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

[Alzrius]

What I find funny is that there is apparently a group of players who are offended that there isn't a tenuous connection between a Jewish holy item and the vessel an evil undead magic user keeps it's soul in.

So good to know that when minorities say that efforts taken on our behalf are actually not helping, you think our objections are "funny." Please, person who doesn't represent us, tell me the right way that we should be represented in media.

Even if nobody is offended, what is the harm being caused by changing it to something that better describes it's actual purpose?

I've already spoken to this: the harm is that is grants the premise that the word, which doesn't represent our thing, represents our thing. But feel free to go ahead and tell me how I'm not being harmed by the thing I say is harmful.

Please, enlighten me how WotC, Paizo, and Bethesda (among others) have harmed you by removing the word phylactery.

See above. Maybe after you tell me how I'm not actually as offended as I think I am, you can tell other minority groups how they're not being harmed by the things they object to.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

They are, however, mentioned as existing in the Lizardfolk section, basically l aging them as a possibility for any of the NPC stat blocks.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Clearly the best part of The Pope's Exorcist, apart from it in general signaling Russel Crowe's full-fledged ascent into his goofy accent era, is that at one point they find an ancient "symbol of the Inquisition" and it's literally the symbol from Dragon Age: Inquisition

Russel Crowe stars as Nic Cage 2.0.

 

[TiQuinn]

On Paizo's part, though I'm not sure why that's relevant here.

On WotC's part too. I thought it was removed with Monsters of the Multiverse but apparently not.

But the plan to remove it was telegraphed D&D Beyond earlier last year: https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/169...-as-a-lich-in-d-d#The_Ritual_to_Become_a_Lich

Regardless, it's a done deal.

 

[Alzrius]

Regardless, it's a done deal.

So no one should object to something after it's done because it's a done deal? That's an...interesting take.

 

[Bae'zel]

So good to know that when minorities say that efforts taken on our behalf are actually not helping, you think our objections are "funny." Please, person who doesn't represent us, tell me the right way that we should be represented in media.

I've already spoken to this: the harm is that is grants the premise that the word, which doesn't represent our thing, represents our thing. But feel free to go ahead and tell me how I'm not being harmed by the thing I say is harmful.

See above. Maybe after you tell me how I'm not actually as offended as I think I am, you can tell other minority groups how they're not being harmed by the things they object to.

I'm confused? @Remathilis is saying that it is a GOOD thing that WotC is removing the connection between a Lich's soul object and Judaism?

Game designers from a few companies (WotC, Paizo and Bethesda) have been scrubbing the use of terms from a real-world religion. Are you saying that the very concept of an evil undead wizard keeping a portion of its sould hidden in an object is inherently offensive to real world religions? Is the Lord of the Rings's Sauron and the One Ring offensive?

I repeat. I'm confused.

 

[Alzrius]

Are you saying that the very concept of an evil undead wizard keeping a portion of its sould hidden in an object is inherently offensive to real world religions? Is the Lord of the Rings's Sauron and the One Ring offensive?

No, that's not even close to what I'm saying.

I repeat. I'm confused.

I'm not sure what to say, except to reiterate what I've said before: "phylactery" is not, as a term, something the Jewish community identifies with (barring some outliers who may be out there). Hence, granting the premise that the term "phylactery" has Jewish connotations (and so needs to be excised for that reason) is more problematic than the context in which the term is used (i.e. as some sort of receptacle for a(n evil) wizard's soul).

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's an amazing book, like the other old Van Richten's Guides. Still some of my favorite game supplements.

Yeah those books are all great. Loved guides to werebeasts, liches, the created and mummies especially. The Lich book paid a lot of dividends at my table

 

[Remathilis]

So good to know that when minorities say that efforts taken on our behalf are actually not helping, you think our objections are "funny." Please, person who doesn't represent us, tell me the right way that we should be represented in media.

I've already spoken to this: the harm is that is grants the premise that the word, which doesn't represent our thing, represents our thing. But feel free to go ahead and tell me how I'm not being harmed by the thing I say is harmful.

See above. Maybe after you tell me how I'm not actually as offended as I think I am, you can tell other minority groups how they're not being harmed by the things they object to.

Ok, so removing the word phylactery has actually harmed you. Get a lawyer and file suit against WotC and Paizo.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

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.

I mean, the association is established. It has been for 1800 years. The use of the word phylactery was dropped in all other contexts a long time ago - probably late antiquity or the early middle ages. It’s only used now to apply to tefillin. You can argue its inappropriateness, but it doesn’t change the fact that that is how the word is used.

A new player to D&D who comes across the word phylactery, doesn’t understand its meaning, and googles it is led to tefillin and dozens of pages which explain they are synonyms. You have to dig quite deep to get to references to phylacteries in a non-Judaic context, and to find any suggestion that the word phylactery is not viewed favourably by practising Jews.

It would seem that a small step toward dispelling this association of words might be a good thing.