Search results

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...

I really don’t think it’s all that important which particular term is associated with the item in question - whether it be tefillin or phylactery. In the west - in Christendom, so to speak - the word phylactery has been associated with the tefillin since at least the second century. You might...

I mean, I’m not going to respond to this because of the Board’s rules. But I would have thought that the unvoiced retort should be fairly obvious.

It’s apocryphal in Protestant traditions, yes.

There is so much wrong with this post, I don't even know where to begin. Not based on a religious text, but based on a text of a religious nature - which isn't a religious text because it's not sanctified by the church. Er...which church? Not seeing the difference between a religious text and a...

Pretty much my position.

True. The problem is, we don’t really know what that means. It might be a loan-word and have something to do with Orcus. It’s vaguely Christianised as having something to do with Cain’s offspring. If the Orcus connection holds, then it’s probably some kind of zombie or undead spirit.

Well, I’m not responsible for your inference. I think it is possible to have a rather nuanced position with regard to what is and what is not acceptable in this context. Would I regard magic wands as disrespectful because some modern practitioners of magick incorporate them into their rituals...

Did I write that? Did I even imply that? No. I said the desire to avoid real world modern religions was understandable, and a difficult needle to thread.

3E was pretty shameless in its appropriation of (sometimes outmoded) religious terminology, and often its reassignment. The material accessories of religions (recast as magic items) are no different: hence we have phylacteries (in their particular form, derived from tefilin), chasubles, vajras...

I was being a little facetious; I'm rather fond of the Peloponnese. According to the 1E Manual of the Planes: Sounds awful.

I was about to post something similar before I came across your post. I understand the urge to treat humanoids differently (these sophonts resemble us too much, and we shouldn't de-personize them), but in a sense that is itself more inherently problematic (i.e. it's ok to de-personize and kill...

Maybe. I guess my point is that ideally - from my perspective, at least - a failed social check should carry meaningful consequences which negatively impact that character, and preferably without the GM applying force. My own experience has been pretty lucky with players who roll with this kind...

I think this sums it up very succinctly. It seems to me that there are many, many instances where a character's agency in the game is reduced or denied, and the player should be able to represent that faithfully, without any kind of forceful intervention by the GM: fear effects, enchantments...

There does seem to be - on some level at least - a peculiar inversion of the roles which certain posters are apt to take in this sort of exchange. Which is to say, those posters whom I have come to expect as deferential to GM authority, and who might be regarded as generally less collaborative...

So “it’s magic?” How about a dragon’s frightful presence?