&D did it once and the game survived, I can go back to Baator and Baatezu if you want.

I thought T’anari sounded cool AF.

 

[Alzrius]

No, I wasn’t kidding. It was a ridiculous video.

Why was he saying it at all?

Do you really think he woke up one day and just said I think I’ll make a video about how someone confuses phylacteries and tefillin?

It wasn't a ridiculous video. He was expressing a frustration that I've also experienced as a member of the Jewish community (and have heard others express): that the widespread insistence of using a Greek term for a religious implement that we (near-)universally refer to with a Hebrew word is nonsensical, and yet persists for no apparent reason other than ignorance.

So yes, I do think he woke up one day and decided to make a rant about how gentiles keep getting that wrong.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I thought you were kidding before, but that's not what the video was about. He wasn't upset about other people being upset about anything; he was saying that the Jewish community doesn't call teffilin "phylacteries," and was expressing frustration at the insistence that the two are synonyms.

I really don’t think it’s all that important which particular term is associated with the item in question - whether it be tefillin or phylactery.

In the west - in Christendom, so to speak - the word phylactery has been associated with the tefillin since at least the second century. You might argue that this is an unfortunate apellative - I’d be inclined to agree - but the association is well-established nonetheless.

The fact that practising Jews reject the name “phylactery” does not strip it of its associations. Any more than the word “turban” - which is of middle French origin, is somehow disassociated from native words describing the same headgear (ammama, dastar, cavuk etc.)

Do I think the word should have been removed? I’m actually on the fence with regard to this - I know I’ll keep using it because I like the word. But I think some of the argumentation which has been employed regarding whether the word should stay or go has been off point.

 

[TiQuinn]

It wasn't a ridiculous video. He was expressing a frustration that I've also experienced as a member of the Jewish community (and have heard others express): that the widespread insistence of using a Greek term for a religious implement that we (near-)universally refer to with a Hebrew word is nonsensical, and yet persists for no apparent reason other than ignorance.

So yes, I do think he woke up one day and decided to make a rant about how gentiles keep getting that wrong.

And you know that it’s simply gentiles making an issue of this? It couldn’t possibly be other Jews who do use that term and do take offense? No chance of that at all?

Regardless, it’s a now three year old change that apparently WotC decided was worth the change.

 

[Alzrius]

And you know that it’s simply gentiles making an issue of this? It couldn’t possibly be other Jews who do use that term and do take offense? No chance of that at all?

I've already spoken to this in my previous post on this subject:

"Honestly, the entire idea that "phylactery" is a synonym for "tefillin" is one that's near-totally gentile in nature. While there might be Jewish communities out there that use the term phylactery, it's exceptionally nonstandard for a Greek term to be used, rather than a Hebrew one."

So yeah, maybe there's someone out there who calls teffilin "phylacteries" and who finds the use of that term in connection with liches offensive...but unless they're posting here, your availing yourself of this hypothetical personage as someone on whose behalf you're arguing against the actual member of the community you're ostensibly concerned with not offending is exceptionally backward.

Or to put it another way: don't be that goy.

The fact that practising Jews reject the name “phylactery” does not strip it of its associations.

It does when the community on whose behalf this action is being done rejects the validity of the association to begin with. Otherwise, you're necessarily granting the premise that the association is legitimate, which is actually more offensive than the fictional depiction in question, since it disregards what the community is telling you (and has been telling you for years) about what we think of that term.

 

[Bolares]

I understand that sentiment but Aracockra and Lizardfolk (player character races) are both included, but for some reason changed to be elementals

I'm kind of late to the conversation, but the Lizardfolk in the MM are explicitly said to be the elemental variants of them. The humanoid Lizardfolk are nowhere to be found in the MM.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't know when the memo came out, but the MMO Elder Scrolls Online is 10 years old. In the original game, there is a quest where you have to destroy a lich's phylactery. Several years and expansions later, you have to go on a quest to recover a lich's soul amulet. So they must have gotten the memo too, though the original quest remained the same.