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

[Bedrockgames]

Ok, is the fact that the magic item the lich uses called a phylactery vital to the game? Per everyone, it's an archaic word for amulet. The game has plenty of magical amulets that aren't called phylacteries. Does it ruin anyone's game that that a company calls it a spirit jar or soul vessel?

For me it is just one more pebble in my pile of complaints. Most of the tweaks and changes have either not been in a direction I like or they have been for reasons I find a little baffling

 

[Remathilis]

I am not a huge fan of that. To me, and this might just be due to my age and not being very plugged into certain media, but it has the kind of name that reminds me of the language I hear from superhero movies or video games (and am not knocking those, but that isn't the kind of flavor I like in fantasy). That said, context matters. I think that is a spell. One little spell in the game might be less on my radar in the context of a game, than something like Phylactery being changed, which leaps out if you have used Liches a lot as a GM

Context: they are words Pathfinder and Level Up use, respectively, for phylactery in their lich stats.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Context: they are words Pathfinder and Level Up use, respectively, for phylactery in their lich stats.

I am not a big fan of Pathfinder. That doesn't really change my opinion. But also Pathfinder has the issue of they have to change a lot of these terms I am sure because they were basically D&D but not D&D

 

[MGibster]

It's not. That was the most frustrating thing about the phylactery thread a year or two ago. All the Jews here on the site saying in that thread that it's not offensive because we don't use the word phylactery and the non-jews telling us that it was offensive and needed to be fixed.

What I'm thinking happened is people tried to be proactive and remove something they thought might be offensive to someone. It might not have specifically been about avoiding offense to Jewish people but more inline with the idea that certain religious words shouldn't be used at all. As this thread demonstrates, I think it's near impossible to use words that aren't associated with one real life religion or another when it comes to fictional religions.

It's important to remember that trying to be inclusive is a continuing process rather than a one and done task. There will be times when people fail to change something they should have and others where they change something they probably didn't need to change. As the years roll on we'll interpret and reinterpret information and change based on current attitudes. Who knows? Twenty years from now they might start calling it a phylactery again because soul jar sounds silly.

 

[Bae'zel]

I am not a big fan of Pathfinder. That doesn't really change my opinion. But also Pathfinder has the issue of they have to change a lot of these terms I am sure because they were basically D&D but not D&D

We often mention Pathfinder because there tends to be a trend where people complain about "WotC ruining RPGs" when other companies, especially Paizo, who are often "the good guys" did it first (and either got ignored or a free pass for the same change).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I mean, that's my point. The change may not be needed, but nobody was harmed by the change. So Arguing if it was necessary is a moot point. Three different publishers have opted for the change there has been no harm done to anyone for that. Unless you can show the change itself was more harmful than the original word, I doubt any of them are going to change it back.

Just to revisit this. Harm isn't required to make a change. I don't even think any of us are using the same understanding of harm anyways. But I would say things in a game can always change and they can always change in reverse too. I don't know how many fans they will win back who left D&D by using phylactery again. But I can at least imagine a design team in the future who decides to bring back terms like race, phylactery, etc, if only to better connect a new edition to earlier editions. I am not saying that will happen, but I could see it as a possibility (either as a way to win over older fans, fans who like those older editions and the older flavor or just as a way to reboot and go back to basics: kind of how 3E brought back the Monk, Barbarian and Half-Orc)

 

[Bedrockgames]

We often mention Pathfinder because there tends to be a trend where people complain about "WotC ruining RPGs" when other companies, especially Paizo, who are often "the good guys" did it first (and either got ignored or a free pass for the same change).

I guess i see those things as separate. Pathfinder earned a lot of good will when 4E came out, and I played in some pathfinder campaigns. But it just wasn't for me (it had a lot I liked about 3e but also amplified many of the things I didn't like---in terms of flavor and in terms of mechanics). That isn't a critique of it though. I get why pathfinder is popular. But I don't think D&D needs to emulate the flavor and setting choices of other games. A lot of the stuff that is unique to D&D I quite like and would want to keep. I like the flavor of D&D

 

[Scribe]

amplified many of the things I didn't like---in terms of flavor

PF1 is...

 

[Chaltab]

Pathfinder 1E is tasty if you like the flavor of 3rd Edition but if not then... not really palatable.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Then this is all yelling at clouds. None of those publishers are going to rush to change it back unless there is significant pushback, and the only pullback that matters is lost sales (or potential).

Of course, we can just ask Morrus if he will change the word back. He's only a tag away. Let's see if he'll do it or why he won't. We might not be able to convince WotC or even Paizo, but EN Publishing is right here.

If it matters, ask.

Oh I don't expect anything to change because of a well made argument here, or because one or two of us choose not to buy something. I think these kinds of discussions, and peoples purchasing decisions are one small part of the equation. Also I am just not personally a fan of boycotts. So I am not advocating for that. I think you only really know when the dust settles and we see how popular it is. A combination of sales, feedback data and how widely the game is being played will probably be what steer their decisions. That is something we probably won't have a strong handle on until a few years in (I still remember all the debates about all the other editions as they came out based on preliminary reactions, preliminary sales data and so often those things changed once the game settled into being played: for instance a lot of things people might have fought tooth and nail over with rules changes, turn out not to matter at all in actual play and become a non-issue).

For the record I am buying the new books, even though I haven't really been enthusiastic about the current edition since they ended 3E. I like knowing what is going on with the game, I like being able to play when I do want to, and while I wasn't super enthusiastic, 5th edition was much more my cup of tea than 4th. The new changes are not as radical as 4E, so the game still looks pretty playable to me (not saying 4E isn't playable, it is clearly a well designed system, but just not the type of D&D I like playing)....but it is more in that direction for me than 5E was when it came out. I picked up stuff like Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft as well (even though I complained about most of the changes here) and I also picked up Radiant Citadel.