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

[Bedrockgames]

PF1 is...

I think I need a more authoritative chef to weigh in. I've seen Mr. Ramsay's grilled cheese

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

It only does harm if WotC does it. That is what I take ftom this whole discussion.

That does not mean they fail at soime things (cough suggestion, cough polymorph et al., cough beholders, cough "forgetting" to include guidance dor cistomizing NPC statblocks)

That does not mean all the outrage in one way or the other is justified.

I won't go into detail here.

 

[Umbran]

Here. For all of you arguing the other side of this. Raise your hand if you are Jewish. Let's see how many who are here arguing with me that phylactery should be offensive to Jews, are Jewish.

Mod Note:
Litmus tests for who gets to have an opinion are not appropriate. Please stop.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

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.

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.

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.

I appreciate your thoughts here, although I'm a bit reticent about the use of "fatalism" to describe my position.

Yes, language changes (or is very resistant to it), but pushing against 18 centuries of accepted usage - and its enshrinement in Christian scripture - is no small undertaking. There are lots of words I'd like to change which have been misappropriated or misrepresented: I'd prefer that shaman refer to an ecstatic in the Tungus-Evenk complex, but it simply doesn't anymore; hence my usage has changed accordingly.

It's why I've suggested that the tefillin/phylacteries linguistic argument isn't really germane; it's the object which the word refers to, rather than the word's particular cultural articulation.

Let me ask a question: how would you feel about a lich's tefillah; or a tefillah of faithfulness; or a tefillah of monstrous attention; or a tefillah of long years?

The last - actually the phylactery of long years from the 1E DMG - does seem intentionally reminiscent of Talmudic suggestions that tefillin extend life.

Disclaimer: I do not identify as Jewish by either cultural affiliation or religious disposition.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
@Tsuga C - Laughing at moderation posts is also not appropriate.

To make the point clear - you are done in this discussion.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I think there are two reasons to keep phylactery. It sounds way cooler than spirit jar (which sounds kind of dumbed down to my ears) and it is more consistent with previous lore (which does matter to people)

There is a richness to the use of old words even when new uses are applied…it adds weight and mystery to the game.

If it is something genuinely harmful we have to weight it against the added game value. I just have not seen many instances where that seems to be the case.

Gygax helped me get into grad school…looking up words from childhood onward was beneficial for my development anyway and it sucked me into the game…

 

[Alzrius]

I appreciate your thoughts here, although I'm a bit reticent about the use of "fatalism" to describe my position.

And I appreciate the restraint and thoughtfulness of your stating your points, here. I wish this thread had more of that.

Yes, language changes (or is very resistant to it), but pushing against 18 centuries of accepted usage - and its enshrinement in Christian scripture - is no small undertaking.

I'll disagree with you here; I think that it's a series of small undertakings, rather than any sort of singular push. Having phylacteries just be "that thing liches use" which is "Greek for amulets" strikes me as the sort of thing which could displace the current and incorrect conflation of phylacteries with teffilin. It was a positive change in that regard, or at least it had the potential to be, since that's how words often change meaning: new usages displace existing ones over time. Now we don't have that, and I think it's a shame.

There are lots of words I'd like to change which have been misappropriated or misrepresented: I'd prefer that shaman refer to an ecstatic in the Tungus-Evenk complex, but it simply doesn't anymore; hence my usage has changed accordingly.

Again, we are not powerless in that regard. Maybe "fatalism" wasn't the right word for that context, but there's an undertone of "nothing we can do about it" that I don't agree with.

It's why I've suggested that the tefillin/phylacteries linguistic argument isn't really germane; it's the object which the word refers to, rather than the word's particular cultural articulation.

We'll have to agree to disagree, here. I see the term being used as important, since that's what's being changed.

Let me ask a question: how would you feel about a lich's tefillah; or a tefillah of faithfulness; or a tefillah of monstrous attention; or a tefillah of long years?

The last - actually the phylactery of long years from the 1E DMG - does seem intentionally reminiscent of Talmudic suggestions that tefillin extend life.

Disclaimer: I do not identify as Jewish by either cultural affiliation or religious disposition.

Counterfactuals are always difficult, simply because it's hard to say how we'd feel about something that we're only considering as an intellectual exercise rather than something we've lived and personally experienced. In that regard, I'll say that the above would certainly be a very different discussion than the one we're having now.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Counterfactuals are always difficult, simply because it's hard to say how we'd feel about something that we're only considering as an intellectual exercise rather than something we've lived and personally experienced. In that regard, I'll say that the above would certainly be a very different discussion than the one we're having now.

I agree this is hard to do. People should also look up tefillin because they are very distinct visually. It isn't just about putting a prayer in a container (and there are other things like mezuzas that is a container with religious verse which also looks pretty distinct). Even after the Van Richten books, and even knowing what a phylactery means in the bible, I never imagined Lich phylacteries as teffilins. I don't think there is any problem with borrowing from real world religion for fantasy settings (even nothing wrong with using real world religious artifacts for evil creatures or spells). But I think when it comes to these things we are always measuring intent. A lich that had a proper tefillin is something I would need to see to know how I feel (and like you mention it is a whole other conversation). Because I could see that coming off as a more venomous caricature or something. Whereas with the Golem, I don't really get that (it just seems cool to me). And with Phylactery for a lich, I think most people have tended to view them as weird looking amulets or containers for the spirit of the lich, and not as tefillin (even when they've tried to bring that in: again because these are pretty specific looking and there is more to them than just the container itself)

But when it comes to borrowing real things. Sometimes it comes off as cool, sometimes it comes off as badly intentioned. It really depends for me. I could definitely see a tefillin feeling off on a lich depending on how it is done. but my hope is we would have a proper conversation rather than what tends to happen which is a very reactive discussion where people are always being put on the defense

 

[Umbran]

If it is something genuinely harmful we have to weight it against the added game value.

Who is this "we"?

The posters on EN World are not the ones publishing the game. We are taking no significant risk - nobody is going onto twitter saying, "Warpiglet sucks because of this word choice in the DMG!" No skin in the game. No responsibility for the outcomes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nobody is harmed, just as nobody was harmed by having it called a Phylactery. I mean seriously, 'harmed'....

Did it need to change? No. Is Wizards within their rights to change it? Of course. Does the reasoning matter to anyone? No. Will some claim it was offensive, in the face of some members of said 'offended' group saying 'no actually, it wasnt an issue'? Why yes of course, welcome to post 2018.

Either way, its just another drop in the bucket of the same type of issue/non-issue depending on what side of the line you care to be standing on at the given moment.

Subjective.

View attachment 396062

Shadowdark continues to knock it out of the park.