Then WotC is wildly inconsistent, because there are people who have been badly victimized by violence, robbery, murder in the family, etc. and who would also not be likely to warm to a game that has those things in it, yet WotC has yet to remove violence and robbery from the game, or even acknowledge those things as issues that need to be addressed in their game.
Why would WotC not want to make those RPGers feel more comfortable in engaging with their books?
I can't really tell if this is serious or not, but anyway . . .
Most robbery - muggings, house-breaking, etc - is not a political attack upon the being of the victim. This is also true of much interpersonal violence.
There is one category of interpersonal violence that has been widely explained and understood, over the past 60 or so years, as being a type of political attack upon the being of the victim: rape of women by men. I don't think it's coincidence that contemporary mainstream FRPG publications feature much less of this - and certainly much less of it used to titillate - than FRPG publications of the 1970s did.
I think here though, you really have to be careful what you start putting off limits in language and games.
<snip>
You can't just make anything that might upset someone taboo and off limits in art and entertainment
You seem to have mistaken me for a world-government censor.
Savage evil orcs, are something that resonate with a lot of flavor. I think being able to describe orcs in that way does ad something to the game.
Good for you. Go ahead and produce those descriptions - no one is stopping you!
their point seems to be it should be removed from the game because it is a problem.
I haven't said that anything should be removed from anything.
I have identified what seem to be to be reasons why WotC might not want to publish stuff that potential RPGers will experience as racist or alienating or pejorative towards them.
it is entirely possible that many Jewish people would be more aggravated by its removal.
And it's WotC's prerogative to make this judgement call. Isn't it?
To me, it seems that they have made the call that most people really won't give a toss, and that some will feel more comfortable with the association of liches with a Jewish cultural artefact not being included. It's clear that you wish they had made a different call. But you've presented no reason to think that WotC's empirical judgement is wrong. Again, this is why to me you come across as thinking that you are
owed something - that you are entitled to have things go your way even if relatively few people would be aggravated by the absence of the word "phylactery" from these new books.