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

[Bae'zel]

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).

Funny, when I google "phylactery" a whole lot of definitions and imagery come up directly associated with Judaism.

Maybe it it is a grotesque misunderstanding and missattribution, but it's out there. The perception that the association is there whether you like it or not, and companies are trying to avoid creating offense.

Phylactery | Definition, Significance, & Facts | Britannica

Phylactery, in Jewish religious practice, one of two small black leather cube-shaped cases containing Torah texts written on parchment, which, in accordance with Deuteronomy 6:8, are to be worn by male Jews 13 years of age and older as reminders of God and of the obligation to keep the Law...

www.britannica.com

Definition of PHYLACTERY

either of two small square leather boxes containing slips inscribed with scriptural passages and traditionally worn on the left arm and on the head by observant Jewish men and especially adherents of Orthodox Judaism during morning weekday prayers; amulet… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Jewish Phylacteries- Tefillin

Learn about Jewish phylacteries- Tefillin. Find out what it’s made of, what’s inside and when to wear it. Bar mitzvah tefillin, and tefillin by morning prayers.

www.orthodox-jews.com

What are phylacteries? - Answer The Bible

Phylacteries, also known as tefillin in Hebrew, are small leather boxes containing scrolls of parchment inscribed with verses from the Torah that are worn by

www.answerthebible.com

EDIT: unless you're some kind of enlightened, wise Rabbi or Scholar in Jewish culture, history and religion. If you have those credentials and can tell all of these organizations that they're all full of it, in which case I apologize to you.

 

[Alzrius]

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

Ah right, I forgot that "harm" is something that has to be litigated in civil court. And to think that the people who were upset about how orcs harmed them didn't realize they had a potential class-action suit on their hands!

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.

I'm not very enamored of the fatalism on display here. Yes, the context is established; that's the problem. The way to deal with that is to start breaking that context, which is not at all impossible to do given that language is a social construct which changes over time. Words are not immutable, and if there's going to be an effort undertaken to change the language to be more inclusive, I'd prefer that it be done in a way that actually helps instead of granting a premise that is wrong in-and-of itself.

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.

And then they talk to a member of the Jewish community who explains that that Google is wrong (shocker, I know) and helps to break that connection. In other words, talking to actual people helps more than just interacting with a screen.

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.

Or create new contexts that are non-Judaic, such as having them be the things that liches use. Too bad we can't do that anymore.

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

As a member of the group in question, I'm saying that it's not. But apparently a group of people who aren't Jewish know better, and are kind enough to explain to me why I'm wrong about how my group is depicted.

Funny, when I google "phylactery" a whole lot of definitions and imagery come up directly associated with Judaism.

Maybe it it is a grotesque misunderstanding and missattribution, but it's out there.

See above: that's the problem. WotC had a chance to help fix that, and flubbed it.

EDIT: unless you're some kind of enlightened, wise Rabbi or Scholar in Jewish culture, history and religion. If you have those credentials and can tell all of these organizations that they're all full of it, in which case I apologize to you.

So the implication is that it's not enough to be a member of a minority group, but you have to have credentials now too? I'm curious how that translates over to other minorities, in your mind.

 

[TiQuinn]

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

No more an interesting take than "I personally don't take offense, and those who do are probably not Jewish."

 

[Azzy]

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

Why are you objecting to this change?

 

[Remathilis]

Or create new contexts that are non-Judaic, such as having them be the things that liches use. Too bad we can't do that anymore.

You are asking for a very small needle to thread. How many people have wanted the barbarian, paladin and monk to be renamed berserker, champion and martial artist to break certain associations with the words in real life? And those words at least are trying to link to positive elements of the game, not THE THING EVIL WIZARDS KEEP THEIR SOUL IN! Even if you deny their should be a connection between those two things, I still would think that the fact it is connected to one of the evilest things in the game is probably still not a good place to start.

Bring back the phylactery of good and evil (magic item) if you want to start breaking the association. Don't opt for the Evil wizards life amulet!

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

I use information from them to flesh out my settings to this day. Very glad they were published.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I suspect Googling phylactery at this point will get a lot of references to liches.

 

[Alzrius]

No more an interesting take than "I personally don't take offense, and those who do are probably not Jewish."

Whereas a straw man isn't interesting at all, since I never said that.

Why are you objecting to this change?

I'll direct you to my previous post(s) on the subject.

You are asking for a very small needle to thread.

Literally, all WotC had to do to thread that needle was not make a change at all. And yet they managed to fail to do that.

Even if you deny their should be a connection between those two things, I still would think that the fact it is connected to one of the evilest things in the game is probably still not a good place to start.

And that's really what this is about: that you think you know what's best for a group you're not a part of, even when a member of that group tells you you're wrong. Think about that the next time you say that you're for inclusion.

 

[ezo]

I think it’s telling that orcs where the 1st species to be removed from an official setting (Dragonlance).

Is it? Considering IIRC (?) you, yourself, think of them as boring?

I think they were more likely the first removed because people got tired of them, but that's just my opinion, and in Dragonlance they had draconians to take their place as antagonists.

 

[Remathilis]

And that's really what this is about: that you think you know what's best for a group you're not a part of, even when a member of that group tells you you're wrong. Think about that the next time you say that you're for inclusion.

You don't speak for all Jewish people any more than I do. We are two people having a discussion on a message board. However, you seem hot and bothered about trying to take any discussion and use it attack people who are discussing in good faith. To that, you can continue this discussion alone.

I don't believe in the paradox of tolerance.