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

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, you are going after entertainment. It may be one small piece, but these pieces all add up to change the overall quality and aesthetic of the game

No. Nothing about the quality or aesthetic of the game has been altered by this. Just like it wasn't for the last six "slippery slopes" you have assured us we are hurtling down.

I doubt that many Christians are doing such a thing because I think they wouldn't see the lich as doing that (part of the debate on this thread is how many people even regard the lich as posing this problem, and I would argue it is not a widespread concern among Christians or Jews).

You might not be able to measure it, but you could at least see if there is any evidence it is improving things. My point is, I don't think taking out phylactery is going to change the world for the better for anyone. There won't be less antisemitism because of it (there are many more constructive things the gaming community could be doing if it wants to reduce antisemitism)

You know, it is almost funny how you can argue that the quality and aesthetic of the game can be harmed by changing a single word... but then argue that unless the change visibly alters the world immediately it isn't worth making.

But sure, let's go ahead and change the word, then we can measure the impact on the globe. After all, you wouldn't think that we could measure the impact of a change WITHOUT making the change, right? Because that would simply be a "clever" way to disguise arguing for changing nothing because no one can ever prove that a change not made would have had a significant impact.

There can be, if you are taking the wrong steps to improvement and making things worse. This is fundamentally what we are debating. Are these kinds of changes actually making the game better. Some of us think these aren't solving the problems they set out to solve, while also make the game less interesting

IT isn't making the game less interesting. The most interesting thing to happen to Liches in the last decade have come from a Youtuber you've never heard of, and he refers to the soul receptacle as "soul tupperware" and has made the most interesting versions of Liches I have ever seen.

Calling it a Soul Cage doesn't make it less interesting. In fact, the very nature of the word making it sound like the Lich has to cage their own soul to make the process work is inherently FASCINATING, and not something I would have ever considered before. But you can't see how the change can be interesting, because you have convinced yourself that changes are bad and only make the game more bland.

This isn't part of a fifty year thing. These are changes we started to see to media in the past ten years or so

Nope, this is part of a larger trend that has been going on for decades and decades and decades.

 

[Faolyn]

I suspect Googling phylactery at this point will get a lot of references to liches.

Heh, well, I did google it just for fun. First hit, Wikipedia, where, in order, it's defined as a protective amulet, a D&D lich's soul-jar, a reliquary, a speech scroll, and a tefilin.

The second hit was for the Forgotten Realms' wiki.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Nope, this is part of a larger trend that has been going on for decades and decades and decades.

I don’t think there is a lot more I can ad to the discussion but this point is worth commenting on. That isn’t the case. People aren’t concerned, or at least I am not concerned, about changes made fifteen, twenty, thirty or forty years ago. You seem to think I am opposed to progress which simply isn’t the case. My point is something very different started happening about ten years it so ago where it became more about minutiae and an intense focus on language and purifying tropes. And it has been done in a way where it is hard to have a conversation. Because if you think people aren’t overreacting by worrying about evil orcs, you get labeled something nasty or associated with a political ideology you have no love for. It is the combination of the priority this has become, the intensity and fine tooth comb focus of it, that is different. It just has started to feel like it reached the point of self parody

 

[Hussar]

or at least I am not concerned

That.... is painfully obvious. Like really, really obvious.

The fact that you have been oblivious to these issues for decades does not mean that they did not exist. You weren't aware of them and that's absolutely your right to no be. Fair enough. But the idea that these issues haven't been around for decades or more is simply revisionist history. As a self-proclaimed historian, don't you think you should be a smidgeon more informed about history if you are going to argue against something as endlessly as you have?

I went to uni in the late 80's and all these issues were issues THEN. Remember the word "politically correct"? That isn't a new word. That's been around since at least the 80's. People have been making EXACTLY the same arguments that you are making, for a very, very long time.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

The DMG phylacteries were clerical magic items. The lich's phylactery is not as they are generally arcane casters(magic users, wizards, etc.).

Mostly, I'd agree.

But the 1E Monster Manual lists liches as either MUs or Cleric/MUs.

Blueprint for a Lich by Len Lakofka in Dragon #29 indicates they may be "clerics or magic users" (in that order), and suggests no preference in class. It doesn't mention phylacteries, but does mention that the lich stores its soul in a "jar" - so that term has some pedigree.

Even though "phylactery" is used with regard to the MM lich earlier, its association with the DMG phylacteries (in appearance) isn't explicit. At least, not until later.

 

[Maxperson]

Mostly, I'd agree.

But the 1E Monster Manual lists liches as either MUs or Cleric/MUs.

Blueprint for a Lich by Len Lakofka in Dragon #29 indicates they may be "clerics or magic users" (in that order), and suggests no preference in class. It doesn't mention phylacteries, but does mention that the lich stores its soul in a "jar" - so that term has some pedigree.

Even though "phylactery" is used with regard to the MM lich earlier, its association with the DMG phylacteries (in appearance) isn't explicit. At least, not until later.

Yeah. The 1e clerics are why I said "generally." Even in 1e, most liches I saw used were magic users. Clerical liches were rare for DMs to use in my experience. Yours may differ.

 

[Jensaarai]

a Youtuber you've never heard of, and he refers to the soul receptacle as "soul tupperware" and has made the most interesting versions of Liches I have ever seen.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Some further digging.

Back on these boards in 2007, Gygax indicated that his inspiration for the lich was from a story by Appendix N pulp author Gardner Fox (link here). Gardner Fox wrote a series of stories called Kothar: Barbarian Swordsman; one of these stories The Sword of the Sorcerer seems implicated.

Not sure how the phylactery/soul receptacle idea plays into any of that, but I thought it was interesting.

 

[Maxperson]

I thought that you don't approve of jargon!

It's not "just a semantic argument". Because you're not actually identifying anything that has been "taken away". What you're saying is that you don't like a change that WotC (and Paizo before them) are trying to make in the ongoing culture of D&D.

What are you talking about. It was there, and now it's not there. We had it, and now we don't have it. That's taken away. Just because it's a change, doesn't mean that it hasn't also been taken away.

 

[gban007]

What are you talking about. It was there, and now it's not there. We had it, and now we don't have it. That's taken away. Just because it's a change, doesn't mean that it hasn't also been taken away.

I think it is two different ways of been taken away, after all we do still have it in the 2014 books.
It is difference between 'i bought a great chocolate bar, but before I could eat it my partner took it away' vs 'I used to be able to buy this great chocolate bar, now they don't sell it anymore so my ability to buy it has been taken away'. Chocolate being somewhat temporary not best match, but hopefully can see the difference. Could apply it at some extent to some Doctor Who episodes removed from streaming, even if I have the DVDs, in a sense still been taken away from me as I can no longer stream.
I think in this instance it is people using the first definition running into people using the second definition, and never the twain shall meet.