Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Jfdlsjfd]

So not widespread.

Sorry, I don't think you're necessarily making the worst point and I'm nnot trying to be too harsh, but be careful. Arguments have used ideas and points you're mentioning in significantly worse ways and in ways to advocate for actual censorship or to demonise others; I am a bit worried or sensitive to it which is why I react poorly to it.

I can see your concern. I am not advocating censorship, but I think RPG publishers are in a transitional period, once more. At first, they targetted a niche audience of geeky boys and there were chainmail bikinis, then the audience widened and they basically disappeared because geeky girls started to play, too. Nowadays, we're going through a period I feel is like that, instead we're transitioning from an audience of genre-savvy players to the general public.

The former don't have a problem with certain themes because they assumer the game is emulating well-known (in their circle) literary genres and follow these conventions without necessary adhering to them IRL (you can have Roland as an epitome of good and paladinhood despite being a war criminal so you can have your LG paladin killing evil people as well and you can see the drow cursed to be black by Corellon as a reference to the crows cursed to be black by Apollo and nothing more). The latter is a much more diverse crowd, and when they read "phylactery" or "mana" they think "an insensitive mockery of a real-life religious thingie", not an RPG-term for soul cage and magic points, and when they read the drow story they see people cursed to be black as if being black-skinned was a divine curse and an evocation of real life racist tropes. They can also have widely different assumption (Tolkien orcs vs Warcraft orcs).

When speaking to a larger audience, the solution is not necessarily to sanitize your content to "family show level" themes and retire D&D in favour of Paw Patrol, the RPG, though it's certainly one way to do it, and an easy one to boot (as evidenced by Rowling: who would complain about a magic-user who achieved supernatural longevity by holding his soul in an horcrux instead of a phylactery? She didn't need to make an announcement over it, just decided not to use it/hadn't ever heard of it and coined a new term) The other way could be to make sure the products is marketed appropriately, especially for wider problems. It happened with the film industry (though there was some censorship at a point, we are not deprived of disturbing masterpieces, including very violent ones or ones dealing with racism, rape and every controversial themes) they are just labelled for the correct subset of the audience of film viewers. Videogames are probably no less violent than when they were accused of promoting violence, but if you buy a 3+ games, you'll probably not see a large amount of graphic violence. If a child plays a 16+ games, it's his parents' problem, not the publisher's.

Can we really have RPGs marketed at everyone ("look, in Stranger Things, 11-years old are playing it!") and published campaigns were the PCs, who just arrived from abroad, are recruited to kill someone, with the precision given to the DM that finding proofs of his wrongdoing and delivering him to the legitimate authorities will fail the quest and deprive the PCs of the reward, while killing him without caring for actual proof of misconduct will do? (without the PCs being reviled for their behaviour afterwards, of course, they are the good guys)? I don't think so, but I also don't think the answer is necessarily the removal of said content. Playing a killer for hire is great fun, as long as you aknowledge it and slapping a label on it might be warranted so customers who don't like it know to avoid it and apply some buyer's beware.

 

[MGibster]

The latter is a much more diverse crowd, and when they read "phylactery" or "mana" they think "an insensitive mockery of a real-life religious thingie", not an RPG-term for soul cage and magic points, and when they read the drow story they see people cursed to be black as if being black-skinned was a divine curse and an evocation of real life racist tropes. They can also have widely different assumption (Tolkien orcs vs Warcraft orcs).

I have my doubts that the general population has any idea what a phylactery is and mana has been a fixture in computer role playing games for decades now so I don't think most people are going to be bothered by it. I think it's a very, very narrow subset of people playing RPGs who are upset about this.

Can we really have RPGs marketed at everyone ("look, in Stranger Things, 11-years old are playing it!") and published campaigns were the PCs, who just arrived from abroad, are recruited to kill someone, with the precision given to the DM that finding proofs of his wrongdoing and delivering him to the legitimate authorities will fail the quest and deprive the PCs of the reward, while killing him without caring for actual proof of misconduct will do? (without the PCs being reviled for their behaviour afterwards, of course, they are the good guys)?

I'm sorry, but do Pathfinder adventures work on the assumption that the PCs are capturing people they fight?

 

[Hussar]

I have my doubts that the general population has any idea what a phylactery is and mana has been a fixture in computer role playing games for decades now so I don't think most people are going to be bothered by it. I think it's a very, very narrow subset of people playing RPGs who are upset about this.

Are numbers actually important? Does it matter how narrow the subset is?

Note, let's be honest here, this is just part and parcel of the shifts that are going on all over the place.

