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

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, I saw that one as well. I saw a hell of a lot more Jews saying it wasn't offensive.

I remember reading that when it came out and it strikes me as a pretty outlier position on this issue. I had literally never heard any Jewish people raise these concerns until that article (and it came out at a time when raising those kinds of concerns over all kinds of different issues was in style)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'd be very curious how Gygax picked up the word.

I expect it can be found in a number of titles referenced in the original Appendix N.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I expect it can be found in a number of titles referenced in the original Appendix N.

I am pretty sure he got the Lich from a Gardner Fox story, but not sure if that had a phylactery in it (I could be wrong though)

 

[abirdcall]

It is in line with how they have designed the monsters.

It would be weird if Drow and Orcs had their own entries. The PHB abilities are enough.

What do the 2014 orcs have? Bonus action dash. They still have that. So what is the point to having and entire entry? We already have lots of pictures of orcs too.

The utilization of creature types is a fantastic design and narrative change and I'm put out with myself that I hadn't thought of it.

 

[billd91]

(AFAIK anti-semitism is one thing that Gygax hasn't been accused of)

The more you know...
According to Rose Estes, Gygax was not above dropping an anti-Semitic comment. Whether it was a major part of his worldview is unknown.
But, honestly, I doubt Gygax picked the term phylactery for a lich's soul repository out of some spite directed at Jews. It's just another area where we can do better with (probably) unintentional associations.

“I did then what I knew how to do. Now that I know better, I do better.”​

― Maya Angelou

 

[Sepulchrave II]

it is notable that if he did get it from Matthew, he doesn't seem to have a handle on their actual function

Matthew doesn’t explain their function. The passage is basically a polemic against Pharisaic Judaism.

 

[MGibster]

When. It's been pointed out WotC is late to this party. Paizo, EN Publishing and Bethesda all made a terminology change much earlier that Wizards.

I really could have done without the pedantic correction. It added absolutely nothing to the conversation and just served to antagonize me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Reject Modernity: Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue

Embrace Tradition: Fighting-Man, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief.

I liked thief better than rogue at the time, and still prefer it for OSR versions of the class, but rogue makes more sense I think for a generalized class with many possible implementations (still not a fan of sneak attack as core to the whole class though).

Magic-user was likewise fine when it was the only (arcane) magic-using class. But that hasn't been true for a while now, even in many versions of the OSR, so wizard or something is fine by me.

 

[ezo]

So what’s this nonsense with renaming the Girdle of Giant Strength to Belt of Giant Strength. I can’t believe people are not complaining about this change of language! It’s appalling, and extremely offensive to William Shatner.

I think Girdle of Giant Strength with the alliterative "g' sounds is more pleasant to the ear than Belt of Giant Strength.

I would complain... but who would listen?

Anyway, as to the entire Jewish-phylactery issue: people who have nothing to complain about don't speak out. So, you will hear people speak out if something bothers them, but otherwise you will only hear people chime in when they really appreciate/love something. For the vast majority of people, I would imagine it is a meh issue--if an issue at all to them.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Matthew doesn’t explain their function. The passage is basically a polemic against Pharisaic Judaism.

Yes, I know the passage. I should say there are different interpretations of that passage, some see it as a more general rebuke of religious hypocrisy. And we probably need to be careful here as it gets into real world religion. But I would advise people to be wary of giving that passage its most anti-semitic interpretation in order to win a debate about phylacteries when that isn't how most Christians interpret it (remember Jesus is a Jew addressing the Pharisees and Scribe of his day: I think that he was Jewish and his followers were Jewish is important to keep in mind when reading these passages). I'm not saying those kinds of passages haven't been used that way. Also he isn't condemning the use of tefillin in that verse. It would be like me calling out someone for wrapping themselves in the American flag (it isn't an attack on America or the flag)

But I would expect, if he had gotten it from that passage, from him to be familiar with what a phylactery is because it is the sort of thing that usually has a footnote explaining what the item in question is. I just looked it up in my bible to make sure, and sure enough there is footnote explaining it. It would just be odd to incorporate something like that from that source, but then have it clearly not serving the function it serves in the source