But, my bigger question is the same as always. Why the resistance? It costs you nothing. Whether they call it a soul cage or a phylactery, what is the cost to you? Is it suddenly making your game unplayable? Is it harming you in any way, shape or form?

See, for me, it's not. It costs me nothing. And, at home, in my home game, if I continue to call it a phylactery, that's my business and no one else's. And it makes someone out there happy.

Why would I ever oppose anything that costs me nothing and makes someone happy?

 

[MGibster]

Are numbers actually important? Does it matter how narrow the subset is?

Yeah, I think numbers actually matter. It's the reason why the boycott against Married with Children failed and Roseanne Barr was removed from the sitcom bearing her name. There's always going to be some group of people unhappy with something. And I think you've got to pick and choose who you want to keep happy with the understanding that you can't please everyone.

But, my bigger question is the same as always. Why the resistance? It costs you nothing. Whether they call it a soul cage or a phylactery, what is the cost to you? Is it suddenly making your game unplayable? Is it harming you in any way, shape or form?

Like I said earlier, I don't particularly care that they changed the name other than soul cage being dull as dishwater.

Why would I ever oppose anything that costs me nothing and makes someone happy?

I don't know. Maybe they just like phylactery better and don't by the anti-Semitism argument.

 

[Hussar]

But, that's the thing. It's not for you or me to "buy". @Doug McCrae outlined in pretty explicit detail why this is problematic. It's appropriating someone's religious and cultural stuff, and using it in a game. We're not talking about something that hasn't been used in a thousand years and everyone who actually cared is dead and gone. We're talking about something that is is in use right now.

Then, we're taking that very real world thing and tying it to an evil being that uses it to torture and devour souls for all eternity.

In what way is this not offensive?

People have pointed to Horcruxes as being the same thing. But, they're not. They're the same thing as what D&D has chosen to link to someone's religion. Nothing in the real phylactery even comes anywhere remotely near it being a vessel for a damned soul that keeps a horrid monster "alive" forever. A Horcrux is a made up word for a made up concept. And, oh look, it's not offensive to anyone.

The point is, the term phylactery should never have been used in the first place. Thing is, most of us don't know what it is. In 1982 I can pretty much guarantee that most D&D gamers had zero idea what this word meant. It was just a cool sounding word. But that's the insidiousness of cultural appropriation. Sure it sounds cool. But, "I like it" and "Well, I just don't think enough people are offended by this" are not very good arguments.

 

[Umbran]

I actively like lifting words and aspects from real life in my fantasy gaming

Yes, but do you do so with callous disregard for the feelings of your audience? Or do you pick and choose a little bit?

Then, we can realize that Paizo and WotC have much bigger audiences than we do as individuals, so to achieve the same basic respect, they have to be more careful about their language choices.

 

[S'mon]

My Liches are Gygaxian and have always used actual phylacteries on forehead or wrist, with little bits of arcane script in them too. Never liked these newfangled 2e liches with hidden pseudo-phylacteries.

 

[MGibster]

But, that's the thing. It's not for you or me to "buy". @Doug McCrae outlined in pretty explicit detail why this is problematic. It's appropriating someone's religious and cultural stuff, and using it in a game. We're not talking about something that hasn't been used in a thousand years and everyone who actually cared is dead and gone. We're talking about something that is is in use right now.

Communication is not a one way street so of course it's for you or me to "buy." If you want someone to change something you've got to get them to buy into the idea that they should change it. I do not believe the phylactery is anti-Semtic. However, I am starting to lean more into the changing the name was a good idea camp rather than being neutral on it.

 

[Ixal]

My Liches are Gygaxian and have always used actual phylacteries on forehead or wrist, with little bits of arcane script in them too. Never liked these newfangled 2e liches with hidden pseudo-phylacteries.

That removes the advantage of being able to hide it and come back later though.

 

[cavalier973]

I don’t have a dog in this race. It’s not like I use liches frequently and I don’t play Pathfinder. Soul cage sounds like something you’d hear in a cheesy 80s fantasy movie like The Barbarians or The Sword and the Sorcerer. It’s completely devoid of any character.

Are you saying that the phrase “soul cage” fits the genre?

I thought about “magic jar”, but after looking it up, the spell “magic jar” is used differently.

I did a short bit of Wikipedia scanning for “lich”.

I assumed it was a cultural monster like vampires and werewolves, but the word itself is Old English for “corpse”. It was the pulp fantasy writers in the 1930’s that adopted the term to mean “evil sorcerer who gains a form of immortality”. AD&D 1e was the first to use the term “phylactery” in connection with liches, but does not explain how. AD&D 2e seems to be the first to say that liches store their life force in the little doo-dads.